shillary clinton
Getting assrammed by a geriatric museum piece
Bernie gets the nomination and you're just turning power over to the re House.
Bernie will probably be out in mid-March.
The next president of the United States.
donaLd is only like 3 years younger than him lmao, fat boy just has hair plugs and a horrible tan
Bernie atleast making Clinton spend some money
I am talking about the FEE which you linked, counselor crayola.
They were founded to support laissez fair principles. They have been described as anarcho-capitalist since 1946 and the founder literally was a follower of Austrian economics.
This account has about as much critical thinking as the Darrin account regarding sources and about as much a en in your claimed profession.
Guess the answer to the question is a no.
Youre using the true scotsman argument. I ignore stupid questions. As I said, your supposed professional a en is apparent, counselor crayola.
Your source is just as bad as nakedcapitalism and the other stuff boutox posts. Good job.
Dismissing articles because of their source is really stupid. Even a broke clock is right twice a day.
And even if you disagree with it, that article is 100X more analytical than anything botox spams.
Besides, credibility is in the eye of the beholder. I mean do you consider the New York times opinion pages credible? Lol.
Sorry but vetting sources is not stupid. Editorials are not subject to the press verification services so no I don't find them credible as they go to the highest bidder. The journalism portion of the NYT I do find credible. There is a clear and obvious distinction and objective standard.
You guys aren't even making points of fact but instead declaring emotional responses. It's asinine.
the article opens up comparing Sanders to a bank robber.
The entire article's thesis is based around an uncertainty.
The 1200 lbs elephant in the room is expanding medicare. All the other is small potatoes and on Sanders site he even says there will be a household based tax increase of 2.2%His proposed capital gains taxes are so high that they are likely well past the point of positive returns. The US corporate tax rate of 40 percent is already the highest in the world, and even Sanders hasn’t proposed increasing it.
The only way to solve his revenue problem is to raise rates on the middle and upper-middle classes, or flatten the structure to make the top rates start kicking in much lower.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how...his-proposals/Paid for by a 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers, a 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households, progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work, limiting tax deductions for the rich, adjusting the estate tax, and savings from health tax expenditures.
So the tradeoff is that you pay a consistent 2.2% of your annual income and in exchange you no longer have to pay the spiraling insurance industries rates. Looks like FEE didn't bother to look at Sanders site when continuing their echo chambers.
Continue on with your fear mongering.
Words missing in this post include: Bernie, Sanders, Income, Tax, Rate, Middle, and Class.
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/1081479...ders-tax-ratesA 2.2 percent "income-based premium" paid by all Americans on their taxable income, including capital gains. This is meant to replace the premiums employees already pay for private health insurance today.
A 6.2 percent income-based premium paid by employers on wage income. This is basically a payroll tax, and most economists agree that the cost of "employer-paid" payroll taxes are passed on entirely to workers in the form of lower wages in the long run. For that reason, I'm treating all payroll taxes as paid by employees, regardless of their ostensible target.
New 37 percent, 43 percent, 48 percent, and 52 percent income tax brackets.
Vox is well known for its conservative fear mongering ...
Vox is owned by Comcast
2.2% - so the think the employer will just eat his/her 6.2% of that?
And it's not Medicare; Bernie's plan is "better" than Medicare. NO out of pocket, ever, for anyone. No Copays, deductibles, coinsurance for anything! This will (if any laws of supply/demand/cost etc. actually exist in Bernie's world drive UP utilization and cost. Free will get used more, after all. So we are going to put an 8.4% payroll tax on every working man woman and child to pay for (according to Ezra Klein) about 45% of the population's healthcare (that's the number who currently get their healthcare from their employers). I assume Medicare will get rolled into this after all, since it does include inconveniences like deductibles and copays; I can't imagine Bernie making retirees pay more than everyone else. So, a minimum wage employee, who currently gets coverage through an exchange at no cost to them; now has an 8.4% hickey, and no choice in the matter. Meanwhile, old people, with nothing but time on their hands, can make, and attend even more doctor's appointments than they already do.
Bernie's obviously go this all sorted out
NM
"no copays ... Free will get used more"
serious countries with national, universal health care "for the people" have copays, even small ones, to discourage abuse. But Americans ALWAYS knows best because, it claims, it IS the best.
I didn't write the plan; Bernie did.
My main criticism of that article is trying to pass the "Laffer curve" as some sort of empirical evidence. As a matter of fact, there's all sorts of studies that point out that the peak of that curve moves all the times, based on a plethora of factors. It can go as low as 30% to as high as 70%... drawing any kind of conclusions from that is garbage, tbh...
a basic idea of govt health insurance is that the $1000s/year that employers skim from employees to hose directly to insurers will be stopped and replaced by the employer sending LESS money to the non-profit Federal insurance, just like other payroll deductions.
Ideally (won't happen), the per-employee diff, the savings between for-profit group cost and the govt insurance cost would be paid as salary to the employee.
DSW/DNC again caught rigging for Hillary
Bernie Sanders Campaign Criticizes State Party for Failing to Collect Votes
Campaign aides for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said Monday night that the Democratic Party did not collect the results of 90 Iowa precincts, which is about 5 percent of all votes cast in the state, because the party had failed to properly staff the precincts.
Rania Batrice, a spokeswoman for the campaign based in Iowa, said that the party reached out to the campaigns of Mr. Sanders and Hillary Clinton and asked them to help tally the results. “It’s just offensive that they dropped the ball like this,” she said. “It’s ridiculous.”
Monday night it was unclear how the issue would be resolved.
Ms. Batrice said the party was supposed to properly staff all precincts with caucus chairs but that some of those people responsible for calculating the results did not shown up.
The Democratic Party pushed back against reports that the caucus sites were not staffed appropriately.
“We are currently getting results from our small number of outstanding precincts, and results continue to be reported on our public website,” the party said in statement.
“These outstanding precincts have chairs who we are in the process of contacting to get their results. It is inaccurate to report that these precincts did not have chairs.”
The party said that it was seeking help from the campaigns in contacting their precinct chairs.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...collect-votes/
Hillary/DNC won by 0.3% (so far, stay tuned for final tally)
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-02-2016 at 10:45 AM.
I didn't get the sense that the author was relying on the laffer curve in any serious way. Nor do I think it necessary to make his point that the tax burden for "mah free " will be pushed onto the middle class.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
