Conservatives against Trump

[bblwi]

What does borrowing have to do with socialism? How bout us then we are far, far more socialist than most of us would believe. All aspects of government make up about 30-35% of the US economy and much of that 30-35% is money the government contacts with private enterprise to provide goods and services for the government and that will only increase as their is a concerted effort to downsize government and government employees so the private sector will provide more and more government services and become even more closely attached to government, one of the reasons why private enterprise spends billions lobbying for specific aspects of government.

Bryce

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman the redistribution of wealth my man. 7 years to get us out of a hole? We are still in the hole. Yet you still blame others for the last 8 years and will continue if Hillary wins and we go even deeper in the hole LOL.

Bryce I agree we have become more socialist as the year have went on, Bernie and Hillary only add to it with more programs and trying to ever fun things like free college and single payer healthcare. As the rates rise they would have NO choice but to continue to tax us more and more, again leaving us beholden to the central govt for more things in our lives. We still have the highest number in history on welfare, that needs to change and that numbers need to drop by 50 percent, but the scam is this Bernie wants to raise min wage to 15.00 all that does is bring the poverty scale up to such, while he collects more tax money from the backs of the worker to fund his socialist added programs. They will still receive beenfits galore it will just be the NEW poverty rate. And because we stand to loose 6 million jobs under his programs means more people will be applying for govt Assitance. Yes that is a socialist view no doubt about it.

[bblwi]

So you are saying that our federal government is in worse shape than our private sector because we borrow more money than people and businesses etc. do? You would be surprised at how much debt many businesses are carrying. I know agriculture quite well and debt is a major issue in commercial agriculture, that is the farms that produce say 90% of the food and fiber. We have about 60-70% of farms with no debt but they produce about 10% of our food and that makes food, fiber and feed production a very risky business when a log of debt is part of the equation. I am sure that many, many energy companies will be underwater in a another year if not already. Another opportunity for the large companies to gain control over a larger portion of the market as many smaller ones will fail.

Bryce

[trappincoyotes39]

Bryce ai know plenty of western ranchers that have very low debt as it seems they have inherited much of the land they run cattle and sheep on, but yes each area is different. Those that where paying 10,000 plus per acre for corn and bean ground should have known prices where not going to stay above 5.00 and 10.00 per bushel. Yet they continued to buy ground and banks made the loans betting many of these where USDA backed as well?

I have no doubt many have debt, but the govt is at 20 trillion and counting. My POINT is we cannot keep adding debt on either front because most of it is backed by the govt and we are the ones footing the bill for it all. We should have learned back in 2008, yet many want to claim the banks where behind all of this, the govt was backing those loans and that is where this fails for a majority of the loans.

Borrowing and socialism ? Easy they want to add more programs and fund more of those we have on the books, unless we have dollar in and out then we create more debt for all taxpayers simple really. we will not be cutting any programs just adding more and more and going deeper and deeper in debt, without a balanced budget that is what happens when we fund more than we bring in.

[bblwi]

I am not arguing the should have or should not have. I am just stating the amount of debt privates sector and individuals have and hold. With western dry land short grass prairie with a cow per 10-30 acres there is not much ability to pay off much debt so being debt free is about the only way to go. That is also why large firms, banks, land holding companies and individuals with money to invest have bought millions of acres of land to put into CRP etc. as they could buy lots of land cheap as to pay for land with selling stocker cattle is a very low margin business and thus is a business that can handle little debt.

Bryce

[trappnman]

Tman the redistribution of wealth my man. 7 years to get us out of a hole? We are still in the hole. Yet you still blame others for the last 8 years and will continue if Hillary wins and we go even deeper in the hole LOL.


I'm not blaming others for the past 7 years- but I sure in hell am not forget to forget, like you have, what GOT US THERE 7 YEARS AGO

esp when someone tries to blame the economy today ON those past 7 years.

I mean, at least have a minimum understanding of the issue.

yet many want to claim the banks where behind all of this, the govt was backing those loans and that is where this fails for a majority of the loans.


seriously? where are you getting your facts from, a bubble gum comic?

[trappnman]

ps- are you claiming that the majority of the financial crisis was caused by govt backed loans?

careful... this is one of those $20 facts

[trappincoyotes39]

My facts come from the selling off of govt backed loans the day they closed on such. My facts also show Bill Clinton has some blame and so do private banks, this mess is large enough to blame a lot of people but YES the central,govt played a major roll as well.

1999, Democrats led by President Bill Clinton and Republicans led by Sen. Phil Gramm joined forces to repeal Glass-Steagall at the behest of the big banks. What happened over the next eight years was an almost exact replay of the Roaring Twenties. Once again, banks originated fraudulent loans and once again they sold them to their customers in the form of securities. The bubble peaked in 2007 and collapsed in 2008. The hard-earned knowledge of 1933 had been lost in the arrogance of 1999.


The bank supporters' attacks on this clear-as-a-bell narrative deserve a hearing to show how flimsy they are. One bank supporter says you cannot blame banks for fraudulent loan originations because that was done by unscrupulous mortgage brokers. This is nonsense. The brokers would not have been able to fund the loans in the first place if the banks had not been buying their production.

Another apologist says the fact that no big banks failed in the crisis proves they were not the cause of the problem. This is also ludicrous. The reason the big banks did not fail was because they were bailed out by the government. Clearly the banks would have failed but for the bailouts. Bank balance sheets were neck-deep in liar loans and underwater home equity lines of credit. The fact that banks did not fail proves nothing except that they were too big to fail.

Yet another big bank spokesman says that nonbanks such as Lehman and Bear Stearns were more to blame for the crisis. This ignores the fact that nonbanks get their funding from banks in the form of mortgages, repurchase agreements, and lines of credit. Without the big banks providing easy credit on bad collateral like structured products, the nonbanks would not have been able to leverage themselves.


It is true that the financial crisis has enough blame to go around. Borrowers were reckless, brokers were greedy, rating agencies were negligent, customers were naïve, and government encouraged the fiasco with unrealistic housing goals and unlimited lines of credit at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Yet, the fact that there were so many parties to blame should not be used to deflect blame from the most responsible parties of all—the big banks. Without the banks providing financing to the mortgage brokers and Wall Street while underwriting their own issues of toxic securities, the entire pyramid scheme would never have got off the ground.


It was Glass-Steagall that prevented the banks from using insured depositories to underwrite private securities and dump them on their own customers. This ability along with financing provided to all the other players was what kept the bubble-machine going for so long.

Now, when memories are fresh, is the time to reinstate Glass-Steagall to prevent a third cycle of fraud on customers. Without the separation of banking and underwriting, it's just a matter of time before banks repeat their well-honed practice of originating garbage loans and stuffing them down customers' throats. Congress had the answer in 1933. Congress lost its way in 1999. Now is the chance to get back to the garden.

[trappnman]

do you ever post your OWN thoughts and not just copy a blog?

but interesting its a leftist blog- that's a good sign I guess

[trappincoyotes39]

The information is there to show the FACTS and Bill Clinton and congress did NO one any favors yet the left keeps touting how great he was. This was a major blunder on his part repealing such and also Barney Frank telling everyone Frannie and Freeddie where solvent. Bush has some blame as well, as do the banks again plenty to go around, but the left is always stating how the GOP takes care of the evil rich, Clinton YOUR guy seems to have done his share of it as well LOL.

I post the facts and easier for me to present them in this style as your good at playing word games. No word games with facts in context. Simple really.

I gave you plenty of my own thoughts on what we should do to make this country much stronger than it has been.

[trappincoyotes39]

Bryce some western ranchers carry debt no way around it, the issue being land out west is much cheaper per acre even when you factor in the AUM difference. Land can be had for 450-700 per acre out west and land taxes cheaper than other areas, plus other states pay personnel property tax on cattle in the west many do not. Many in the west have no grain cost or very little in their calves or lambs.

Bulls sales make up a bother good portion of income for some western cattle ranchers as well as ram sales in the sheep business. Some surely do have CRP and I have zero issues with such as the benefit to wildlife has been proven over and over again, the reason SD is the pheasant Capitol of the world and in fact comes back to tax payers in money spent inside the state. Pheasant hunters bring in 225 million to the state of SD.

Right now the lamb market is at all times High levels and the sheep rancher is doing well. When the ranchers do well all the small towns prosper, that is trickle down and it works. I have had a few small business owners that told me in a small part the job I did on saving predation losses have helped their business as the ranchers buy with confidence in many areas and keep their losses low was a small part of them spending money in town because the loss rates where lower than their historical avg.

[trappnman]

post the facts and easier for me to present them in this style as your good at playing word games. No word games with facts in context. Simple really.


list the facts- 1 by 1

you won't, because you can't

opinions are not facts

gave you plenty of my own thoughts

you don't even have the courage to endorse a candidate- so your thoughts must not be too deep............

[trappincoyotes39]

The facts are

15.00 per hr will cost jobs and create more PT jobs. While not lowering poverty as cost of goods and services would adjust to the new rates as wel,as the poverty line would just go up a few 1000 under the new "standard"

Free college for all not going to work, as colleges still will recruit the best and brightest, many will go drop out and tax payers will be footing the bill.

Single pay healthcare for a country our size would tax taxes to extremely high levels, create lines for surgeries and the cost would continue to rise and the quality of care would drop. We need a few safe guards nothing more, we do not need a central govt controlling our choices , just as Obama stated you can still keep your doctor. LOL. He also stated cost would drop.

Bernie wants an AR ban which he states it is time to stop the gun violence it will do nothing of the sort. He also ants to make straw man purchases illegal LOL. They have been illegal for many years good grief. The gun show loop hole is closed if anyone has an FFL even at a gun show they must still do the back ground check. Better enforce the background check already in place? I suppose by a little would mean hiring many more ATF agents to get to more stores for checks, which they do now as well.

Redistribution of wealth is not something for a free economy and will stifle job growth and GDP.

[trappnman]

do you really understand what a fact is? because it appears that by your posts, you do not.
NOTHING you posted above is a fact- all are nothing but YOUR opinion.

Which you are entitled, right or wrong, to hold dear.

but facts are another thing

just 1 thing, to show you how far away from the facts you are-

Free college for all not going to work

you present it as a fact (free college for all), yet this has NEVER been said-

how can you come to logical conclusions, when, its obvious, you don't understand or can define the issues at all-

Bernie wants FREE tuition at PUBLIC colleges

and he has a plan to pay for that

do you understand the difference?

that was a rhetorical question btw, not expecting an answer

[bblwi]

I was not referencing the working ranches and the large CRP holdings and yes I am sure that many western ranchers carry some debt as how does one become the owner of 10 sections of land at $500 per acre that can handle 200 cows with calves and maybe a bit of dry land wheat unless one was gifted a large portion of those acres? So in reality 15 acres per cow for grass and hay at $500 per acre is about what decent corn and bean ground is selling for in the corn belt. (average price for all acres). The turn over rate is really very low for both at this time. If you have a registered herd you can sell bulls and yes that is a good business as there are designated rates of bulls per females on the range. I know one WY rancher I met said he needed to provide one breeding age bull for every 40 breeding age females, but that was a few decades ago.

Bryce

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman Fred education at public colleges ok then let's get it to a T, how many would end up at such and how would they handle such? You think I don't know that they could not force or mandate private schools to accept anyone for free? We should already know when I say free education for all It means at public schools, but let's move on, who gets picked to these state ran schools? Because there will not be room for ALL,meaning their will still be some guidelines to get into the public schools. The cost is estimated In the 100's of billions and how will they contain cost ? Also who will set up the standards for admission for all of this FREE education? More of the robin hood approach?

Again there are facts out there if you look a s to why this will not do what Bsrine says it will do, as he is looking for votes and all candidates come up with lots of plans in order to get such votes, I could go through the Obama years of what he promised and what actually got done as well.

More strong arming of schools to accept certain people I presume.

[trappnman]

you understanding of the issue is so simplistic, I'm forced to think you haven't done any research at all into it.

so I post the following not for you, hard to reason with a brick wall- but for others reading this

first of all, if you are for "free" public education in grades 1-12, and understand WHY that occurred and why, IMNSFHO it is needed, then one can easily understand that we aren't in 1895 anymore, but in 2016- where a high school education is the equivalent of an 8th grade one 100 years ago- and that tuition free college at public schools, is just a needed extension of that

"Some" seem to think that by paying for education 3 months after high school graduation means everything is thrown out the window and its chaos and trouble in river city, need to understand admittance quidelines will be the same- and that by saying college for all, it is, as Bernie has stated in every speech- if you work hard, get the grades- you WILL be able to attend college- bait shop owners son, or Ted Cruzs daughter- and to be able to do that w/o $30,000, $0,000 or more in debt

and the cost will be paid for by several means- go to his website if you really want to know

More strong arming of schools to accept certain people I presume.

few things really piss me off- but the above racist and bigoted statement, leaves me in that frame of mind- and leaves no doubt to who you support. ignorance of the issues is no excuse. plus the fact it once again shows your utter lack of knowledge on the subject

[trappincoyotes39]

Utter lack of knowledge ok Tman. Who will decide who gets into the free college what will the protocol be? Will it be based off grades or income? How many free years do we all get? 4,6 or 8 years? How long do we have to complete such? 4 -12 years?

How will people be accepted into these colleges? Exactly how? The school is going to still want the best and brightest they can achieve because they will be bursting at the seems for awhile and the money grab will be quite large, also how do you keep good professors if your going to allow those with low GPA into these colleges? Is Bernie covering all housing too?

It has been stated over and over again, this will,not work in favor of those people you and Bernie think it should number 1 and number 2 social and economic factors play big into education at any grade level period. So taxing me more still will not achieve the results, I will agree it will achieve just more people beholden to the central govt and once the barn door is open for free for all higher education the money train will be a run away! One never will see the need to and the ever rising cost just taking forever and more from the working mans pay checks.

Many states have done programs without the need of intervention, we have what is called the A+ program if you achieve and do the work prescribed in this program you can attend a community college and tuition is covered your only out going exspense are books and housing. At some 4 year colleges and universities you get a decent reduction in cost with such a program. Again done at the state level we need no more federal intrusion in our lives.

Again the research shows this plan is not the rosey picture a few like to paint.

www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/02/17/466730455/fact-check-bernie-sanders-promises-free-college-will-it-work

[trappincoyotes39]

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks during a town hall at the University of South Carolina. Sanders promotes the idea of free college education for all.i
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks during a town hall at the University of South Carolina. Sanders promotes the idea of free college education for all.
Evan Vucci/AP
Since he first announced his presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders has stuck to one simple promise. One that has many young people, in particular, #feelingthebern: free college.

As Sanders put it in his New Hampshire victory speech: "When we need the best-educated workforce in the world, yes, we are going to make public colleges and universities tuition-free."

The Pitch

There's a reason this promise has such powerful appeal. Earning some sort of postsecondary degree or certificate is more and more considered a necessity if you want to earn a middle-class living. Meanwhile, on a percentage basis, by some measures, college tuition has increased in cost more than any other good or service in the U.S. economy since 1978. It rises at two or three times the rate of inflation every single year. And student loans have grown in tandem, to a total of $1.2 trillion. There's rising concern that this debt is stopping young people from buying homes, starting families or businesses, saving for their futures and generally being launched into their lives.

The Critics

As with many other elements of his platform, critics of Sanders' free-college proposal have charged that it is unrealistic and that he hasn't fully explained how to pay for it. Funding free college can be tricky because, as with other government benefits, the very act of promising to pay can drive up costs in a couple of different ways.

Andrew Kelly, a prominent critic of the idea at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has written that capping tuition at zero "limits college spending to whatever the public is willing to invest. But it does not change the cost of college, or what institutions actually spend per student. If the past is any guide, that cost will continue to grow, and an influx of federal money may lead profligate administrators to spend even more. Enrollments will also increase, further multiplying the cost of free college."

The Short Answer

But let's assume that, somehow, it gets done. Would getting rid of tuition at public colleges and universities, by itself, really give the United States "the most educated workforce in the world"?

Probably not. Let's look around the world and find out why.

The Long Answer

The United States currently has the ninth-most-educated workforce in the world, with 45 percent of young adults having earned some form of diploma or certificate. That's according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which compiles detailed statistics on developed countries. The U.S. is above the OECD average, making modest progress over the past decade, even as tuition has risen steadily.

"The most educated workforces in the world," though, are smoking us. They are found in South Korea, where a whopping 67 percent of adults have some postsecondary education, and Japan and Canada (both at 58 percent).

Now, here's the problem with Sanders' claim that free tuition is necessary:

All three countries charge tuition at their universities, which are overwhelmingly public. The numbers are roughly on par with in-state tuition at many public universities here. In fact, Canada's recent graduates have student loan burdens similar to those of U.S. students, and they're not happy about it.


So whatever the differences in education systems, policy, culture and demographics among these three countries and the United States, it's clear, at least on the face of it, that free tuition is not required to produce "the most educated workforce in the world."

Click to subscribe!
/
The Other Side

Now, let's look at the question a different way.

As Sanders points out on his website, Germany recently abolished college tuition, and "Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens."

This is true. But again, there's a catch: Only one of these free-college countries does better than the United States when it comes to educational attainment.

Germany and Finland are both below the OECD average (Germany is a bit of a special case because of its extensive training and apprenticeship system, which tracks students as early as high school).

Sweden's rate is almost identical to that of the United States. Norway is just a tick higher: 47 percent.

And two more free-college countries, Brazil and Slovenia, are below the average too.

So "the most educated workforces in the world" today don't have free college. And countries that do have free public universities don't necessarily have more educated workforces than we do.

Is it an open-and-shut fact-check case?

Maybe not. Andreas Schleicher, a top education analyst at the OECD, had some final thoughts for NPR Ed.

"It is not possible to establish meaningful relationships between the cost of higher education and attainment, as there are too many intervening variables," he said. (Translation: This armchair exercise is a bit futile.)

"However, it is clear that growth in attainment in the U.S. has been particularly low and cost is likely an impediment to this. Many European countries provide free public higher education and in virtually all of these countries taxpayers benefit from this (in the sense that the additional tax revenues paid by better educated workers far outweigh the public expenditure on higher education)."

In other words, we probably could get some more people through college by footing the bill. Not only that, it would probably pay for itself.

Schleicher also suggests that there's a cheaper way to get the same benefits: by expanding our current Pell Grant program and student loan repayment options, similar to steps the U.K. has taken. Sanders has some ideas on that too, of course.

[trappincoyotes39]

So we see even in Canada the uber socialism example of North America does not offer free college rides. If they did their taxation would amount to upwards of 68-70 percent of their income levels.

Give me a balanced budget with all of these programs and figure in cost containment then come back and argue how good these programs "could be" without that just another money train heading our way and less and less take home from the avg Joe worker.

Again invest in your own future is a better model than the govt investing into our daily lives with more and more intrusion all the time. Again go to the Indian reservations to see how that model is working out.

Again millions and millions have paid for their own college bills, and many are not rich but the drive to succeed pushed them to the next level, I don't want to hear some whine about how unhappy they are about student loans, get off your butt and work for it! Just like millions of others before me have done. I paid back my loans as did my wife and neither of us come from upper middle class families. Our story is no different than millions of others.

The data shows the system we have is not broke, but could become less ideal under Berneis plan of free education at all state ran facilities and giving the govt even more pcntrol,over them, while not doing a thing for cost containment.