Bernie Sanders

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Bernie Sanders

Postby deltbucs » Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:36 pm

He's doing it right.



He's got my vote as of now. I just hope the rest of you fuckers are ready to vote for someone who gives a **** about you and this country. Can we please stop voting for the next Bush, Obama, HilDog or whoever that only cares about the interests of the richest of the rich?
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 3872
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 252 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:15 pm

Image
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 7934
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 452 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:33 pm

I agree, but he'll never get on the DNC ticket.

Sanders and Paul are my two favorites. But I don't see either pandering enough to the interests of the 'richest of the rich' to get on the ballot for their respective party.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 8698
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 358 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:36 pm

I would be absolutely blown away if he topples Hillary in the primaries.


A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans. Overall, socialism charted the lowest of all the backgrounds referenced in the poll. Atheist and Muslim candidates ranked second- and third-lowest among the American populace, at 58 and 60 percent respectively.

This poll comes less than two months after Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy, becoming the first self-described socialist (with at least a decent chance of winning) to do so in more than a decade.

Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.

Part of the reason for this dissonance is confusion among the America population as to what the word “socialism” even means. Many often associate it with the authoritarian Communism of the Soviet Union instead of the social democracies of modern-day Scandinavian countries, which Sanders strongly backs.

Even though the number of voters who say they would consider voting for a socialist candidate is below an outright majority, the fact that the number of Americans who would consider voting for a socialist is at 47 percent, in a country with a long history of vicious red-baiting, seems to suggest that Americans aren’t as afraid of the word “socialist” as many on the Right would like them to be.

Meanwhile, Sanders seems to be getting through to the American people. He consistently draws the largest crowds of any candidate to his events in Iowa, and 32 percent of New Hampshire Democrats and 41 percent of Wisconsin Democrats are backing him. Sanders has more than seven months to build a solid voting bloc, before the first primaries on February 1, 2016.



Imagine a Sanders/Rand Paul series of debates.....that would be so epic.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 7934
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 452 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby HamBone » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:54 pm

A self described democratic socialist? No thanks...we've had plenty closeted ones in the whitehouse.
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:56 pm

I honestly feel that if American voters were required to answer questions on a variety of issues, along w/ a point value of how strongly they feel on the issue (a 'political quiz' if you will). Then have those results equate to a vote for a specific candidate, we'd see a guy like Sanders or Paul as the next POTUS.

Sadly, that is not how politics works in this country.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 8698
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 358 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:03 pm

DreadNaught wrote:I honestly feel that if American voters were required to answer questions on a variety of issues, along w/ a point value of how strongly they feel on the issue (a 'political quiz' if you will). Then have those results equate to a vote for a specific candidate, we'd see a guy like Sanders or Paul as the next POTUS.

Sadly, that is not how politics works in this country.


Well, I have always had issues with trying to find the candidate that is the most "Ideologicaly Pure", preferring to go with the guy whom a agree with at least somewhat but also has a high chance of winning. I have completely dismissed Sanders since he announced his candidacy up till now on this basis.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 7934
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 452 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby deltbucs » Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:10 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Image

He's gaining some steam. I usually don't discuss politics, but I'm trying to do my part here to get people talking about Bernie. I'm done voting for the lesser to 2 evils, because they are just that...evil. I voted for Rand's daddy in the primaries last time around. I don't like Rand as much as I liked Ron, though.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 3872
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 252 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby deltbucs » Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:21 pm

HamBone wrote:A self described democratic socialist? No thanks...we've had plenty closeted ones in the whitehouse.

No....No we haven't.
People hear him describe himself as that and just turn away. For instance, the **** Obama pulled is NOT at all universal health care. And yes, we should have universal healthcare. We're the only first-world country that doesn't have it. Why? There's too much money in insurance.
Redistribution of wealth does not refer to middle class paying taxes to support unemployed/underemployed. It refers to making these billion dollar corporations actually pay their fair share of taxes instead of what they pay now which is in many cases ZERO. But we keep voting for these ***holes that let this **** happen.

Take 2 minutes and just skim through this....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sa ... _positions
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 3872
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 252 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby Jonny » Sat Jun 27, 2015 4:18 pm

Sorry, Sanders is not Ron Paul. It is not only that he is a Socialist, but I don't think he is a man of integrity like Ron Paul was. He is a panderer like any other politician.

The **** Obama pulled is certainly worse than Universal Health Care, but that does not mean UHC is the best solution to health care, not even close. It is horribly inefficient and has its own share of problems. A far more efficient system that no politician ever brings up is the free market system that minimizes or eliminates the concept of socialized shared risk (insurance), and thus makes health care far cheaper. Singapore has one such system and dollar for dollar is the best healthcare system in the world. Does not matter what other first world countries are doing. America has always been a shining beacon for Capitalism, it has to adopt the Capitalist model that works. The model which also coincidentally happens to have the least amount of government intervention in healthcare sector.

What is "fair share" when it comes to taxes? For individuals, fair share according to them would be zero taxes. The top 1% pays 40% of total taxes. Sure, some billionaires who are cozy with politicians get away with tax avoidance by impacting policy making, most of which has to do with investing in "green energy" lately. But still the idea that the wealthy do not pay enough is misguided. The problem isn't that the state does not have enough money to redistribute, the problem is that the way state does redistribution is horrible and does not lead to good outcomes.

Also Sanders is a Keynesian economist at core. His policies discourage the rich from investing within the US by increasing Corporate tax, capital gains tax, taxing every stock market transaction etc. So once he will scare them off to countries like China or Cayman Islands, there will be less capital available for starting new businesses and payrolls here in the US. Banks will become the sole providers of capital leading to even more inflation. Sorry, do not want.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:16 am

Since the 1% own 48% of the WORLD'S money, I'm just fine with them paying ALL the ****ing taxes! But I digress.

Over 40 years of evidence to the contrary, and Jonny still thinks trickle down is the most equitable way to practice capitalism he honestly thinks its a free market. HA!
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 7934
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 452 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby Jonny » Sun Jun 28, 2015 2:49 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Since the 1% own 48% of the WORLD'S money, I'm just fine with them paying ALL the ****ing taxes! But I digress.

Over 40 years of evidence to the contrary, and Jonny still thinks trickle down is the most equitable way to practice capitalism he honestly thinks its a free market. HA!


I can excuse your ignorance like when you say "Winston is an athlete playing QB". But your intellectual dishonesty on the other hand is something I cannot let you get away with. You keep blaming free markets for what ever crisis we are in now. When the hell have you ever produced an ounce of evidence to support that claim?
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby The Outsider » Sun Jun 28, 2015 3:56 pm

Jonny wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Since the 1% own 48% of the WORLD'S money, I'm just fine with them paying ALL the ****ing taxes! But I digress.

Over 40 years of evidence to the contrary, and Jonny still thinks trickle down is the most equitable way to practice capitalism he honestly thinks its a free market. HA!


I can excuse your ignorance like when you say "Winston is an athlete playing QB". But your intellectual dishonesty on the other hand is something I cannot let you get away with. You keep blaming free markets for what ever crisis we are in now. When the hell have you ever produced an ounce of evidence to support that claim?



One could ask the same question of you and your claims.

Glass houses and all that.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:32 pm

Jonny wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Since the 1% own 48% of the WORLD'S money, I'm just fine with them paying ALL the ****ing taxes! But I digress.

Over 40 years of evidence to the contrary, and Jonny still thinks trickle down is the most equitable way to practice capitalism he honestly thinks its a free market. HA!


I can excuse your ignorance like when you say "Winston is an athlete playing QB". But your intellectual dishonesty on the other hand is something I cannot let you get away with. You keep blaming free markets for what ever crisis we are in now. When the hell have you ever produced an ounce of evidence to support that claim?


Need evidence? Look out a window.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 7934
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 452 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby Jonny » Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:30 pm

The Outsider wrote:
Jonny wrote:
I can excuse your ignorance like when you say "Winston is an athlete playing QB". But your intellectual dishonesty on the other hand is something I cannot let you get away with. You keep blaming free markets for what ever crisis we are in now. When the hell have you ever produced an ounce of evidence to support that claim?



One could ask the same question of you and your claims.

Glass houses and all that.


I am not the one demonizing the free market. On the other hand I provide plenty of cause and effect explanations when I do demonize policy, government or socialism as a whole. Unlike you religious folk, and yes you are religious, I don't place blind faith in anything and never take a stance that I myself cannot rationalize.

@MB: Its a beautiful sunny day here in Alabama. Not sure how that is relevant though.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby The Outsider » Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:32 pm

Jonny wrote:
The Outsider wrote:

One could ask the same question of you and your claims.

Glass houses and all that.


I am not the one demonizing the free market. On the other hand I provide plenty of cause and effect explanations when I do demonize policy, government or socialism as a whole. Unlike you religious folk, and yes you are religious, I don't place blind faith in anything and never take a stance that I myself cannot rationalize.

@MB: Its a beautiful sunny day here in Alabama. Not sure how that is relevant though.


Every single thing you just wrote is hilariously ridiculous.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby A Man's Part » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:17 pm

Jonny wrote:
Also Sanders is a Keynesian economist at core. His policies discourage the rich from investing within the US by increasing Corporate tax, capital gains tax, taxing every stock market transaction etc. So once he will scare them off to countries like China or Cayman Islands, there will be less capital available for starting new businesses and payrolls here in the US. Banks will become the sole providers of capital leading to even more inflation. Sorry, do not want.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
A Man's Part
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 am
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby deltbucs » Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:18 am

Jonny wrote:Sorry, Sanders is not Ron Paul. It is not only that he is a Socialist, but I don't think he is a man of integrity like Ron Paul was. He is a panderer like any other politician.

The **** Obama pulled is certainly worse than Universal Health Care, but that does not mean UHC is the best solution to health care, not even close. It is horribly inefficient and has its own share of problems. A far more efficient system that no politician ever brings up is the free market system that minimizes or eliminates the concept of socialized shared risk (insurance), and thus makes health care far cheaper. Singapore has one such system and dollar for dollar is the best healthcare system in the world. Does not matter what other first world countries are doing. America has always been a shining beacon for Capitalism, it has to adopt the Capitalist model that works. The model which also coincidentally happens to have the least amount of government intervention in healthcare sector.

What is "fair share" when it comes to taxes? For individuals, fair share according to them would be zero taxes. The top 1% pays 40% of total taxes. Sure, some billionaires who are cozy with politicians get away with tax avoidance by impacting policy making, most of which has to do with investing in "green energy" lately. But still the idea that the wealthy do not pay enough is misguided. The problem isn't that the state does not have enough money to redistribute, the problem is that the way state does redistribution is horrible and does not lead to good outcomes.

Also Sanders is a Keynesian economist at core. His policies discourage the rich from investing within the US by increasing Corporate tax, capital gains tax, taxing every stock market transaction etc. So once he will scare them off to countries like China or Cayman Islands, there will be less capital available for starting new businesses and payrolls here in the US. Banks will become the sole providers of capital leading to even more inflation. Sorry, do not want.

What, dude? I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond at all to this nonsense, but I'll just leave you with this.

You know how much GE, for instance, pays in taxes? ZERO. Zero dollars.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 3872
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 252 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:37 am

deltbucs wrote:He's gaining some steam. I usually don't discuss politics, but I'm trying to do my part here to get people talking about Bernie. I'm done voting for the lesser to 2 evils, because they are just that...evil. I voted for Rand's daddy in the primaries last time around. I don't like Rand as much as I liked Ron, though.


Same here...
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 8698
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 358 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby Jonny » Mon Jun 29, 2015 5:51 pm

The Outsider wrote:
Every single thing you just wrote is hilariously ridiculous.


At least I am not a groupie plugging up my ears and shouting la-la-la.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby Jonny » Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:02 pm

deltbucs wrote:What, dude? I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond at all to this nonsense, but I'll just leave you with this.

You know how much GE, for instance, pays in taxes? ZERO. Zero dollars.


It is nonsense because I criticized your guy? If you think something is nonsense, point out where I am utterly wrong and then say what actually is correct. Don't disagree just because you have an impulse.

And GE not paying any taxes does not disprove any of the points I made. If you read my post properly, I already acknowledged that corporations cozy with the government indulge in tax avoidance. Why is Sanders the only solution to this though? Any libertarian leaning Republican takes issue with crony capitalism as well, on top of being correct in other areas where Sanders gets wrong.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby HamBone » Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:53 pm

deltbucs wrote:
HamBone wrote:A self described democratic socialist? No thanks...we've had plenty closeted ones in the whitehouse.

No....No we haven't.
People hear him describe himself as that and just turn away. For instance, the **** Obama pulled is NOT at all universal health care. And yes, we should have universal healthcare. We're the only first-world country that doesn't have it. Why? There's too much money in insurance.
Redistribution of wealth does not refer to middle class paying taxes to support unemployed/underemployed. It refers to making these billion dollar corporations actually pay their fair share of taxes instead of what they pay now which is in many cases ZERO. But we keep voting for these ***holes that let this **** happen.

Take 2 minutes and just skim through this....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sa ... _positions



We've plenty of Presidents that had socialists tendencies...at least.

And I disagree that we need universal healthcare...just because everyone else is doing it isn't a great argument for turning over control to the government.

I just don't see more government as the answer.
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby A Man's Part » Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:20 pm

Jonny wrote:
deltbucs wrote:What, dude? I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond at all to this nonsense, but I'll just leave you with this.

You know how much GE, for instance, pays in taxes? ZERO. Zero dollars.


It is nonsense because I criticized your guy? If you think something is nonsense, point out where I am utterly wrong and then say what actually is correct. Don't disagree just because you have an impulse.

And GE not paying any taxes does not disprove any of the points I made. If you read my post properly, I already acknowledged that corporations cozy with the government indulge in tax avoidance. Why is Sanders the only solution to this though? Any libertarian leaning Republican takes issue with crony capitalism as well, on top of being correct in other areas where Sanders gets wrong.


Dude.. It's not a matter of right or wrong. This is mostly opinion anyways. Every person has a different view on how a legitimate government should govern. It is literally THE MOST debatable thing we have in modern society. The first thing I would recommend is to dispel your notion that the way you view governance is the right way to govern. It's your opinion and that is great, and sure some of your opinions are backed by facts. The fact remains that some of the things you have said are ridiculous. There is also many different ways to interpret a set of data as well. The fact that you don't understand how someone could like Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders at the same time is expected, but it also reflects the problem with your ideology. You're a parrot who is squauking because everyone doesn't exactly believe in his set of ideals(which run lock step in his party's views). You are an extremist wingnut. Hell, you will probably take pride in being called the libertarian wingnut, but that is what you've amounted to. Hell, I'll at least give you credit for consistency, and that beats MJW who is a parrot who's been traded to 3 different owners(for making them look bad).

Anyways, let's move on to some of the **** you've actually said...



Also Sanders is a Keynesian economist at core. His policies discourage the rich from investing within the US by increasing Corporate tax, capital gains tax, taxing every stock market transaction etc. So once he will scare them off to countries like China or Cayman Islands, there will be less capital available for starting new businesses and payrolls here in the US. Banks will become the sole providers of capital leading to even more inflation. Sorry, do not want


The assertion that US large scale enterprises or "the rich" as you like to call them will stop investing in US business and the US market is ridiculous. Most Large Enterprises that can choose where they want to do business globally are already doing business globally. You aren't going to see some new startup company/small businesses with low amounts of capital saying "****, you know what the first thing we need to do is? relocate to thailand". You are seeing it with the unskilled jobs (which are being sent overseas largely accompanied by free trade agreements(which I would figure to fall in line with the libertarian philosophy) from larger companies. It is very unlikely that the markets would even take a hit from an increased capital gains tax, so that is just fear mongering. The larger point here is that the way to drive the US economy and make sure that business is being done in the us is through innovation. We need to make sure that America is a place where there are companies worth investing in.. rather than working on whether or not increasing the capital gains tax would make investors flock to HKEX rather than NYSE or NASDAQ... You can pretty much plot every period of American prosperity to technological innovation happening in America. I won't bore you with the details.

<----------------------------OK, you can tl;dr here------------------------------->

My other big thing is that education needs to be equal across the board. I'm a huge fan of equal rights and equal opportunity. I think that the education is any legimate governments way of hoping to provide for this. There is a cycle where a kid grows up poor and on welfare, then attends a poor pubic school in the poor part of town, then graduates from a poor education(or drops out), Becomes poor,gets welfare,and then has a family of his own. That is a bad cycle of self fulfilling prophecy. This is what pisses the democrats off all of the time. They are wrong when they say we should increase welfare to fix this. They are right when they say we need to increase the education budget. This brings me to my second point where I would differ from you, and the general libertarian opinion(and especially Rand Paul). I think education is paramount. We can't play the pragmatic numbers game that China and India can where their education system is based on who has money(and the benefits of having overpopulation)and hope that out of a large amount of people we get a certain amount of innovation from the educated.. and **** those poor peasants we'll work them to death and profit$$$.

The government needs the tax revenue to invest in education. Education is the thing that I value the very most when it comes to governmental legitimacy. Until recently, I've held the government in high regard with that standard. We need to be investing in STEM education much earlier in kids lives. We need to increase the efficiency of the education that is happening K-8. High School needs to be learning about skills that will help someone seeking a job or create their own business in modern America. This will require an investment in not just the technology itself. It will also require investing in the education material used to teach the kids, and quality instructors who can intelligently answer some of the tougher of questions. IMO, this is where most tax dollars should be allocated. Between individual freedom(I don't believe coroporations are individuals), education, and defense, those are the three most important functions of a legitmate government to me.

Here's a point on why I think a progressive tax scale makes sense..

Let's look at the government as a business. It's one that is forced on you, and that is rather tyrannical I'll give you. The human race has largely accepted governments, so let's move aside from that. The "goods" the government provides in the most basic terms would be to protect you and your property from people who should hope to harm you. Then to protect everyone else from those people once they've done the inevitable. Over the last 6 years, I've really grown in my career. I make a lot more money than I did 6 years ago. This isn't a brag to increase credibility. It is necessary background to my larger point.. I have a lot more property now that I would hate to lose, so I have more to gain in protection. Then you have the wealthiest of the wealthiest... many of them pay the least(and then pay a good amount to politicians). I'd rather they pay that to the government than for favors to get out of paying that to the government. Just sayin'.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you on a lot of other issues, but those are just a couple where I really disagree.
User avatar
A Man's Part
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 am
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby Citizen Erased » Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:51 am

Fully on board the Sanders 2016 train. I think if people actually looked at his stances compared to Hillary and other DNC candidates, he would be the front runner easy.
User avatar
Citizen Erased
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby BigIrv9 » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 am

If you've got a business, you didn't build that. You stole it. You took advantage of the poor, oppressed people with your business schemes. You didn't work hard. You didn't earn a living.

We have to punish those who make lots of money. It's the only reasonable and fair system. They have to pay their fair share. Forget the Laffer Curve. The 1% have stolen the world's money. They should pay all of the taxes.

We need a good socialist president. We need a National Socialist president.
Image
User avatar
BigIrv9
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:42 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby Jonny » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:22 am

A Man's Part wrote:
Dude.. It's not a matter of right or wrong. This is mostly opinion anyways. Every person has a different view on how a legitimate government should govern. It is literally THE MOST debatable thing we have in modern society. The first thing I would recommend is to dispel your notion that the way you view governance is the right way to govern. It's your opinion and that is great, and sure some of your opinions are backed by facts. The fact remains that some of the things you have said are ridiculous. There is also many different ways to interpret a set of data as well. The fact that you don't understand how someone could like Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders at the same time is expected, but it also reflects the problem with your ideology. You're a parrot who is squauking because everyone doesn't exactly believe in his set of ideals(which run lock step in his party's views). You are an extremist wingnut. Hell, you will probably take pride in being called the libertarian wingnut, but that is what you've amounted to. Hell, I'll at least give you credit for consistency, and that beats MJW who is a parrot who's been traded to 3 different owners(for making them look bad).

Anyways, let's move on to some of the **** you've actually said...



Also Sanders is a Keynesian economist at core. His policies discourage the rich from investing within the US by increasing Corporate tax, capital gains tax, taxing every stock market transaction etc. So once he will scare them off to countries like China or Cayman Islands, there will be less capital available for starting new businesses and payrolls here in the US. Banks will become the sole providers of capital leading to even more inflation. Sorry, do not want


The assertion that US large scale enterprises or "the rich" as you like to call them will stop investing in US business and the US market is ridiculous. Most Large Enterprises that can choose where they want to do business globally are already doing business globally. You aren't going to see some new startup company/small businesses with low amounts of capital saying "****, you know what the first thing we need to do is? relocate to thailand". You are seeing it with the unskilled jobs (which are being sent overseas largely accompanied by free trade agreements(which I would figure to fall in line with the libertarian philosophy) from larger companies. It is very unlikely that the markets would even take a hit from an increased capital gains tax, so that is just fear mongering. The larger point here is that the way to drive the US economy and make sure that business is being done in the us is through innovation. We need to make sure that America is a place where there are companies worth investing in.. rather than working on whether or not increasing the capital gains tax would make investors flock to HKEX rather than NYSE or NASDAQ... You can pretty much plot every period of American prosperity to technological innovation happening in America. I won't bore you with the details.



You are correct. I am a proud far right winger and have no issues with being called an extremist libertarian wingnut. I take pride in it because I am not an ideologue. I also take pride in my ideology because time and time again most of the debates I have been involved in where I urge my opponents to challenge my fiscal conservativism, I come off dissatisfied because of their unwillingness to identify government policy as the root of problems even when there is overwhelming evidence supported by basics of economics. Good examples are the current overpriced college education where criticizing banks and universities is fair game and the housing bubble where again banks and credit agencies are the only bad guys. Overlooking negative effects of policy which encourages malpractice, criticizing businessmen for resorting to malpractice and demanding more government regulation in those sectors is exactly what is being demanded in several areas. A person who has done troubleshooting in any industry will always start with the first source of the problem, not ignore it, go further down the line and control variables that are dependent on the source.

Capital gains tax, production in the US and free trade:
Now your 2nd paragraph, you are taking way too many things for granted there. You start off with a position of accepting the status-quo as if things aren't bad enough already and thus go on to say that increasing capital gains tax is not going to have a significant impact. I hope you respond to this paragraph at least even if you ignore rest of my post. I am sure you are aware that investments in stock markets becomes capital for other companies. Thus I cannot understand how anyone can defend the concept of taxation of capital gains. Taxation discourages investment, it is a simple economic fact, not opinion but a fact. America already has one of the highest capital gains tax rates in the world, and you have countries like Switzerland, Luxembourg in the west and Hong Kong which encourage investors by having little to no CGT. There would be no incentive for American corporations to invest in the markets of those countries over the US if not for the taxation here. And thanks to them investing over there, there is great climate for growth of businesses over there as there is capital for it. Another fact is, the wages of workers of all types across the board is tied in with the amount of investment within that country. You will find several sources citing a direct correlation. Late 90s and early 2000s we saw Hong Kong and Switzerland massively cut down on CGT and have lost investors to them gradually. If you cannot critique any of my assertions here, you know I am not delving into the cheap tactic of fear mongering. Increasing CGT will only make things worse, it is basic economics. A government can act like paying taxes is holy and all despite horrible track record of spending inefficiently, but a far better form of wealth redistribution occurs when investors invest and private entities benefiting from that capital use it to pay their employees/invest in R&D and even the aspect of risk taking which directly leads to INNOVATION. There is not much innovation coming out of China either that is making our investor invest in their stocks.

Losing production to 3rd world countries is a whole another issue. It has to do more with US corporate tax, which again is one of the highest among west. Even more so than Sweden (26.3% vs 40%), a country Sanders has a hard on for, but only in big government policies, not where you get to cut down on regulation and encourage business. Combine that with other forms of taxes such as pay roll, benefits and insurance, no wonder we have been losing production to 3rd world. But this issue is often oversimplified into 2 things. One being lack of protectionism (lack of punitive tariffs) and the other being cheap labor. Cheap labor is definitely a factor, but if you own a business you know it is not an easy decision to make to shift production to a different country. The environment here makes it a far easy decision. I like free trade, but the rate of exodus has extremely hurt us, because at the global level US has not been able to compete with other countries in encouraging businesses.

I will respond to the rest of your post in the evening after work. But I appreciate the fact that you are attempting to put me in my place by opening things up succinctly instead of being an emotional ideologue that types in generalities to evade real discussion.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jun 30, 2015 1:02 pm

Jonny wrote:
A Man's Part wrote:
Dude.. It's not a matter of right or wrong. This is mostly opinion anyways. Every person has a different view on how a legitimate government should govern. It is literally THE MOST debatable thing we have in modern society. The first thing I would recommend is to dispel your notion that the way you view governance is the right way to govern. It's your opinion and that is great, and sure some of your opinions are backed by facts. The fact remains that some of the things you have said are ridiculous. There is also many different ways to interpret a set of data as well. The fact that you don't understand how someone could like Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders at the same time is expected, but it also reflects the problem with your ideology. You're a parrot who is squauking because everyone doesn't exactly believe in his set of ideals(which run lock step in his party's views). You are an extremist wingnut. Hell, you will probably take pride in being called the libertarian wingnut, but that is what you've amounted to. Hell, I'll at least give you credit for consistency, and that beats MJW who is a parrot who's been traded to 3 different owners(for making them look bad).

Anyways, let's move on to some of the **** you've actually said...





The assertion that US large scale enterprises or "the rich" as you like to call them will stop investing in US business and the US market is ridiculous. Most Large Enterprises that can choose where they want to do business globally are already doing business globally. You aren't going to see some new startup company/small businesses with low amounts of capital saying "****, you know what the first thing we need to do is? relocate to thailand". You are seeing it with the unskilled jobs (which are being sent overseas largely accompanied by free trade agreements(which I would figure to fall in line with the libertarian philosophy) from larger companies. It is very unlikely that the markets would even take a hit from an increased capital gains tax, so that is just fear mongering. The larger point here is that the way to drive the US economy and make sure that business is being done in the us is through innovation. We need to make sure that America is a place where there are companies worth investing in.. rather than working on whether or not increasing the capital gains tax would make investors flock to HKEX rather than NYSE or NASDAQ... You can pretty much plot every period of American prosperity to technological innovation happening in America. I won't bore you with the details.



You are correct. I am a proud far right winger and have no issues with being called an extremist libertarian wingnut. I take pride in it because I am not an ideologue. I also take pride in my ideology because time and time again most of the debates I have been involved in where I urge my opponents to challenge my fiscal conservativism, I come off dissatisfied because of their unwillingness to identify government policy as the root of problems even when there is overwhelming evidence supported by basics of economics. Good examples are the current overpriced college education where criticizing banks and universities is fair game and the housing bubble where again banks and credit agencies are the only bad guys. Overlooking negative effects of policy which encourages malpractice, criticizing businessmen for resorting to malpractice and demanding more government regulation in those sectors is exactly what is being demanded in several areas. A person who has done troubleshooting in any industry will always start with the first source of the problem, not ignore it, go further down the line and control variables that are dependent on the source.

Capital gains tax, production in the US and free trade:
Now your 2nd paragraph, you are taking way too many things for granted there. You start off with a position of accepting the status-quo as if things aren't bad enough already and thus go on to say that increasing capital gains tax is not going to have a significant impact. I hope you respond to this paragraph at least even if you ignore rest of my post. I am sure you are aware that investments in stock markets becomes capital for other companies. Thus I cannot understand how anyone can defend the concept of taxation of capital gains. Taxation discourages investment, it is a simple economic fact, not opinion but a fact. America already has one of the highest capital gains tax rates in the world, and you have countries like Switzerland, Luxembourg in the west and Hong Kong which encourage investors by having little to no CGT. There would be no incentive for American corporations to invest in the markets of those countries over the US if not for the taxation here. And thanks to them investing over there, there is great climate for growth of businesses over there as there is capital for it. Another fact is, the wages of workers of all types across the board is tied in with the amount of investment within that country. You will find several sources citing a direct correlation. Late 90s and early 2000s we saw Hong Kong and Switzerland massively cut down on CGT and have lost investors to them gradually. If you cannot critique any of my assertions here, you know I am not delving into the cheap tactic of fear mongering. Increasing CGT will only make things worse, it is basic economics. A government can act like paying taxes is holy and all despite horrible track record of spending inefficiently, but a far better form of wealth redistribution occurs when investors invest and private entities benefiting from that capital use it to pay their employees/invest in R&D and even the aspect of risk taking which directly leads to INNOVATION. There is not much innovation coming out of China either that is making our investor invest in their stocks.

Losing production to 3rd world countries is a whole another issue. It has to do more with US corporate tax, which again is one of the highest among west. Even more so than Sweden (26.3% vs 40%), a country Sanders has a hard on for, but only in big government policies, not where you get to cut down on regulation and encourage business. Combine that with other forms of taxes such as pay roll, benefits and insurance, no wonder we have been losing production to 3rd world. But this issue is often oversimplified into 2 things. One being lack of protectionism (lack of punitive tariffs) and the other being cheap labor. Cheap labor is definitely a factor, but if you own a business you know it is not an easy decision to make to shift production to a different country. The environment here makes it a far easy decision. I like free trade, but the rate of exodus has extremely hurt us, because at the global level US has not been able to compete with other countries in encouraging businesses.

I will respond to the rest of your post in the evening after work. But I appreciate the fact that you are attempting to put me in my place by opening things up succinctly instead of being an emotional ideologue that types in generalities to evade real discussion.


You're on.

The first premise I am going to address is how government is this colossal drag on the economy. What you (by you I mean Grover Norquist, or the Cato Institute or whomever it was that put this in your head) have done here is taken a small truth and magnified it to the 100th power. I doubt Halliburton, Lockheed, or General Dynamics would argue that the government impedes their ability to make a profit. But since those organizations and their thousands of employees primarily rely on government contracts, we'll call them outliers in this discussion. So, lets take it to main street, USA where last I checked 80% of all private sector employees are.

I'm willing to bet your position here is that Big Government is simply crushing these entrepreneurs out of business with their high taxes and heavy handed regulation. If only these Americans had the freedom to conduct business as they see fit, they would prosper. And here is the basis for your supply side argument. Government taxing small business profits into oblivion is killing capital investment and costing jobs.

Incorrect.

First, the vast majority of small businesses today are flow-through entities. They are S-Corps, LLC's, and the like. They are structured this way specifically for tax purposes that allow the stakeholders to mitigate the company's tax burden. Profits for the company are distributed via owner withdrawals and dividends and they are taxed as ordinary income on individual tax returns. It is a very sweet setup that is business friendly. How sweet? Guess what happens to revenue that stays within the company for capital investment and R&D? NOTHING. It is not taxed one red cent until that money flows through the company to the shareholders. C-Corporations have a whole other tax structure that we can debate the merits of ad nauseum, but in order for us to have that discussion, you will be conceding to me that we are no longer discussing small businesses. Since we are sticking with the premise of taxes killing small business and jobs lets move on.

Regardless of how the business owners go about PAYING taxes, I am rather certain that you would maintain that because of these colossal taxes, there is little left over for the capitalist to enjoy the fruits of his or her capital investment and in order to have SOMETHING at the end of the day, these business owners need relief in the form of tax cuts.

Incorrect again.

A 5% cut on $100,000 of taxable income results in a mere $5,000 saved per year. Could it be the difference between keeping an employee or even closing up shop? Perhaps. But this only treats a symptom rather than the affliction. Assuming the business owner is doing everything they possibly can to provide the best possible product to meet market demand, simply cutting his tax rate will do little to help him actually enhance his business. If it were me, I would take the extra $5k and stick it into my personal retirement account or savings in order to survive should the business go belly up. And it is obvious that this is precisely what is happening when you look at wealth inequality. What businesses need more of is paying customers. DEMAND is what drives businesses to open in the first place, and they want to meet as much of that demand as humanly possible. Savvy marketing and differentiating in the market can do a lot, but can only take you so far. New car lots go out of business because they can't get enough customers ready and willing to shell out the money for a new set of wheels. They have demand problems.

It is on the basis of this very concept that I constantly bang the table for higher wages. More income means more consumed. You agree with this when we look at the supply side of the table when you argue for lower taxes, but for some reason you have subscribed to the notion that more money in the hands of the consumer only results in less money in the hands of the supplier. It is an absolutely false assertion and you will never be able to convince any free thinking person otherwise. I'll emphasize this with a rhetorical question. What would have happened if the Government spent the $700 Billion in TARP money on cutting a $2,187.50 check to all 350 million American adults? If your answer is "spent it on consumer goods or paying down debt" you are proving my point.

On to the draconian capital gains tax. Ehrmahgerd! Terxers! The little old lady that lives on her social security and dividend checks from her stock in GE and Caterpillar has to pay a whopping 15% on her dividends IF the total of her dividends plus SS income allows her to rake in over $36,900 per year. Below that, her cap gains rate is zero! zip! zilch! Nada! So the investment income argument is moot unless your name is Mitt Romney. Retirees do just fine with their dividend checks.

On to small businesses with investment holdings and capital assets. If a small business holds investments purchased with revenues (such as a stock portfolio) guess what their cap gains tax is? Zip! Zero! Nada! But we already know that since cap gains are not taxed until the gain is realized(sold) If the portfolio results in dividends that become investment income to the company, that money is STILL not subject to taxation until such time as the money is withdrawn by the owners as income. And here is the real kicker....you're gonna love this. Guess what happens to investment income that is then spent within the company for things like payroll, office supplies, utilities, or other current liabilities? NOTHING! it is netted against the expenses the company has for the year and completely lost in the wash if the company ends up with no taxable income (break even). Sale of Capital assets? only the gain experienced on the sale of the asset and if it was a depreciating asset, they have already enjoyed the depreciation expense for the useful life of the asset that reduced their taxable income year after year.

At the end of the day, these things are not even normal operating costs/income for your typical small business enterprise and are largely immaterial to the overall health of the business. So what we are really talking about here are the tax rates for high dollar corporations and wealthy individuals who are holding long term capital assets.

If you would like to argue that these businesses and individuals not only deserve a lower tax rate that the rest of us and in fact need even lower rates I'd be happy to have that discussion with you, but I sincerely doubt you are going to gain much support from folks reading this thread.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 7934
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 452 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby Jonny » Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:43 pm

@MB:

To start off you bring up 3 businesses that conduct business with the government. I have no idea why it has any bearing on the libertarian argument. You don't stop finding a cure for malaria just because hospitals seem to be benefiting from that disease.

First of all, you have not read my previous post properly. You are talking about the tax structure for small businesses. I have been talking about investors and investments that provide capital for small businesses to happen and operate. And how the pool for resources for R&D, aspects of risk taking can be affected by allowing a healthy environment for investment. And it is not only small businesses or startups that benefit from this. Even Fortune 500 Corporations do, albeit their stocks tend to be more long term than short term.

And one piece of my argument that neither you nor AMP have touched so far is inflation from investors leaving overseas. A lion's share of capital in stock markets and banks combined has to be from people like you and me. When you discourage stock market investments by taxation and some of us leave to greener pastures of Switzerland, the share of real capital goes down. When the climate for business takes a hit, the Keynesian Monastery of federal reserve tries to encourage business by increasing money supply (lending to banks and lowering interest rates). But the dollars that have gone overseas are still there, just not in the US. Inflation is often misunderstood as increase in prices, but it actually is increase in money and the consequence is increase in prices of goods consumed by average Joes like you and me that had nothing to do with policymaking or investing. There is a general tendency of taking things like these for granted, that it does not affect us. But it does, progressively.

Coming to your next argument. You say that increasing wages of workers to increase their buying power is more effective at boosting an economy than decreasing taxes on businesses. I have summarized and condensed it for you, so correct me if I am misrepresenting your argument here. I have several problems with that line of thinking. First, you are creating a wrong equivalency between taxes and wages here. A cut on tax rate still means a businessman has to part ways with a portion of his earnings. An increase in wage by policy on the other hand means that I get "paid" more than what I have actually "earned". How can you draw a parallel between the two here? I guess this brings us back to the minimum wage debate where the sources you yourself provided (CBO) said that only a fraction of all hourly paid workers work for a minimum wage and that the effects of wage controls will have a significant impact within that subgroup for least skilled workers. A cut in taxes on the other hand has at worst a net neutral impact if the extra money is not spent wisely. And developing countries have served as a great model for studying impact of how growth investments directly and favorably affects the growth in wages of employees working for firms that are financed by this process. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13880 And this image has a direct correlation. https://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress ... =500&h=507 On the other hand increasing wages by policy has never yielded any increase in GDP, conversely it has seen decline in GDP of industries that mostly pay minimum wages as researched by this author (summarized in pg1) https://www.epionline.org/wp-content/up ... 2-2010.pdf. Now I place the burden on you to support the Keynesian approach.


Also you are undermining the benefits of decreased taxation with your hypothetical $100,000 and $5000 examples. With corporations that translates into millions of dollars. Aside from direct investment into innovation, the surplus profits are not hidden under pillows like some left wingers childishly put it, especially when you consider inflation that cash wont mean much a decade from now. You invest and generate profit instead of letting the cash stagnantly sit under pillows. But a chunk of it makes to foreign banks which is worse than cash under pillows.

The next paragraph you YET AGAIN make the same mistake of arguing for taxation (or lack thereof) of businesses benefiting from investments. Not from the perspective of investors that derive capital gains by buying and selling. And I was arguing for big investors, not the grandma that invested peanuts in GE. And thank Zeus the old lady is not being taxed on her capital gains, thanks for not penalizing her choice to take a risk and invest instead of let that money sit in a bank.
Last edited by Jonny on Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:07 pm

So we aren't talking about small business then?

Sweet.

C-Corporations should be taxed on all income from all sources including internationally if they are listed on a US based stock or commodities exchange unless 100% of net income is distributed to common stock.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 7934
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 452 times

Re: Bernie Sanders

Postby The Outsider » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:51 am

Jonny wrote:@MB:

To start off you bring up 3 businesses that conduct business with the government. I have no idea why it has any bearing on the libertarian argument. You don't stop finding a cure for malaria just because hospitals seem to be benefiting from that disease.

First of all, you have not read my previous post properly. You are talking about the tax structure for small businesses. I have been talking about investors and investments that provide capital for small businesses to happen and operate. And how the pool for resources for R&D, aspects of risk taking can be affected by allowing a healthy environment for investment. And it is not only small businesses or startups that benefit from this. Even Fortune 500 Corporations do, albeit their stocks tend to be more long term than short term.

And one piece of my argument that neither you nor AMP have touched so far is inflation from investors leaving overseas. A lion's share of capital in stock markets and banks combined has to be from people like you and me. When you discourage stock market investments by taxation and some of us leave to greener pastures of Switzerland, the share of real capital goes down. When the climate for business takes a hit, the Keynesian Monastery of federal reserve tries to encourage business by increasing money supply (lending to banks and lowering interest rates). But the dollars that have gone overseas are still there, just not in the US. Inflation is often misunderstood as increase in prices, but it actually is increase in money and the consequence is increase in prices of goods consumed by average Joes like you and me that had nothing to do with policymaking or investing. There is a general tendency of taking things like these for granted, that it does not affect us. But it does, progressively.

Coming to your next argument. You say that increasing wages of workers to increase their buying power is more effective at boosting an economy than decreasing taxes on businesses. I have summarized and condensed it for you, so correct me if I am misrepresenting your argument here. I have several problems with that line of thinking. First, you are creating a wrong equivalency between taxes and wages here. A cut on tax rate still means a businessman has to part ways with a portion of his earnings. An increase in wage by policy on the other hand means that I get "paid" more than what I have actually "earned". How can you draw a parallel between the two here? I guess this brings us back to the minimum wage debate where the sources you yourself provided (CBO) said that only a fraction of all hourly paid workers work for a minimum wage and that the effects of wage controls will have a significant impact within that subgroup for least skilled workers. A cut in taxes on the other hand has at worst a net neutral impact if the extra money is not spent wisely. And developing countries have served as a great model for studying impact of how growth investments directly and favorably affects the growth in wages of employees working for firms that are financed by this process. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13880 And this image has a direct correlation. https://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress ... =500&h=507 On the other hand increasing wages by policy has never yielded any increase in GDP, conversely it has seen decline in GDP of industries that mostly pay minimum wages as researched by this author (summarized in pg1) https://www.epionline.org/wp-content/up ... 2-2010.pdf. Now I place the burden on you to support the Keynesian approach.


Also you are undermining the benefits of decreased taxation with your hypothetical $100,000 and $5000 examples. With corporations that translates into millions of dollars. Aside from direct investment into innovation, the surplus profits are not hidden under pillows like some left wingers childishly put it, especially when you consider inflation that cash wont mean much a decade from now. You invest and generate profit instead of letting the cash stagnantly sit under pillows. But a chunk of it makes to foreign banks which is worse than cash under pillows.

The next paragraph you YET AGAIN make the same mistake of arguing for taxation (or lack thereof) of businesses benefiting from investments. Not from the perspective of investors that derive capital gains by buying and selling. And I was arguing for big investors, not the grandma that invested peanuts in GE. And thank Zeus the old lady is not being taxed on her capital gains, thanks for not penalizing her choice to take a risk and invest instead of let that money sit in a bank.
\

Top ****ing kek.

tl;dr: Reaganomics.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Next

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brazen331, Ken Carson, Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests