cornographic Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Net Net guys - are you ready for the good ole USA to become a socialistic nation? As Reagan use to say, the Gov't that can give it all can take it all away. If you think we are dumping enormous debt on our children and grandkids now - just wait until Bernie does his thing. That is the totally irresponsible. As much as I like his honesty, I dislike the possible path he'd take this country on. He has to pay for that $19 Trillion in spending somehow. Yeah socialism sucks--just ask the Pentagon. The troops, everybody loves themselves some troops--the socialistically paid troops. Or the police force, or the fire dpt, or the public schools, or public utilities, or the post office, or the grandma getting her SS check so she doesn't have to eat cat food. Just ask Goldman Sachs'/Chase Bank, Wells Fargo, et al, bailed out asses how they feel about socialism, or GM, or Boeing whois heavily subsidized and sells their planes to the gov't whenever nobody else is buying. All insurance is a form of socialism. How about your pro sports unions, yeah, socialistic. Ask Israel how they feel about Mur'can socialism to the tune of~3 billion per year. Roads, how could I forget the roads? Shall I go on? Bernie is simply going after the filthy rich to getting back to paying something resembling their fair share in the society, but not even near as much as that commie socialist Republican Eisenhower did back in the day when he had them at a marginal tax rate of ~90%. Lifting the $250k cap on income for SS payroll tax, the Tobin tax for Wall St speculation, not exactly rad ideas. The rich have had their way for the last several decades, Bernie just wants to restore some semblance of socioeconomic balance/sanity. He's not going to be able to raise taxes on only the wealthy. Everyone's taxes will be raised on some level. I understand the wealthy will get hit pretty good based on his plans, but I'm not betting on my taxes raising single digits. His ideas just seem too far fetched for me to buy into the hype. http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates I just seen this article this morning as well just generally talking about the elections. I agree, it's a mess.... https://www.yahoo.com/politics/so-much-for-the-political-1352516777156662.html First of all, my above reply was a response to those who somehow don't realize that there are plenty of socialistic practices that pervade American society already, corporate and military/Pentagon social welfare being the major ones. Secondly, I'm not sure I trust the Vox chart's numbers--especially the alleged payroll tax increases he states which don't appear to be an accurate representation of Bernie's plans. But even so, if the Vox guy is correct with the income tax, it's only ~2% increase on anyone making up to ~250K/year. The slight income tax increases are to cover the single payer health plan and paid leave program only, from what I understand. The idea is, that you would have a slight income tax increase but would not have a private insurance policy and that expense, so on the balance, you would be saving greatly for health care. The only tax I don't agree with--for any citizen--is the carbon tax, which I think is a total scam, though it appears that Bernie would only be applying that to the fossil fuel producing industries(not sure on that one). Anyway, better to look at Bernie's site for his plans: https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ He was using the 6.6% payroll tax figure that was rolled out in Bernie's 2013 proposal for payroll tax increases. Before Bernie finally dropped his most recent plan for single-payer, that was all people had to go on to guess at the financing. Above $250k, the rates start to jump so rapidly because he's figuring in the marginal tax rate changes like removing the cap on SS at $250k. I'm certainly no defender of the rich. I like what Bernie is doing by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I like the concept. But some of it just seems economically unsound. Like they mentioned in the Vox article that Bernie's raises on capital gains taxes could actually decrease revenue due to the lowered volume of transactions. David Kamin, a professor of tax law at NYU and a former economic adviser to President Obama, notes in a recent paper, "The Joint Committee on Taxation and Treasury both assume that the revenue-maximizing rate for capital gains revenue ranges from 28 to 32 percent." That's much, much lower than the 64.2 percent top rate Sanders would enact, and much lower than the 49.2 percent rate he'd impose on many who are currently in the top 23.8 percent bracket. Let alone the fact that personally, if I were to ever find myself making north of $250k... it would really piss me off to have my profits slashed by that much. It seems to me that by curtailing $250k+ profits by 62% and up, you're making it very difficult to amass profit past that point. I worry about the effect that this may have on entrepreneurship and retaining American businesses as opposed to them outsourcing. I like Bernie's principles, but I find some of his policies politically untenable, and it makes it hard for me to want to vote for him. No one's obligated to vote for Bernie, even though, in their heart of hearts they may FEEL THE BERN! Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 28, 2016 Author Share Posted January 28, 2016 Net Net guys - are you ready for the good ole USA to become a socialistic nation? As Reagan use to say, the Gov't that can give it all can take it all away. If you think we are dumping enormous debt on our children and grandkids now - just wait until Bernie does his thing. That is the totally irresponsible. As much as I like his honesty, I dislike the possible path he'd take this country on. He has to pay for that $19 Trillion in spending somehow. Yeah socialism sucks--just ask the Pentagon. The troops, everybody loves themselves some troops--the socialistically paid troops. Or the police force, or the fire dpt, or the public schools, or public utilities, or the post office, or the grandma getting her SS check so she doesn't have to eat cat food. Just ask Goldman Sachs'/Chase Bank, Wells Fargo, et al, bailed out asses how they feel about socialism, or GM, or Boeing whois heavily subsidized and sells their planes to the gov't whenever nobody else is buying. All insurance is a form of socialism. How about your pro sports unions, yeah, socialistic. Ask Israel how they feel about Mur'can socialism to the tune of~3 billion per year. Roads, how could I forget the roads? Shall I go on? Bernie is simply going after the filthy rich to getting back to paying something resembling their fair share in the society, but not even near as much as that commie socialist Republican Eisenhower did back in the day when he had them at a marginal tax rate of ~90%. Lifting the $250k cap on income for SS payroll tax, the Tobin tax for Wall St speculation, not exactly rad ideas. The rich have had their way for the last several decades, Bernie just wants to restore some semblance of socioeconomic balance/sanity. He's not going to be able to raise taxes on only the wealthy. Everyone's taxes will be raised on some level. I understand the wealthy will get hit pretty good based on his plans, but I'm not betting on my taxes raising single digits. His ideas just seem too far fetched for me to buy into the hype. http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates I just seen this article this morning as well just generally talking about the elections. I agree, it's a mess.... https://www.yahoo.com/politics/so-much-for-the-political-1352516777156662.html First of all, my above reply was a response to those who somehow don't realize that there are plenty of socialistic practices that pervade American society already, corporate and military/Pentagon social welfare being the major ones. Secondly, I'm not sure I trust the Vox chart's numbers--especially the alleged payroll tax increases he states which don't appear to be an accurate representation of Bernie's plans. But even so, if the Vox guy is correct with the income tax, it's only ~2% increase on anyone making up to ~250K/year. The slight income tax increases are to cover the single payer health plan and paid leave program only, from what I understand. The idea is, that you would have a slight income tax increase but would not have a private insurance policy and that expense, so on the balance, you would be saving greatly for health care. The only tax I don't agree with--for any citizen--is the carbon tax, which I think is a total scam, though it appears that Bernie would only be applying that to the fossil fuel producing industries(not sure on that one). Anyway, better to look at Bernie's site for his plans: https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ Corn, I'm well aware of the socialistic practices that pervade America already. You even failed to mention one - farms. More specifically corporate farming, ethanol subsidies, dairy subs, etc & etc - too many to name. All of these put together - including the ones you note + what Bernie wants to add - how can it be affordable? There aren't enough 'filthy rich' to pay for it all. Those filthy rich can afford to move away and they are the ones who provide most of us jobs. Small business owners are often also included in the list of filthy rich because they earn over $250k. Yet they provide many of our jobs. I would like to see a reverse trend away from socialism including the corporate welfare you note above. The Piper has to be paid sometime and we keep kicking the can down the road to the kids to deal with. I'd be all for justifiable military industrial complex cut backs in order to provide services to individuals. But protection of the nation is the primary role of the fed govt. Reform is needed, but must be in line wt the real threats we face. Maybe you could explain this stuff to BRB, he's somewhat hard of thinking on these matters. Anyway, yeah, I forgot to mention the farmers here, but I have mentioned them elsewhere. They have a pretty sweet deal of gov't subsidization/socialization. I think the ethanol thing is a completely stupid idea that wastes huge amounts of land and has a diminishing return. So, not a fan of ethanol, IOW. As to the military, people seem to forget the unbelievably massive amount of $ that goes into it's maintainance. They could cut it by even a 1/4 or 1/3 and probably pay for every type of social program imaginable just from that $ alone, no other taxation, etc. Shut down 1/2 of the ~1000 bases we have sitting more or less idle around the globe. Seriously, the military is, by FAR, the largest financial parasite on the American population. But good luck changing that. The medical industry is the 2nd largest parasite on the American population. And, there are certainly a multitude of other wasteful gov't entities that basically don't do anything useful that could be cut, cut the graft, etc etc. So, I'm not all about big gov't, but I think there are certain things in society, The Commons, that are best served in a gov't/socialistic way--like the roads, the fire dpt, etc. Gov't can do important, useful things, and be an appropriate size thereof. W/O trying to reiterate everything about Bernie, I don't feel that his plans but much of an extra burden on non millionaires. The socio/economic scene has been shifted so far to the advantage of the rich, especially since Reagan, that it is time to get back to helping the working and middle classes, and the money is out there. Otherwise, this country is going into third worldization at a fairly rapid clip. Depends on what kind of country you want, I guess. Of course, none of the Republican plans are about reversing this, since they are the representatives of the owning/business/investor class. So, depends on your class interest where you fall, I guess. I recommend checking out Bernie's link I provided above. Thanks Corn, good post. Yes, things have most definitively shifted since Reagan's time. We've become a nation where big govt and big corporations scratch each other's back - wink, wink at illegal immigration - corporations get cheap labor, govt gets its programs and dependent voters. One concern I have about single payer health care is that govt take this load off of the corporation's back and once free of providing health care benefits to employee, you will see other benefits slide off of the table. What is next - the gov't paying for 2,3,4 weeks of vacation? Regarding military spending - I agree. What are we still doing in S Korea (yes I know the obvious answer - to be the deterrent to the North) S Korea has the economy to defend themselves. We should have weaned them from out tits years ago - same is true in Germany and many other locations. I agree wt what I made bold above 100% - to care for the common good is the role of govt. Link to comment
cornographic Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Net Net guys - are you ready for the good ole USA to become a socialistic nation? As Reagan use to say, the Gov't that can give it all can take it all away. If you think we are dumping enormous debt on our children and grandkids now - just wait until Bernie does his thing. That is the totally irresponsible. As much as I like his honesty, I dislike the possible path he'd take this country on. He has to pay for that $19 Trillion in spending somehow. Yeah socialism sucks--just ask the Pentagon. The troops, everybody loves themselves some troops--the socialistically paid troops. Or the police force, or the fire dpt, or the public schools, or public utilities, or the post office, or the grandma getting her SS check so she doesn't have to eat cat food. Just ask Goldman Sachs'/Chase Bank, Wells Fargo, et al, bailed out asses how they feel about socialism, or GM, or Boeing whois heavily subsidized and sells their planes to the gov't whenever nobody else is buying. All insurance is a form of socialism. How about your pro sports unions, yeah, socialistic. Ask Israel how they feel about Mur'can socialism to the tune of~3 billion per year. Roads, how could I forget the roads? Shall I go on? Bernie is simply going after the filthy rich to getting back to paying something resembling their fair share in the society, but not even near as much as that commie socialist Republican Eisenhower did back in the day when he had them at a marginal tax rate of ~90%. Lifting the $250k cap on income for SS payroll tax, the Tobin tax for Wall St speculation, not exactly rad ideas. The rich have had their way for the last several decades, Bernie just wants to restore some semblance of socioeconomic balance/sanity. He's not going to be able to raise taxes on only the wealthy. Everyone's taxes will be raised on some level. I understand the wealthy will get hit pretty good based on his plans, but I'm not betting on my taxes raising single digits. His ideas just seem too far fetched for me to buy into the hype. http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates I just seen this article this morning as well just generally talking about the elections. I agree, it's a mess.... https://www.yahoo.com/politics/so-much-for-the-political-1352516777156662.html First of all, my above reply was a response to those who somehow don't realize that there are plenty of socialistic practices that pervade American society already, corporate and military/Pentagon social welfare being the major ones. Secondly, I'm not sure I trust the Vox chart's numbers--especially the alleged payroll tax increases he states which don't appear to be an accurate representation of Bernie's plans. But even so, if the Vox guy is correct with the income tax, it's only ~2% increase on anyone making up to ~250K/year. The slight income tax increases are to cover the single payer health plan and paid leave program only, from what I understand. The idea is, that you would have a slight income tax increase but would not have a private insurance policy and that expense, so on the balance, you would be saving greatly for health care. The only tax I don't agree with--for any citizen--is the carbon tax, which I think is a total scam, though it appears that Bernie would only be applying that to the fossil fuel producing industries(not sure on that one). Anyway, better to look at Bernie's site for his plans: https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ Corn, I'm well aware of the socialistic practices that pervade America already. You even failed to mention one - farms. More specifically corporate farming, ethanol subsidies, dairy subs, etc & etc - too many to name. All of these put together - including the ones you note + what Bernie wants to add - how can it be affordable? There aren't enough 'filthy rich' to pay for it all. Those filthy rich can afford to move away and they are the ones who provide most of us jobs. Small business owners are often also included in the list of filthy rich because they earn over $250k. Yet they provide many of our jobs. I would like to see a reverse trend away from socialism including the corporate welfare you note above. The Piper has to be paid sometime and we keep kicking the can down the road to the kids to deal with. I'd be all for justifiable military industrial complex cut backs in order to provide services to individuals. But protection of the nation is the primary role of the fed govt. Reform is needed, but must be in line wt the real threats we face. Maybe you could explain this stuff to BRB, he's somewhat hard of thinking on these matters. Anyway, yeah, I forgot to mention the farmers here, but I have mentioned them elsewhere. They have a pretty sweet deal of gov't subsidization/socialization. I think the ethanol thing is a completely stupid idea that wastes huge amounts of land and has a diminishing return. So, not a fan of ethanol, IOW. As to the military, people seem to forget the unbelievably massive amount of $ that goes into it's maintainance. They could cut it by even a 1/4 or 1/3 and probably pay for every type of social program imaginable just from that $ alone, no other taxation, etc. Shut down 1/2 of the ~1000 bases we have sitting more or less idle around the globe. Seriously, the military is, by FAR, the largest financial parasite on the American population. But good luck changing that. The medical industry is the 2nd largest parasite on the American population. And, there are certainly a multitude of other wasteful gov't entities that basically don't do anything useful that could be cut, cut the graft, etc etc. So, I'm not all about big gov't, but I think there are certain things in society, The Commons, that are best served in a gov't/socialistic way--like the roads, the fire dpt, etc. Gov't can do important, useful things, and be an appropriate size thereof. W/O trying to reiterate everything about Bernie, I don't feel that his plans but much of an extra burden on non millionaires. The socio/economic scene has been shifted so far to the advantage of the rich, especially since Reagan, that it is time to get back to helping the working and middle classes, and the money is out there. Otherwise, this country is going into third worldization at a fairly rapid clip. Depends on what kind of country you want, I guess. Of course, none of the Republican plans are about reversing this, since they are the representatives of the owning/business/investor class. So, depends on your class interest where you fall, I guess. I recommend checking out Bernie's link I provided above. Thanks Corn, good post. Yes, things have most definitively shifted since Reagan's time. We've become a nation where big govt and big corporations scratch each other's back - wink, wink at illegal immigration - corporations get cheap labor, govt gets its programs and dependent voters. One concern I have about single payer health care is that govt take this load off of the corporation's back and once free of providing health care benefits to employee, you will see other benefits slide off of the table. What is next - the gov't paying for 2,3,4 weeks of vacation? Regarding military spending - I agree. What are we still doing in S Korea (yes I know the obvious answer - to be the deterrent to the North) S Korea has the economy to defend themselves. We should have weaned them from out tits years ago - same is true in Germany and many other locations. I agree wt what I made bold above 100% - to care for the common good is the role of govt. Right, I agree, the gov't is way too freaking big in the wrong ways--especially the military. I don't view our military as defensive, it is offensive, it's main function is to protect US corporate/imperialistic interests around the globe. That's what they are always referring to when they talk about OUR INTERESTS. Well, it's not OUR interests, it's THEIR interests, the corporatists, Check this out, if you look at any country where the US is involved, you can easily find the multitude of US corporations that are there that nobody ever talks about because they don't want us to know. For e.g., Yemen, they never tell you that the US has huge $ stakes in Yemen, mainly oil, like US oil companies own about 1/3-1/2 of Yemen land and, guess what, that's why all the "natives" are revolting all the time there. That movie, "Captain Phillips", well, they never say in that movie why all the Yemenese are pissed off at us, they are just the "bad guys", pirates--pure propaganda film. American Companies Operating in Yemen: Tellabs, Inc. American President Lines Baker Hughes EHO Limited Exxon Mobil Corporation FedEx (Federal Express) Halliburton (Worldwide Ltd.) Yemen Branch Helmerich & Payne, Inc. Hunt Oil Company Kerr-McGee Corporation KPMG Yemen M-I SWACO (MIOL Yemen) Deloitte Touche Murphy Yemen Oil Co Nabors Industries Ltd. Occidental Petroleum Corporation Pecten Yemen Masila Company Phillips Petro Intl Corp Yemen Procter & Gamble (Yemen) Ltd. Schlumberger Snyder Oil Corporation Union Texas Petroleum Holdings, Inc. UPS Yemen Vintage Petroleum, Inc. Washington Testing & Consulting Services Yemen Exploration & Production Company Yemen Henley Drilling Company That's just Yemen. Well, there's Africa, same deal, S America, Central America, Mexico, Indonesia, and on and on, and now back after cheap labor in Viet Nam(TPP) since China is getting to big for it's britches. Geez, why do you think immigrants want to come here, we've taken all their freaking land! I'm not sure I can think of a country where the US doesn't have "interests". And then there are the so-called Caucuses, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and the like. US has been going after oil there for decades and it hasn't even come into the media conversation. Here, in NY State, they have been running ads on TV for months now about investing in Kazakhstan, LOL, with all the investor perks imaginable, no taxes, cheap labor, ideal third world conditions for investors. I wonder if anybody even notices or thinks about it, other than investors. These are our interests that our military in protecting. As to universal health care, I think the gov't could offer the single payer plan, not manditory, voluntary participation, but if you use it, you have to pay your fair share of taxes to fund the thing. Make it good enough that most people would want to use it. For those that don't want it, well, they can go the pay-thru-the-nose, private insurance route. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Plot twist. Bernie Sanders Is Democrats’ Top Beneficiary of Outside Spending, Like it or Not But the union is not just busing nurses into Iowa. The union’s “super PAC” has spent close to $1 million on ads and other support for Mr. Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who has inspired liberal voters with his calls to eradicate such outside groups. In fact, more super PAC money has been spent so far in express support of Mr. Sanders than for either of his Democratic rivals, including Hillary Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html The irony is delicious. Link to comment
cornographic Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Plot twist. Bernie Sanders Is Democrats’ Top Beneficiary of Outside Spending, Like it or Not But the union is not just busing nurses into Iowa. The union’s “super PAC” has spent close to $1 million on ads and other support for Mr. Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who has inspired liberal voters with his calls to eradicate such outside groups. In fact, more super PAC money has been spent so far in express support of Mr. Sanders than for either of his Democratic rivals, including Hillary Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html The irony is delicious. That's just a union spending $ on a candidate of their choice, right? That's common practice. I thought the nurses' union was endorsing Hillary, but whatevs....they must be feeling the Bern, it's "contagious".... Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Yeah.....as long as it's a group spending a bunch of money on a Dem it's OK. Link to comment
cornographic Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Yeah.....as long as it's a group spending a bunch of money on a Dem it's OK. Well, in the balance of things, unions in this country spend on the order of some millions, whereas the big boy corporatists, Wall St. etc, spends many billions--and the financial laws reflect the economic advantage. Class warfare, Brofessor... Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 And....as long as it's on one of your guys....it can all be justified. Link to comment
cornographic Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 And....as long as it's on one of your guys....it can all be justified. One has to take care of one's own, it's the way of the world. God knows the corporatists do. I would add a caveat that if Wall St. ceases buying off politicans, I'm ok with unions not contributing to politicians. They should take bribery completely out of the political system. Link to comment
cornographic Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Iowans likey "socialist": Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Iowans likey "socialist": Do you have a link to that? And, your comment is pretty misleading. The poll was of 602 Democratic caucus goers. Not a poll of all Iowans. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 And....as long as it's on one of your guys....it can all be justified. One has to take care of one's own, it's the way of the world. God knows the corporatists do. I would add a caveat that if Wall St. ceases buying off politicans, I'm ok with unions not contributing to politicians. They should take bribery completely out of the political system. Then don't complain when the other side does the same thing. I'm with you...I wish the money was taken out of politics. Link to comment
cornographic Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 And....as long as it's on one of your guys....it can all be justified. One has to take care of one's own, it's the way of the world. God knows the corporatists do. I would add a caveat that if Wall St. ceases buying off politicans, I'm ok with unions not contributing to politicians. They should take bribery completely out of the political system. Then don't complain when the other side does the same thing. I'm with you...I wish the money was taken out of politics. I'll complain, and fight back, actually. Like I said, it's a class war.. Link to comment
cornographic Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 And....as long as it's on one of your guys....it can all be justified. One has to take care of one's own, it's the way of the world. God knows the corporatists do. I would add a caveat that if Wall St. ceases buying off politicans, I'm ok with unions not contributing to politicians. They should take bribery completely out of the political system. Then don't complain when the other side does the same thing. I'm with you...I wish the money was taken out of politics. Link to comment
cornographic Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Iowans likey "socialist": Do you have a link to that? And, your comment is pretty misleading. The poll was of 602 Democratic caucus goers. Not a poll of all Iowans. Caucus goers are real important about now. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/30/the-last-iowa-poll-good-news-for-clinton-less-so-for-trump/ Here's another: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/shocking-poll-more-iowa-dems-call-themselves-socialists-than-capitalists Link to comment
Recommended Posts