Zero chance. And Bernie pays for all his proposals, btw. Fighting for them wih congress is one thing, but calling it misrepresented just because of the wealthy special interests blocking it thru their paid off politicians when clearly that is what Bernie keeps saying the whole problem is, means you are actually the one misrepresenting Bernie and the reality of this country. Donald Trump and Bernie are not even comparable in that regard. I mean, ones talking about taxing the rich pre 60s levels and another one is talking about making Mexico build an 8 billion dollar wall for free. Lol Trump.
I think the GOP's view on immigration is going to be enough for a decent latino vote turnout that votes overwhelmingly Democrat. With blacks, they don't show up to the polls unless they have a reason to (the reason usually has to be superficial since blacks generally don't pay attention to actual policy but rather like "muh homie Bill Clinton likes dem thick white girls!") and so far they don't have one.
I guess so.
Of course nearly 4 decades in and no track record of getting anything done. Maybe he's learned statecraft, but the record suggests otherwise. Trump's just Trump.
Did you even bother to look at all of the links I posted from liberal sources questioning his math?
I don't understand why some think that rich people are just gonna take being taxed at such high levels. This is not the 60s. We live in the age of the internet, Concords, etc. Rich people can live anywhere and still be connected. Do we not see all these companies leaving the US in order to pay less taxes? Monte Carlo and other countries will be welcoming the rich with open arms, and the middle class will be the one (again) stuck with paying for what Bernie wants. IMO, the solution is less taxes to bring back the companies and the money parked abroad and as a result - more JOBS.
"Do we not see all these companies leaving the US in order to pay less taxes?"
that's not what there doing, but it's normal you're misinformed
Can't move their businesses...and the US is still the largest consumer market in the world...besides, once they declare their allegiance to another country they cannot legally make political donations here in the US....win..win...
Daily Caller is liberal?
Well, if I was being taxed 77% on my income, I think I'd just sell up, give up my citizenship and move elsewhere.
First of all, I doubt it gets anywhere close to 77%....probably closer to the mid 50's on the high end....Bernie would not get everything he wants from either a GOP or Democrat Congress...but at least he has started the conversation in the right direction....call it wealth distribution, call it progressive taxation...money concentrates...and large money concentrates really, really fast...that is what it wrong with our country....too big to fail....
Therein lies the problem - he can't get what he wants - so where does that take us? With single-payor and more and more debt since he can't pay for it. Or no single-payor with more money out of our pockets being wasted and irresponsibly spent by this government.
Single payer could result in a thousand dollars a month to typical middle class families in health care savings....I don't think they will mind a slight tax increase....and single payer does not mean government would run healthcare...just the way the bill is negotiated..With single-payor and more and more debt since he can't pay for it
much of the country is in the mid to upper 50's already.
The upper levels are paying 39.6%, 7.65% ss + medicare, extra 2.35% for Obamacare Medicare tax, and 3.8% extra on Obamacare capital gains - that's 53.4%. That's not even considering property tax, state income tax, sales tax, gasoline tax and the myriad of other hidden taxes - just federal income tax. . What's the point of working if the government is gonna take most of it?
Last edited by rmt; 02-17-2016 at 01:13 AM.
and no deductions?
Your numbers are way off. Look up the effective tax rate, which is what people actually pay.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=456.
My bad - I added the medicare, ss, and obamacare medicare/capital gains tax after and forgot to delete the "just federal income tax". The 39.6% is marginal and ss is capped at $118,500. There's also an extra medicare tax of 0.9% for over $200,000 that I left off. Deductions, exemptions, etc are here:
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/co...-tax-2016.aspx
Sadly enough, Bernie does better than the GOP crowd as far as tax policy. I grew up with the Republican party being the one of "fiscal responsibility".
That went out the window with the Bush tax cuts that added trillions to the national debt for vanishingly small benefit.
Supply side economics has become the GOP dogma, despite the mounds of evidence that it is an abject failure.
Kansas is the best example:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/gover...e54477390.html
http://www.kansasbudget.com/
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repor...rty-of-red-ink
As a social liberal and fiscal conservative with a decent understanding of economics, I just can't really support a party with an abject disconnect from economic reality.
Many on the right like the strawman that democrats don't support or like free markets, but that is a myth that doesn't survive the mildest of scrutiny. The vast majority of Democrats, myself included, believe in free markets. We just want them fairly regulated. don't take my word for it, just ask them.
Sanders might not have the best fleshed out plans, but they do detail his priorities, and many of them are very worthwhile goals.
As a realist, I know they will end up being swampy pits to drain, with reality being far more stubborn than human intent, ala closing Gitmo.
But they are a uva lot more likely to make our lives better than a "wall on the Mexican border".
The big problem I see with the GOP is its utter lack of ideas. It is intellectually bankrupt. "cut taxes" seems to sum up the entirety of their policy idea arsenal, after making sure gay people can't marry (rolls eyes).
The presidency is so completely unlike running a business that the skills don't even come close to carrying over.
Worse, Trumps arrogance and posturing would make him enemies in both parties, and simply create another running feud between the executive and legislative branch, making him by definition ineffectual, even more so than Obama has been.
Running a business as a CEO that can unilaterally implement policies without dealing with a legislative body doesn't make you magically better. Obama for all the hullabaloo about the executive orders tried that, and any informed analysis of those orders was that they were pitifully ineffectual at achieving desired policy goals.
A president needs congress and vice versa.
Trump will not get you jobs, and certainly won't do as well as Obama has done so far for that simple reason.
yeah, both parties play it, one plays it much harder than the other
McCain abandons previous standards on Supreme Court nominees
Not long after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) announcedhis support for the Republican Party’s blockade against any President Obama nominee. The senator’s partisan reaction was swift and unequivocal.
It’s also wholly at odds with everything McCain has said and done throughout his career. TheHuffington Post reported yesterday:
The top Democrat vying to challenge John McCain for his Senate seat this fall is accusing the Arizona Republican of hypocrisy over the effort to replace – or rather not replace – the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. […]
The campaign team for Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.), who’s running to replace McCain, found the senator’s switch so noteworthy that they went looking for those previous occasions when he explained why presidents deserve votes on nominees. And they found them.
Indeed, the Kirkpatrick campaign uncovered some real gems. In one particularly notable example, McCain sat down with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in July 2005, making the case that
if Democrats want to choose Supreme Court nominees, then they should “win the next presidential election,” since “that’s the way the system works.”
For the record, Democrats did, in fact, win the next presidential election.
The senator also noted at the time that he “voted for both Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg, because I believed that President Clinton won the election,” and “elections have consequences.”
McCain added, “The American voter was very well aware of what kind of judge the president of the United States was going to appoint and they decided to re-elect him. Maybe that wasn’t the reason, but they knew that came with the deal.”
Right. And in 2012, Republicans spent a fair amount of time telling Americans that the future of the Supreme Court was on the line. To borrow a phrase, voters were very well aware of what kind of judge President Obama was going to appoint and they decided to re-elect him. Maybe that wasn’t the reason, but they knew that came with the deal.
Perhaps McCain might make the case that 2016 is qualitatively different because it’s a presidential election year, but let’s not forget that McCain was in the Senate in 1988 when he voted along with 96 other senators to confirm Justice Anthony Kennedy.
As for the senator’s explanation, his office issued a written statement blaming the “nuclear option” for destroying “any semblance of cooperation.”
As a substantive matter, this can charitably be described as gibberish.
In case McCain’s forgotten, the Senate Republican minority imposed a blockade in 2013 on any President Obama nominee for the D.C. Circuit, regardless of merit, filibustering literally every jurist considered for the appellate bench. Republicans said at the time that the partisan blockade would continue indefinitely, even on judges who enjoyed majority support in the Senate.
Left with no choice, Democrats restored majority rule using a legislative maneuver that Republicans came up with during the Bush/Cheney era. McCain and his cohorts now believe that change justifies a new tantrum and another blockade. There is simply no way to take such an argument seriously.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Recess appointment, Barry, DO IT!
I am not a believer in Supply Side; nor am I believer, at all, of what Bernie is selling. Generally, although many of the left's goals are admirable, the amount of power and control that must be ceded to the state in order to achieve those is, in my view, too great a price to pay. Liberty should be the most cherished, and protected goal, because once it is lost, it is (almost) never recovered. Equality and Fairness are elusive, if not unattainable, ideals, and people have varying definitions of what those even are. If a person from even 70 years ago could see how good the average, or even far below average American is living today, they would consider whatever we have done a great success. And yet, much of the population is dissatisfied with either their own, or their perception of other people's stations in life.
Raise taxes more, give the Federal government control of 30%, instead of 20% of our economy - and, I guarantee, there will be plenty of people still dissatisfied. There will still be people with more, and people will still feel like they are getting a raw deal. Others who want to stop at that level will be condemned and called all kinds of names. There will always be people who want more progress. I actually asked a friend (assistant dean of Fine Arts at a university here). Liberal, intelligent guy. If Bernie wins, and gets everything he is asking for; would he then be for the status quo? He admitted that, no, at that point, no doubt, there would be something else to push for - another reason to raise taxes on some, or all of the people. Some other wrong to right.
The Bush tax cuts on the wealthy are history. That was the left's battle cry for a decade. They got that, but kept the tax cuts for 99% of the population. But that didn't really make the rich any poorer, did it? They said it would; that it would right a wrong. So they are doubling down; obviously Obama (ne Hillary) was not enough. We must take more from them, until we are all equal, until everything is fair.
It won't work.
By the way, you say Democrats are still free market types? Not all of them. Millenials (many don't know what they are saying), are, to a large degree, not supporters of free markets - and certainly not "capitalism".
We need more parties. I don't like either of the choices, and it's frustrating that to fight Democrats that I must be vote Republican.
70 years ago the country was just coming out of WWII and hadn't had that high a standard of living, well ever. What if you asked 35 years ago when this country was producing things, when there was a strong middle class, when people weren't under tons of debt?
Seems like there was an episode of House of Cards where Frank did something similar
You mean since we ins uted the massive, expansive "War on Poverty"? Don't mean to be too sarcastic, BB, but that kind of makes my point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
