Sorry about the weird quote stuff. Bernie is not my favourite of the Democratic field, but not my least favourite, either. And that is in part that I'm not sure he has the ability to develop detailed policies that will minimise unintended effects, or to listen to the policy wonks who can. (as an aside, my main problem with Warren is that she talks like she has it all figured out but really should be saying that she has sound plans for a starting point of the legislative process)
It seems really weird to me that many Americans would rather have a health care system where they continue to pay more and more for less and less coverage while allowing the insurance companies to screw then by denying benefits. It seems to me that one of the things ACA tried to do was to simplify the system so you could get adequate coverage without having to either have a ton of money, a really good job with a good company, or some kind of amazing savvy to wade through the system. But what do I know? I have decent basic health care that is provided to all, and top it up with supplemental insurance that is partially covered by a tax break.
I admire you wanting to live a simple lifestyle. That was one of my goals when I down-sized to my current house (not that my partner always agrees). I haven't paid an electric bill in about 8 years since I installed solar. I do pay for natural gas. House is frickin cold in winter. I do try to minimise my carbon footprint, while living a lifestyle I want. My 20,000 L rainwater tank will probably never pay for itself but I want to do my bit to help the farmers and the environment. I'd grow more of my own food but I'm a crap gardener.
But strangely enough, it sounds like you are more willing than I to criticize Saunders, AOC, et al. for their lifestyle choices than I am. I want to change things so everyone is doing more to lower GHG emissions. That doesn't mean everyone does the same things and I am not naive enough to think that the end result will be entirely equitable, but there are huge advantages of scale in working together.
Were this only possible, but sadly I don't think it is. This is part of the reason I am starting to step back and realize that I don't think there is a political solution. We have reached the point of diminishing returns in respect to what can be achieved through political means ie law, legislation and government mandate. There are already laws for every conceivable injustice you can come up with and our population is just too large with too many individuals who will game whatever system you want to throw at them from the dirt poor to the billionaires and the politically active are operating at two opposite poles that are just drifting further and further apart. I view my political opinions as just that opinions, but no longer seek out guidance and hope from any candidate or party (though philosophically I do agree with Libertarians the most obviously) and am increasingly drawing inward in controlling my self and my actions to be the best person I can be and acting in such a way that will only improve all that I come in contact with irl. I use this forum as an outlet to get out my frustrations with the hypocrisy of all governments and institutions and really that is all. I do not expect to change minds or achieve anything political through my rants, I just need to get them out in an environment that is mature enough not to lose minds and possibly friends. I think you would be shocked were we to meet in real life, the difference in experience to how I communicate in this forum. My compassion and kindness is fully focused into real life interactions. Cheers!
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 23, 2020 - 6:11am
haresfur wrote:
sirdroseph wrote:
I did say supposedly so I realize some of it is intentional though it is interesting you only mentioned the Republican party completely absolving the Democrats, hmm. Anyway whether intentional or not they are either lying or just incorrect in their overall results of the policy positions, but they are not telling you that you have to make extreme sacrifices for the overall good which brings me to the second point that other than this point we are actually having two different discussions. My point was if demanding sacrifice, demonizing exceptionalism, wealth and capitalism itself is quite blatantly part of your platform and ideology even to the point of declaring billionaires should not exist, you might not want to be a millionaire with three houses, that is really it in a nutshell. Lie to us and tell us the system is great, we can either believe them or not that is our prerogative, but when your message is greed is good you are not being hypocritical living a lavish lifestyle.
As far as the rest and the merits, I am just going to be basic because that is all my cold heart and small brain is capable of:
Regular Income
Tax Rate (now, single filers)
Bernie Sanders Tax Rate (future, single filers)
Bernie Sanders Tax Rate (Plus Avg. State Tax and other taxes)
$0 to $9,275
10%
12.20%
18.60%
$9,275 to $37,650
15%
17.20%
23.60%
What we will do â what we will do is have a four percent tax on income exempting the first $29,000," he told a cheering crowd. "All right, good. You â youâre better at arithmetic than I am. Because what that means is if you are that average family in the middle who makes $60,000 a year, that means weâre going to tax you on $31,000 at four percent.â
There are a few problems with this proposal:
Is the $29,000 exemption for couples then? What is the exemption, if any, for singles? Is it safe to assume that exemption would be $14,500 (half of what he proposed for families)?
Bernie has said this would be a tax increase, so everyone would pay four percent on everything they make over the threshold he established, although that isn't even very clear. Even with that exemption, that raises taxes on the poor and middle class, the very people Sanders has said he aims to protect.
Not only that but this proposal runs counter intuitive to his $15/hour minimum wage proposal. If he wanted everyone to make, at a minimum, $15/hour or $31,200 a year, even the so-called "working poor" would have their taxes increased.
A single person making $31,200 with an exemption of $14,500 would still have to pay four percent more on $16,700, which is almost $700 a year. That's a lot of money, especially for someone making minimum wage.
At least he is being honest, he is telling low to middle income people that they are going to have to make sacrifices too for the "privilege" of shitty health care for those who did not have it before and shitty healthcare to replace the good albeit expensive health care they currently have if they need. My only point is that if you are a champion for the destitute and unemployed which is really the target market here to lift up, it will require great sacrifice from those that currently work and pay taxes. Optics matter much more when you are a warrior for the forgotten destitute. Dirt floors is obvious slight hyperbole and proverbial, but cmon Bernie you can at least walk the walk. I live an extremely frugal and somewhat more independent than your average bear lifestyle, grow my own food, do not have central heating and air, do not produce hardly any waste through composting and feeding excess to the animals, drive only when essential to my job that is nearby, my wife is stay at home and NEVER (not kidding) leaves the house, we do not have a fancy home, cars, nice furniture or anything new at all, we wear the same clothes for years and generally look like shit, but we are happy. We do not live beyond our means or produce a large carbon footprint. In other words, we walk the walk. All I am saying is that of course all potential leaders should as well, but there is an extra smather of hypocrisy and insolence when your main emphasis is sacrifice for the greater good and rich people are bad as you enjoy the lifestyle of a millionaire with 3 homes. That is really all that I am saying.
As for the specifics as to whether this policy will help the economy overall and be ultimately better than present system, I am not a wonk perhaps Lazy or Miami will eviscerate your points, but that is not where my mind is at with this discussion.
Sorry about the weird quote stuff. Bernie is not my favourite of the Democratic field, but not my least favourite, either. And that is in part that I'm not sure he has the ability to develop detailed policies that will minimise unintended effects, or to listen to the policy wonks who can. (as an aside, my main problem with Warren is that she talks like she has it all figured out but really should be saying that she has sound plans for a starting point of the legislative process)
It seems really weird to me that many Americans would rather have a health care system where they continue to pay more and more for less and less coverage while allowing the insurance companies to screw then by denying benefits. It seems to me that one of the things ACA tried to do was to simplify the system so you could get adequate coverage without having to either have a ton of money, a really good job with a good company, or some kind of amazing savvy to wade through the system. But what do I know? I have decent basic health care that is provided to all, and top it up with supplemental insurance that is partially covered by a tax break.
I admire you wanting to live a simple lifestyle. That was one of my goals when I down-sized to my current house (not that my partner always agrees). I haven't paid an electric bill in about 8 years since I installed solar. I do pay for natural gas. House is frickin cold in winter. I do try to minimise my carbon footprint, while living a lifestyle I want. My 20,000 L rainwater tank will probably never pay for itself but I want to do my bit to help the farmers and the environment. I'd grow more of my own food but I'm a crap gardener.
But strangely enough, it sounds like you are more willing than I to criticize Saunders, AOC, et al. for their lifestyle choices than I am. I want to change things so everyone is doing more to lower GHG emissions. That doesn't mean everyone does the same things and I am not naive enough to think that the end result will be entirely equitable, but there are huge advantages of scale in working together.
Americans tend to view most things as winners vs. losers. When viewed through this prism, the opposition to nationalized health care becomes somewhat more understandable â even if irrational. Those most ardently opposed speak in terms of what they fear they may lose. They are ok with an inequitable system if they perceive themselves as being among the âwinnersâ in that system.
Add to that the fear of socialism. Dominos falling. If they get nationalized medicine, we will become Venezuela. Again, irrational.
tRump is a self-centered lying crook, anyone else would be an improvement. And maybe after being removed from office he’ll be convicted and no longer spewing hate on Fux news.
So essentially a 78-year old with certain egalitarian political viewpoints and a long record of public service (I assume well-paid and with benefits) should not be able to (or want to?) acquire a net worth of something like ~2.3M$, over a lifetime, in the U.S? Presumably he has a house in VT (home state), and one in DC (work). And a summerhouse.
He (and his wife, kids?) should give it all away and go live in a card box. Or a shed. And grow veggies. For The People.
Also, due to inflation, "millionaires" ain't what they used to be (elite)...
I did say supposedly so I realize some of it is intentional though it is interesting you only mentioned the Republican party completely absolving the Democrats, hmm. Anyway whether intentional or not they are either lying or just incorrect in their overall results of the policy positions, but they are not telling you that you have to make extreme sacrifices for the overall good which brings me to the second point that other than this point we are actually having two different discussions. My point was if demanding sacrifice, demonizing exceptionalism, wealth and capitalism itself is quite blatantly part of your platform and ideology even to the point of declaring billionaires should not exist, you might not want to be a millionaire with three houses, that is really it in a nutshell. Lie to us and tell us the system is great, we can either believe them or not that is our prerogative, but when your message is greed is good you are not being hypocritical living a lavish lifestyle.
As far as the rest and the merits, I am just going to be basic because that is all my cold heart and small brain is capable of:
Regular Income
Tax Rate (now, single filers)
Bernie Sanders Tax Rate (future, single filers)
Bernie Sanders Tax Rate (Plus Avg. State Tax and other taxes)
$0 to $9,275
10%
12.20%
18.60%
$9,275 to $37,650
15%
17.20%
23.60%
What we will do â what we will do is have a four percent tax on income exempting the first $29,000," he told a cheering crowd. "All right, good. You â youâre better at arithmetic than I am. Because what that means is if you are that average family in the middle who makes $60,000 a year, that means weâre going to tax you on $31,000 at four percent.â
There are a few problems with this proposal:
Is the $29,000 exemption for couples then? What is the exemption, if any, for singles? Is it safe to assume that exemption would be $14,500 (half of what he proposed for families)?
Bernie has said this would be a tax increase, so everyone would pay four percent on everything they make over the threshold he established, although that isn't even very clear. Even with that exemption, that raises taxes on the poor and middle class, the very people Sanders has said he aims to protect.
Not only that but this proposal runs counter intuitive to his $15/hour minimum wage proposal. If he wanted everyone to make, at a minimum, $15/hour or $31,200 a year, even the so-called "working poor" would have their taxes increased.
A single person making $31,200 with an exemption of $14,500 would still have to pay four percent more on $16,700, which is almost $700 a year. That's a lot of money, especially for someone making minimum wage.
At least he is being honest, he is telling low to middle income people that they are going to have to make sacrifices too for the "privilege" of shitty health care for those who did not have it before and shitty healthcare to replace the good albeit expensive health care they currently have if they need. My only point is that if you are a champion for the destitute and unemployed which is really the target market here to lift up, it will require great sacrifice from those that currently work and pay taxes. Optics matter much more when you are a warrior for the forgotten destitute. Dirt floors is obvious slight hyperbole and proverbial, but cmon Bernie you can at least walk the walk. I live an extremely frugal and somewhat more independent than your average bear lifestyle, grow my own food, do not have central heating and air, do not produce hardly any waste through composting and feeding excess to the animals, drive only when essential to my job that is nearby, my wife is stay at home and NEVER (not kidding) leaves the house, we do not have a fancy home, cars, nice furniture or anything new at all, we wear the same clothes for years and generally look like shit, but we are happy. We do not live beyond our means or produce a large carbon footprint. In other words, we walk the walk. All I am saying is that of course all potential leaders should as well, but there is an extra smather of hypocrisy and insolence when your main emphasis is sacrifice for the greater good and rich people are bad as you enjoy the lifestyle of a millionaire with 3 homes. That is really all that I am saying.
As for the specifics as to whether this policy will help the economy overall and be ultimately better than present system, I am not a wonk perhaps Lazy or Miami will eviscerate your points, but that is not where my mind is at with this discussion.
Sorry about the weird quote stuff. Bernie is not my favourite of the Democratic field, but not my least favourite, either. And that is in part that I'm not sure he has the ability to develop detailed policies that will minimise unintended effects, or to listen to the policy wonks who can. (as an aside, my main problem with Warren is that she talks like she has it all figured out but really should be saying that she has sound plans for a starting point of the legislative process)
It seems really weird to me that many Americans would rather have a health care system where they continue to pay more and more for less and less coverage while allowing the insurance companies to screw then by denying benefits. It seems to me that one of the things ACA tried to do was to simplify the system so you could get adequate coverage without having to either have a ton of money, a really good job with a good company, or some kind of amazing savvy to wade through the system. But what do I know? I have decent basic health care that is provided to all, and top it up with supplemental insurance that is partially covered by a tax break.
I admire you wanting to live a simple lifestyle. That was one of my goals when I down-sized to my current house (not that my partner always agrees). I haven't paid an electric bill in about 8 years since I installed solar. I do pay for natural gas. House is frickin cold in winter. I do try to minimise my carbon footprint, while living a lifestyle I want. My 20,000 L rainwater tank will probably never pay for itself but I want to do my bit to help the farmers and the environment. I'd grow more of my own food but I'm a crap gardener.
But strangely enough, it sounds like you are more willing than I to criticize Saunders, AOC, et al. for their lifestyle choices than I am. I want to change things so everyone is doing more to lower GHG emissions. That doesn't mean everyone does the same things and I am not naive enough to think that the end result will be entirely equitable, but there are huge advantages of scale in working together.
âItâs Armageddon time for the Democratic Party,â Nader said. âIf Bernie wins the election against Trump, should he get the nomination, it has to be a massive surge of voter turnout which will sweep out a lot of the Republicans in the Congress. So he will have a much more receptive Congress. It will sweep out the corporate Democrats in the Democratic National Committee, and it will reorient the Democratic Party to where it should be which is a party of, by, and for the people. Thatâs why they want to fight him.â
Listening to Bernie's acceptance speech for Nevada in San Antonio, it's no wonder Putin and Trump want him to be the nominee. Free healthcare, canceling student debt, $15/hr minimum wage, tuition-free college, green new deal, $60k/year minimum teacher salary, infrastructure expansion, criminal justice reform, legal marijuana, open borders, legalized abortion and planned parenthood, gun safety (in Texas...bold move), assault weapons ban and a bunch of other stuff.
A tax on Wall Street and reduced pharmaceutical prices will apparently pay for everything.
There is no doubt that Trump is going to destroy the country if he gets 4 for years....but I just can't imagine Bernie beats him with all of these promises and positions.
Listening to Bernie's acceptance speech for Nevada in San Antonio, it's no wonder Putin and Trump want him to be the nominee. Free healthcare, canceling student debt, $15/hr minimum wage, tuition-free college, green new deal, $60k/year minimum teacher salary, infrastructure expansion, criminal justice reform, legal marijuana, open borders, legalized abortion and planned parenthood, gun safety (in Texas...bold move), assault weapons ban and a bunch of other stuff.
A tax on Wall Street and reduced pharmaceutical prices will apparently pay for everything.
There is no doubt that Trump is going to destroy the country if he gets 4 for years....but I just can't imagine Bernie beats him with all of these promises and positions.
Clint Eastwood says to vote for Bloomberg and James Woods says to vote for Trump now you throw Van Dyke into the mix and I just don't know what to do. Should I let Alec Baldwin or Kid Rock break the tie?
But which celebs will endorse "The Party of Principle™?"
Frankly I couldn't care less who any celebrity endorses which is kind of the point.
Clint Eastwood says to vote for Bloomberg and James Woods says to vote for Trump now you throw Van Dyke into the mix and I just don't know what to do. Should I let Alec Baldwin or Kid Rock break the tie?
But which celeb(s) will endorse "The Party of Principle�"
Clint Eastwood says to vote for Bloomberg and James Woods says to vote for Trump now you throw Van Dyke into the mix and I just don't know what to do. Should I let Alec Baldwin or Kid Rock break the tie?
All well and good but I'm waiting for Miley Cyrus, Charlie Sheen, and the Kardashians to weigh in.
And what if the Kardashians are a tie? Brokered convention, flip a coin, pie?
Clint Eastwood says to vote for Bloomberg and James Woods says to vote for Trump now you throw Van Dyke into the mix and I just don't know what to do. Should I let Alec Baldwin or Kid Rock break the tie?
please be advised one of the wealthiest if not the wealthiest person on the planet operates a marxian/marxist control system
Russia is no longer considered a Communist/Marxist state - since about 1991. Putin's control system has nothing to do with Karl Marx; it's pretty much his own take on authoritarianism.
If I am not mistaken you are conflating two things here: power in the hands of an elite and socialist-type distribution economics. The one does not necessitate the other. There are authoritarian power-hungry regimes on both sides of the spectrum. Both suck. Likewise, distribution of wealth can occur under communist dictatorships (and national socialist ones for that matter) but also under consensual systems. There is no causal link between the two. You don't have to fall prey to demagoguery to have a government that fosters a redistribution of wealth, which seems to be your implied point. Correct me if I am wrong.
And if I am correct, what is it about the idea that enlightened, educated people might willingly choose a society where basic rights and freedoms are allowed by a modest redistribution of wealth that frightens you? This is not coercion or obscurantism or the march of the wooden soldiers.. just plain common sense.
Paying wages is a modest redistribution of wealth, right? Capitalism is all about return on monetary investment - if you don't have capital, why would you expect to make money? #snark
Itâs been cute watching Trump supporters try to hate Sanders. You can tell they want to, but their heartâs not in it, probably because they know he pisses off a lot of the same people they hate. So they just mumble some easily refuted gibberish involving Sanders being a commie. Itâs like the exact opposite of a guy trying to get an erection for a woman he thinks he should be attracted to, but just canât get into it.
Trump supporters are completely unequipped for a Sanders vs Trump election. All their anti-Bernie stuff right now is hammers and sickles and gulags and cartoonish red baiting schtick. Theyâd get hardcore out-memed by Berners in the general; they really have no idea what theyâre looking at, and, more importantly, theyâre completely humorless about it. Who wins a meme war? The energized revolutionaries joking and having fun, or the stuffy finger-waggers regurgitating 1950s HUAC talking points?
Lol, you do not like to admit you are wrong, do you? If it comes down to Sanders period. Don't care who the VP is. Just read every word I said and admit your wrong or not, I really don't care. lol
And I don't see how it makes any difference (with or without AOC) then. If Sanders is nominated, you'll vote Trump. Obviously. Because anti-socialism.
Finally NOW you get it! lol And like I said I admire Sanders for his consistency and true ideals which is more than I can say for most of the other candidates including Trump, just don't agree with him. I actually admire your consistency as well, we just don't agree on a lot of stuff is all.
Lol, you do not like to admit you are wrong, do you? If it comes down to Sanders period. Don't care who the VP is. Just read every word I said and admit your wrong or not, I really don't care. lol
And I don't see how it makes any difference (with or without AOC) then. If Sanders is nominated, you'll vote Trump. Obviously. Because anti-socialism.
If I am not mistaken you are conflating two things here: power in the hands of an elite and socialist-type distribution economics. The one does not necessitate the other. There are authoritarian power-hungry regimes on both sides of the spectrum. Both suck. Likewise, distribution of wealth can occur under communist dictatorships (and national socialist ones for that matter) but also under consensual systems. There is no causal link between the two. You don't have to fall prey to demagoguery to have a government that fosters a redistribution of wealth, which seems to be your implied point. Correct me if I am wrong.
And if I am correct, what is it about the idea that enlightened, educated people might willingly choose a society where basic rights and freedoms are allowed by a modest redistribution of wealth that frightens you? This is not coercion or obscurantism or the march of the wooden soldiers.. just plain common sense.
