Closer to the center of what? Sanders is right now, given his current views and career, closer to the central political beliefs of the American public than any other announced candidate. Fortunately, American education is organized by State and then City - and the American States are in the same size range and about as "centralized" politically as the Scandinavian countries - Cities even more so. So Federal policies that encouraged Norwegian style schooling would be encouraging school systems of about the same size and centrality of organization as Norway's. That's not the problem with the elementary school teaching in the US - one immediate problem facing any American school system that attempts to emulate Norway's is that teaching in the US has been hiring from the bottom of the collegiate barrel for more than a generation, and underpaying for the job since before the Civil War. So handing a class over to a particular teacher for six years is something of a gamble, with not so good odds. For a long time this bad setup ran Ok due to cheap college options and gender discrimination - very intelligent and well educated women could get no better work, and could live decently on the wages. These women have retired, college is now a heavy debt burden, and the world of employment has changed - a very intelligent and well educated woman with 30k of student loans to pay off would be a fool (economically) to hire on as a probationary elementary school teacher, with low status, no job security, and starting wages in the low 20ks.
A family of four can live very well if they have borrowed more than 100,000 dollars - and that only counts their share of the federal debt. Their total debt is north of $200,000. But for how long can they go deeper in debt each year? Look at the debt to GDP ratios by countries I gave in post 17. Scandinavias think with 100 year time frame, Americans only till the next election, judging but the way they vote for "goodies now" and send the bill to the yet unborn. Try to find current wealth in the Norwegian Sovern Wealth fund and divide it by the Norwegian population. - I have not done that but in contrast to the US per capita debt, I bet the Norwegian family of four has more than $100,000 to their and their not yet born children's credit. Go here to see why Americans APPEAR to be well off: http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates
Except as has been repeated proven to you , your numbers aren't correct. But hey, who needs numbers when they don't say what you need them to say. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OK for break down of how much is "unfunded liabilities" go here: http://www.usadebtclock.com/ No one is hiding the facts (but you). True Social Security's "unfunded liabilities" conceptually could be zeroed by Congress. - E.g. terminate all Social Security's promises about "your Social Security." That is less likely than the super volcano under Yellowstone park kills 1/3 of all Americans. Historic fact is that US's poorly educated voters, vote for the candidates who promise the most "goodies" now with the bill sent to the not yet born.
The federal debt isn't why a doctor makes more in Chicago than in Bergen however so it's beside the point. Not that the federal debt isn't an issue but it just had nothing to do with my comments. If we stop our "role" as the unwanted policeman of the world this debt would go down (which I'm all for).
Ok, for the umpteenth time, you begin with the record of reference, go here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TREAST http://www.census.gov/ Public Debt: 13.0 Trilion Less US Debt Held By Federal Reserve: 2.46 Trillion Total Debt: 10.54 Trillion Dollars Population; 320,810,000 That's a little less than $33,000 per person. The really isn't all that difficult BillyT. And as Seattle pointed out, it really isn't relevant to this discussion.
Social Security has no unfunded liabilities. Congress can not only "zero" your "concept" of them, but adjust it to almost any value you name - simply removing the income cap on the deduction, for example, cuts the "unfunded" part more than half. Means testing or means neutralizing the benefits, even cursorily, can handle the rest. Raising the minimum wage, even, reduces them considerably. But none of that matters to the kind of analysis that assigns value to higher priced dentistry, without consideration of the results - the average level of dental care received by American citizens, for example, tens of thousands of whom see a dentist for the first time during their first stint in prison. I wonder how many Norwegians see a dentist for the first time when in jail? And Hillary, with her sponsorship of "welfare reform" and opposition to single payer health insurance and cynical Iraq War powers vote and so forth, is right there with Reagan, a bit to the right of the Eisenhower Republicanism she grew up with in Ohio. This stuff needs to be talked over in public. Without somebody like Sanders in the spotlight, it won't be.
That is true for a variety of reasons. It like any other agency, public or private, has expected future expenses. If the programs were not fully funded, millions of people wouldn't be receiving their monthly benefits. True enough, congress can reduce or eliminate these programs at any time. The intra-government debt is the result excess Social Security and Medicare Taxes which were used to fund tax cuts for America's wealthiest citizens for the last 35 years. Funds were taken form the Social Security Trust funds and used to finance tax cuts for our wealthiest citizens. Now the nation can no longer afford those tax cuts and it should be no surprise some of our wealthiest citizens (e.g. Koch brothers) don't want to give up their tax cuts and would rather cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, hence this discussion.
This is probably one of the largest, if not the largest, wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the uber wealthy in the nation's history.
Or at this stage in her life, Hillary may surprise almost all and not run. T. Boon Pickens will not be surprised: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boone...ton-will-drop-out-of-2016-race-154056399.html and some others are predicting the same. One even that Hillary will not run for heath reason (has brain cancer, etc.)* Others think she is just delaying announcement until there is not time for a contender to get going. If that is the case, she mis-calcuated on Bernie Sanders. He is off to flying start, which if continued at even 1/3 the current rate, ** would leave Hillary eating his support and funding dust. As Yoggie Bear said: It ain't over till its over. & It ain't over till the fat lady sings. * Bernie & Hillary may be pulling a fast one on the Republicans: Hillary takes all their attacks, calmly, and few weeks before convention, drops her "I'm not running" bomb shell, adding: "Vote for Bernie - he is the man to set the US right again - end the concentration of wealth that is destroying the US." - Well I can dream, can't I. ** More than a million dollars within 24 hours of his announcement from many - average donation was only $45. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In 1940, many hoped to be "the rich" - not now as middle class shrinks. * Especially the top 1% who get more than half of US income.
Hillary has already announced so ...what are you talking about? Bernie Sanders got a large of donations quickly but that is no indication that it will continue at that rate. The amount of money that he has gotten is quite small. I'd like to see it continue myself but I don't see that happening.
You probably posted before I had added my footnote, starting: "Bernie and Hillary may be pulling fast one on the Republicans ... " Here are the main take outs from her announcement speech: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/12/politics/hillary-clinton-president-2016-election/index.html Note she is not giving even one reason to vote for her - but exactly why one should vote for Bernie. After watching it, my hope they are doing what my footnote suggested is growing stronger. Easy to pull a bonnet back from the ring, especially if the health rumors are true.
Well, Republicans have been pushing those "health issues" for years now. When Hillary resigned from the State Department, Republicans realized she might run for POTUS, Hillary went from darling to the epitome of evil in the blink of an eye. If health were an issue for Hillary, do you really think she would have announced her candidacy just one week ago? I think the rumors of Hillary's ill health Republicans have been pushing are mostly wishful thinking by Republicans. Well, her announcement was brief, but she did give a reason to vote for her. I guess you missed it. Hillary said she wanted to the be champion of "every day Americans" (i.e. the common man and woman). I think her announcement was very good one.
It will be interesting to see how well Sanders does. He is definitely to the left of Hillary. This time, for the first time in a long time, Democrats may move to the left a bit. Instead of moving the right, Democrats may actually move toward the left, at least in the primaries.
Yes, the only thing that could make this Democratic primary interesting would be someone to move things to the left in a meaningful way (not simply a nutjob). If Sanders raises more money and interest than was expected this would at least show some pent up demand for change and more importantly for some meaningful discussion.
That is her expressed desire, and Bernie's too; but he has been doing that for 30 years. My point was she ONLY said things that were true of Bernie, but more so. She did not make one claim that was hers and not his. For example did not say: "The world now has many troubling Hot Spot which the next POTUS must cope with - I have been secretary of state - am on a first name basis with most of the world's leaders" Or things about her long efforts on behalf of equal pay, etc. for women. Etc. Everything she said was boost for Bernie! Why my earlier, half in jest, suggestion that Bernie and she, could be "pulling a fast one" on the Republicans - getting their fire all at her, and then stepping aside in favor of "unscaved" by Republican attacks, lies, misrepresentations, etc. to an open field is a growing possibility. Yes it is an "improbable possibility" but less so after her speech stating only objectives Bernie is better known to hold and for much longer.
Most Government certified American high school graduates (minorities or otherwise, but particularly inner city Government school certified) would never be accepted into a German 4 - 6 year University degree program. Of those that did, most would be flushed out in the first semester. In Japan, where world class University tuition is very cheap, most kids are never accepted into a degree program. The majority of American high school graduates wouldn't be accepted (actually, most wouldn't pass Japanese high school if given an equivalent test). Many Japanese school kids begin attending after-school cram schools from 6 - 11PM and full day extra school Saturdays, plus have traditional stray at home mother's who read to them (A recent English study found being read to at home was equivalent to an elite English private school) and most Japanese still don't get accepted into a University program. Lastly, Australia gave away 'free' education in the 1980s - they don't do that anymore. I wonder why? If it was such a good deal for society? Seems like the cost went like this: The Babyboomers got "free" education and great benefits, their grandchildren get low quality underfunded expensive education and are lucky to find a good share-house to rent while working a service job at a cafe' (and forget starting a family, population growth is completely dependent on migration, particularly from SE Asia and China). In short, all this 'free' education never produced the competitive high-end job producing society it was supposed to. Luckily, AU has minerals and plenty more land to sell off the "Australian" dream to various overseas landlords looking to invest. Other than that, there's beaches. But not a thriving high-end industry. In the words (private) one Senator: Australia's higher education is a weight around the Public neck. There's no 'free'. Someone is going to pay. Generally when that someone is the person doing the consuming - they demand quality. When it's not, then they don't really care as much. If we want cheaper University then maybe we need to (a) eliminate University gate-keeping in perpetuating rent-seeking degrees (ex: Medicine, Dentistry, Law, etc....) (b) cut back the amount the Government backstops loans (c) more pedagogical competition starting with primary schools such that the lines are blurred between the two (d) deregulate the markets so 'education' the serves a need is purchased (e) sound money and a complete overhaul of society (f) other. None of that is going to happen so sure - let's borrow a trillion more a year for education. We already spend around 2 trillion a year as it is. As for Bernie Sanders, I've listened to him for years. He's the type of person who will always tell everyone what they want to hear. A mediocre demagogue at best. I've listened to him contradict himself in a single sentence just to say yes yes yes and I agree with you here's how I'm going to help. IS he sincere? Probably. It's pretty easy being generous with other people's money.
