Impact of Palin's Endorsement?
I've heard a lot of talk about Palin's motivations/the impact of her endorsement of Trump, but nothing about what it's done to conservatism in the country. My personal opinion is that it's seriously undermined the position and ideology of conservatives and really ushered in a lot of doubt. Wondering if anyone else agrees/has a different take.
Perhaps the democrats will win anyway regardless, and our once great country will continue its slide (faster with Sanders than Hillary). Its very depressing actually. I will vote for Trump if he gets nominated and hope the slide will be slower with him than the democrats. My lousy vote wont count for much, and I doubt many of the gulchers will vote for Trump. Its going to be interesting for those who hate trump so much, how they can live with Hillary or Sanders.
The reality is that because of the way the Electoral College is built, the race is the Democratic candidate's to lose because they open with such a huge head start from New York and California. I think that is indicative of one of the major problems in making the electoral college popular-based rather than State-based - especially where most States are all-or-nothing voters.
Just wonder if something is going on that is not apparent. Never would of guessed Palin would get involved...maybe she's under his spell.
Gets more bizarre every day.
You can't get much more left wing socialist facist than that.
The both sides of aisle part is another left wing fascist lie. they moved the center to the center of the left. The republicans are the right wing of the left and they are ALL left wing socialist fascists. Either as Rinos And Dinos or as enablers who do what they are told.
Sorry Comrades I don't serve the party. No matter how you form or frame the BS.
That's how you define evil.
I just read about Sanders' proposals for free college , medicare for everyone, and all the other stuff he stands for. His tax increases would be dramatic, but not as high as under Eisenhower where the top marginal rate was 91%. If it gets close to Hillary or Sanders seeming to overtake Trump (who is NOT going to raise taxes like that), I am going to sell any stocks I have before the tax rates go sky high.
Hillary or Sanders are not going to be elected President. The rats are already jumping from her ship; the crew will be last to notice. She's looking more and more like she's headed toward a "medical issue" that will help her save face and bow out while she deals with her legal issues. Hopefully, she becomes the pariah she deserves to be, since it's unlikely she will serve time in prison. With luck, her world will crumble around her in a 'Lance Armstrongesue' meltdown.
A Socialist is not going to win a general election. Not yet.
As an aside, Hanks is such a fine actor, but where did he get his coo-coo ideas from?
Our problem is we have a president that thinks that people are happy working their Walmart jobs & whatever, so we have "5% unemployment" when it's really closer to 15-25% it seems like. When people are not really fully employed, they are not really paying taxes either.
Loss of that revenue and paying out earned income credits & all that boondoggle pile to people that should really just be earning a realistic income is where most of the money goes.
Government-sponsored development is one of the cheapest things we can do, it's like the SBA, you don't really spend anything on it, it's just guaranteeing the loans. If they don't pay, the government pays back the lender but they also seize everything the borrower has and enslave their tax returns for life until its paid back.
Nonetheless, development is non-existent in those communities because underwriting standards will have requirements such as "rooftops in vicinity", "vehicle traffic per hour/day", etc.. for retail for example. If you are in the hood, there isn't going to be as much retail traffic as in a retail magnet. Even if people want to invest, on the open market it's difficult to do so, or impossible.
Does it square with where we want to be right now? No, probably not, but it's a realistic part of the process to move past the welfare state and is more of a policy issue than a fiscal cost.
Here's a great example, under Obama, it's very "unpopular" to make mortgages available to 'undesirable' homeowners. If you live in California, and are underwater, but have an 800 FICO and negligible debt vs. income, you will not qualify for one of those Obama refinance loans... you are stuck in that adjustable-rate interest-only jumbo because we can't possibly stand for helping people in $800,000 houses... (even though everyone in that zip code has an $800,000 house). It's called social engineering, does it cost the government anything more to guarantee an $800k mortgage to someone with huge credit scores and quadruple the income as a struggling couple in a $300k home and bad credit and crushing consumer debt? Of course not, it's a silly argument. But the Obama policies will pick the struggling people every time because "We gotta help those folks!" The same has been the SBA policies since ancient times practically, student loans for college - are you a white male veteran with distinguished service and want to go to medical school? Probably not going to happen. Are you a female with an unpronounceable name whose parents don't pay taxes? Sure - welcome wagon open!
To me, it's about repealing all that crap, simply looking at the numbers on a yes/no decision, get the gender/race questions completely out of the stupid applications altogether, and let people achieve on merit alone.
I've actually been slapped before when some distant relative-in-law was bitching about the cost of education and all I said was "sign up for the military, makes college free"... You know what, it was good enough for me, it can be good enough for others.. To me, college should only be 'free' if you serve as part of the compensation. If you do not serve, it's called a loan, and you pay it back with interest. Giving it away for free because mom & dad are illegal immigrants makes no sense to me, while at the same time charging people who actually work and pay taxes. I don't care if they are poor, they came here, must be better than where they came from. Don't make the underwriting any harder than it is for anyone else as long as they are citizens or permanent residents, but nothing should be free for anyone. If your degree isn't going to pay the bill and you can't afford to pay it otherwise, better pick some other options... maybe diesel mechanic, they make more than teachers... by double...
We need to get away from this rewarding for nothing mentality. It's only fair if everyone pays their own way, it lowers taxes, and it unburdens the economy. If you can't figure out a way to piddle away that $100 student loan payment until the end of time if that is all you can afford you have no business going to college anyway - stick to the trades or a union job or whatever.
Cut off the flow of people to careers that require an education but pay poorly, and guess what - within 10 or 15 years those careers are going to pay better.. it's called supply & demand.
Load more comments...