Also true, and the native Swedes appear to have had it up to their eyeballs with the refugees and their absolute refusal to assimmilate.

This is what I see happening when Bernie is elected.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news...obs/index.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

then there's reality.......

"Sen. Bernard Sanders‘ promises of a democratic socialist revolution have enthralled liberal voters this campaign season, but the Vermont independent’s legislative record shows he has had a tough time turning his progressive vision into reality.

During his quarter-century in Congress, Mr. Sanders has been the chief sponsor of just three bills that were signed into law: two renaming U.S. Postal Service offices in his home state of Vermont and one that increased the annual cost-of-living raise for veterans’ benefits, which he secured as chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee in 2013."


maybe we'll get some more post offices renamed....I think he's meeting with his running mate today...Rev. Al Sharpton

:wave:

Nebe, this is the projection of en economist who admits he is a fan of socialism.

Most other economists are confident it would be a disaster.

Nebe, the places you suggested as examples of wehre socialism "works", are tiny, lilly white countries that don't allow significant immigration, and in the case of Norway, they have more oil than they know what to do with.

On the GOP side, fatty is out. I wonder if that helps Kasich more than Rubio. Carson, Bush, Fiorina need to go as well.

If he somehow gets the nomination, his running mate is going to be Lie-awatha, Liz Warren. She want-um teepee of great white chief.

We shall see. My point here and I should have voiced it is that I see the economy picking up. Higher wages equals more spending and the fly wheels turn faster.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary ended up with more delegates in NH then Bernie I believe . The fix is in . The Democrats don't care about your vote .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is that true? He detroyed her in the votes.

The powers-that-be, will never let him get the nomination, and if he somehow got it, Hilary (or Biden or Gore) would run as a 3rd party.

If wages rise because th emarketplace calls for that, that's a good thing. If wages rise because the government arbitrarily decides it knows what wages should be, that would likely be bad. Nebe, they can't just print off enough money to give each of us $1 million, it doesn't work.

The value of something, is that which someone is willing to pay for it, not what some activist wishes it to be.

that's why they're exploring negative interest rates (like in Europe)...sure sign of a burgeoning economy :uhuh:

Time will tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

said the guy holding the ticking time bomb

here's proof that the economy will surely take a tumble

White House forecasts fastest economic growth in a decade

Published: Feb 9, 2016 :rotflmao:

I looked it up, you are right, because there are 8 "super delegates" who can go with whoever they want, regardless of the voting turnout.

Nebe, how do you like that? Sanders crushes her in New Hampshire, yet he falls further behind her in terms of getting the nomination.

How democratic.

Why bother with the primaries?

Listen to this, from the article..."In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders"

She has almost 10 times as many delegates as he does, despite the fact that it was a virtual tie in Iowa, and the fact that he destroyed her in NH.

Spence? Your opinion on the matter?


http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/hi...rs-after-loss/

Wow. A lot like NFL refs :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is silly, but super delegates are not new to 2016....

How about the practice of undermining the democtratic process, is that new? Has a demeocratic candidate ever gotten this screwed before?

this is how Sanders explains the current economic situation in this country...

There's some truth to that cartoon, but it's highly exaggerated.

Take the favorite liberal target of corporate greed, WalMart.

Accordsing to this abcnews link, the CEO recenly had annual compensation of $35 million.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walma...ry?id=11067470

From this article, Wal-mart employees 1.4 million people in the US.

http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-employees-pay

So, how much is the CEO "stealing" from the working stiff? Well, if we assume that the CEO worked for free, and divided his $35 million compensation evenly among all 1.4 million employees, each one would get an extra $25 a year. Exactly $25 a year.

Whoop-dee-doo.

Nebe, I would never argue it's "fair" that a CEO makes $35 million, because it's not "fair". But it's also demonstrably false to suggest that CEO compensation is the reason why the wages of regular folks are not increasing. For most large companies, CEO compensation is a very small drop in the bucket.

The math is, what the math is.

I have worked for huge companies. I'd happily sacrfice $25 a year to have a good CEO who could run the company with skill.

Right on point Jim ,$25 each employee for a $35 million CEO salary about says it all.
If he is a good CEO and increases revenue that will increase
the employees IRA, many times over, including the increase
$$$ for outside stock holders who will spend more.

In addition the $35 million doesn't leave the economy,
but a large part goes back in the economy creating increased sales
for other companies, charities and taxes.
The libs would have you believe the guy keeps it out of the
economy and walks around with it as a big roll in his pocket. LOL
A big pseudo play on creating jealousy.

It's beyond silly, it is corrupt to the core. When Hillary wins the nomination ,by the votes of corrupt super-delegates , there should be an uproar in your party .
But the silence will be deafening.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most CEOs, who's compensation is reported in the multi millions, have a large portion of that paid in company stock .
The same people that complain about their pay , think nothing of buying a $125 ticket to a game to watch their 30 million a year stud quarterback throw a pass .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have done zero research into this but the CEO of Walmart runs he company. He doesn't own it. Look into how much money the family that owns it sucked from the company. Then look at how many employees are payed so little that they have to use government assistance and food stamps, which you and I pay for.

Not everything is black and white.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rollem:

Probably, you may see the same thing happen to Trump....
The system has aspects that suck, but it is the system we have.. Go back to the Popular Vote? Good evening President Gore....

Probably not. The Democrats have their own special system .
It is pretty ironic though isn't it? Bernie worked so hard for something only to have it taken away and given to somebody that doesn't deserve it 😂😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bam

http://walmart1percent.org/family/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, the owners of the company are entitled to the profits. They own the company. That's what "ownership" means. Do you hold onto the things you own? Or do you give it all away?

In the electoral college, within a state, it is by popular vote.

She has NINE TIMES the delegates he has. One state was a tie, in one state she got clobbered. And she has nine times the delegates.

That doesn't come close to resembling democracy, I dare you to make that wrong. You can't.

A small number of people controlling that party, will decide who the nominee is. The people have no say. If Trump wins the states with the most delegates, it would piss me off if a small number of GOP kingmakers took that from him.

Who said anything about giving it all away? If I had employees I would pay them fairly. That would mean enough to live on their own..

Apartment, food, a car payment, etc.

If you look at personal income growth it was awesome from ww2 until the 70's and then it slowed way down. And suddenly, poof! CEO's started making tons of money. What started that change ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But to say someone is entitled to pay employees a starvation wage and encourage them to take government assistance while pocketing billions is so mortally currupt. But I can see why you support that from your posting history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device