| Presidents dont have supreme power over the government. They even have things kept secret from them. |
| Chris Christie. He will solve all of America's problems... one bite at a time.  |
 |
lllllllll said:  cringeworthy |
CookieNCreamd said: lllllllll said: cringeworthy Michelle Kwan is now supporting Hillary. Damn! I use to think she was hot. |
 |
FGAU1912 said: the us is ti far to the right for a proper man of the workers to win an election im sad at that the center right corpratist whores of the dems i find irk some because there in fact there corporatists ie rightwing not center left How the hell is corporatism by Government a feature of the right wing you imbecile? The act of bailing out a corporation by saying "we should save the jobs" is a collectivist/left-wing ideology if anything. I love how left wingers like you associate anything you do not like to the right-wing. |
| I lean heavily towards Rand Paul. Rand Paul gets called a libertarian, but Rand is a conservative in the truest sense. I wish Ron Paul was still running though. He was unabashedly a champion of unregulated Capitalism, Constitution and never flip-flopped on anything to appease the progressives or neocons. |
jonnyhan said: I lean heavily towards Rand Paul. Rand Paul gets called a libertarian, but Rand is a conservative in the truest sense. I wish Ron Paul was still running though. He was unabashedly a champion of unregulated Capitalism, Constitution and never flip-flopped on anything to appease the progressives or neocons. Ron Paul was a champ, don't get me wrong, but the guy was definitely not perfect by any means. (Not that you were saying that, but many of Ron Paul's supporters among Millennials kind of lionize the guy in a way that is uncomfortable.) I do think he would have been an awesome President though. If only because he didn't seem to give a shit about what anyone thought or cared about. He was going to do what he thought was best (with some mistakes, he is only human after all) and that is really refreshing in today's political world. That's what politics seem to be missing lately, is some real people. It's fucked up that the reason Ron Paul was so popular was the same reason he could never have won: He was Ron Paul the man first, and Ron Paul the politician second. Say what you want about Ron Paul and his failures (which are as legion as any other flawed human being), but it says a lot more about the collective citizenry of the United States when we refuse to elect anyone who isn't a straight-up, cradle-to-grave, media-approved politician. |
| Let's go bowling. |
Rance-sama said: I like Bernie Sanders. He's trying to pass a lot of bills that'll break up Wall Street, a true for the people kinda guy.  Hillary Clinton is losing a lot of her popularity within the democratic circle, so other democratic candidates still have a solid chance at becoming the next president. Mmm I can't agree with that pic but maybe it's different for other counties ,states or cities. |
| I find Sen. Bernie Sanders interesting. He seems to have a clear agenda with his campaign, he points out specific problems and tells how exactly he wants fix it. Furthermore, the way he answers when asked a question, he directly answers it, no beating around the bush to avoid the issue. One last thing, I haven't heard him talk negatively about the other candidates, that's a plus for me. |
FrancisUnderwoodJun 16, 2015 6:56 AM
 |
| I'm guessing Hilary's going to win, I don't even know any of the other candidates. |
 "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -Friedrich Nietzsche |
Mhypnotica said: Chris Christie. He will solve all of America's problems... one bite at a time. I think he specialises in tackling obesity problems. |
 All credit goes to Sacred. |
| Fucking Jindal has announced his running. I live in LA so like. Don't do it. He fucked it up here, so don't trust the dick with the country lol. According to http://www.isidewith.com/ I side with Sanders followed quickly by Clinton. Not really surprised. I think I'm aligning more with Clinton though, but we will see. |
  |
| Probably going to end up being between Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz Personally not a fan of eithier but id much rather Hillary win then cruz. |
| I dont like how the media only really pays attention to Hillary. The republican candidates get more even spread of focus but for deomocrats they act like Hillary is the only one. I dont even like her. |
Decoys said: Donald Trump jumps into the 2016 presidential race....Thoughts? Unless he has a good running mate, he probably won't get it. Much like Joe Biden. |
Decoys said: He's like a poison to the republican party. You can't compared Biden and this guy lol He's just a reality-TV star looking for publicity. He'll fade out long before he gets close to being taken seriously. |
| Let's go bowling. |
| No sane person would take Trump seriously |
NebulaC3I said: Decoys said: Donald Trump jumps into the 2016 presidential race....Thoughts? Unless he has a good running mate, he probably won't get it. Much like Joe Biden. Donald Trump doesn't stand a chance. I doubt any serious politician would agree to be his running mate. And while I'm not a fan of Joe Biden, you simply cannot compare a seasoned politician to a businessman who is running out of pure boredom. |
|
traed said: I dont like how the media only really pays attention to Hillary. The republican candidates get more even spread of focus but for deomocrats they act like Hillary is the only one. I dont even like her. That's because of the "Clinton" name recognition. Many people believe that she's most likely going to win the nomination because of popularity alone, that's an easy out for the democrats. Anybody campaigning for the democratic nomination faces an up-hill battle against Hillary. Fortunately, Sen. Bernie Sanders is creeping up on her with the recent poll results. |
|
FrancisUnderwood said: She lost last time she tried. Who would want second choice in the whitehouse? Thats like a downgrade :/ traed said: I dont like how the media only really pays attention to Hillary. The republican candidates get more even spread of focus but for deomocrats they act like Hillary is the only one. I dont even like her. That's because of the "Clinton" name recognition. Many people believe that she's most likely going to win the nomination because of popularity alone, that's an easy out for the democrats. Anybody campaigning for the democratic nomination faces an up-hill battle against Hillary. Fortunately, Sen. Bernie Sanders is creeping up on her with the recent poll results. I think Bernie Sanders may actually maybe stand a chance if the right people were made more aware of him. Likely internet users and pot smokers. Although neither may be that reliable lol |
MaiTai said: According to http://www.isidewith.com/ I side with Sanders followed quickly by Clinton. Not really surprised. I think I'm aligning more with Clinton though, but we will see. Interesting website, got Bernie Sanders followed closely by Rand Paul. I wish it had more answers (even more than they provided) for their questions. More than a few didn't really have an answer I agreed with, cool none the less. |
I sincerely hope these people are just trolling but this really breaks my heart (except for the last comment). |
FrancisUnderwoodJun 27, 2015 6:02 PM
|
| I say you guys should vote for Trump, actually everyone should vote for Trump. The economic collapse and subsequent war following said economic collapse would be hillarious! |
 |
Decoys said: I dont remember what his competition was but it must have been horrendous.traed said: Who would want second choice in the whitehouse? Thats like a downgrade :/ That's not true. President George H.W bush did not win the first time he ran, but won during his second bid. |
| All for Bernie Sanders. He's been pretty unchanging in his beliefs and appears promising. Hillary's just kind of...wishy-washy. |
| I dont really think its that Hillary is "wishy-washy". I think she just takes whatever opinion is popular. |
traed said: I dont really think its that Hillary is "wishy-washy". I think she just takes whatever opinion is popular. That's kinda what I meant. Wrong word choice, I guess. Regardless, it doesn't make her very respectable in my books. |
Decoys said: I meant on the republican side of things for picking their candidate, not the main election.traed said: I dont remember what his competition was but it must have been horrendous. I don't think so... Al Gore and Joe Biden were running as well during the presidential cycle George H.W Bush won. Both great politicians. And to add to the list of "Who would want second choice in the whitehouse?" Richard Nixon also won I believe during his second try as well - an OK president in my opinion. You need to do a bit of homework before you throw statements out there like "Who would want second choice in the whitehouse?" because it has happened before in history. If you're an American saying stuff like that, it just goes to show how uninformed some people are, and this is coming from a Canadian. Its a rhetorical figurative statement. I never said no such thing has ever happened. The statement means why would someone choose a person who was not even picked in primaries previously unless all other choices are poor. It means the choices seems not to be the wisest if better options are available but not even explored. |
traedJun 30, 2015 10:15 PM
| Trump is terrible for the GOP because he represents it's worst habits and instincts; the shamelessly populist rhetoric combined with the "pro-growth" corporatism makes for a kind of Achilles Heel candidate for the GOP. However, we are still over a year out from the election, so I have little doubt that Trump will fade away long before we get to New Hampshire. Chris Christie is another terrible choice for the GOP, though primarily because he is too moderate and has a questionable history with scandals. He is popular though, so I think he'll probably be in it for the long haul. Edit: As far as Bernie Sanders is concerned. The less people hear about him, the better it is for him. As long as he can spit out populist nonsense like "free college for everyone!" without having to justify his radical socialism and rampant anti-Americanism, he'll do well with the Left and the Uninformed Middle. The second he has to start justifying himself and actually putting forth a plan, he'll be torn to shreds. His playbook will be similar to Barack Obama's: obfuscate every issue by speaking only in noble-sounding platitudes. |
StopDropAndBowlJul 1, 2015 10:17 AM
| Let's go bowling. |
Decoys said: lol ok? There were great politicians running for the republican nomination when HW Bush was running as well. If I remember correctly Ron Paul was running for the republican nomination and one of the former secretary of states was running as well, forgot his name. "Who would want second choice in the whitehouse? Thats like a downgrade :/ " Sorry but that implies that you didn't know there have been presidents that have ran twice before and won the during their second bid. Ron Paul ran as libertarian in 1988. He did not run republican till 2008. Also the person you're thinking of, Alexander Haig, withdrew himself. You cant tell me what I meant. "Who would ____" is something like a type of idiom. It doesn't have its literal meaning. |
| Bernie Sanders is the only non-corrupt one in the race, and he actually knows what he's talking about. First time I've seen a politician speak to the people as rational adults instead of kids who get scared by buzzwords. |
| I don't have a signature. |
Decoys said: Bernie Sanders needs more exposure. Saw him in a interview with ABC recently confronted about only 3% of non-white voters would vote for him and 91% of non-white votes would vote for Hillary over him; his answer was admirable but I don't see him winning over Hillary. I am voting for him no matter how well he is doing in the polls, there are only 2 candidates for the Democrats right now, so you might as well just vote for the better candidate. When there are three or more likely candidates it matters how well someone is doing, but thats not whats going on. StopDropAndBowl said: Edit: As far as Bernie Sanders is concerned. The less people hear about him, the better it is for him. As long as he can spit out populist nonsense like "free college for everyone!" without having to justify his radical socialism and rampant anti-Americanism, he'll do well with the Left and the Uninformed Middle. The second he has to start justifying himself and actually putting forth a plan, he'll be torn to shreds. His playbook will be similar to Barack Obama's: obfuscate every issue by speaking only in noble-sounding platitudes. Bernie Sanders can justify his positions a lot better than Hilary, and you can tell from his rising poll numbers that people are attracted to what he is saying. Plus given how much name recognition Hilary has relative to him he wouldn't get nearly any of the vote without talking. |
ixsetfJul 1, 2015 3:47 PM
| I don't have a signature. |
Decoys said: And you come off as someone who wants to feel special and superior for just Googling something.lol I'm not telling you what you meant, I'm telling you how it came off. And it came off as if you are uninformed. |
Bernie Sanders draws the biggest crowd of any candidate yet in both parties in Madison,Wisconsin. Around 10,000 people were in attendance. |
|
| I do hope Bernie Sanders win, im not american but i support him seeing good politicians like him are rare and a dying breed. |
| I'll wait to see whether Bernie Sanders has a real plan. It is all well and good to say you're going to provide free-health care and college educations to 350,000,000 people without raising taxes on the poor/middle-class (a mathematical impossibility), it is a very different thing to actually stand in a debate and explain the mechanics of the system. FGAU1912 said: hes left so he anti American so hes anti TPP so hes anti American hes anti world police so hes anti American typical right wing cold war style rhetoric there At this point we should have clashed enough to know this kind of attack won't stick to me. I'm not one to accuse most rank-and-file leftists and liberals of anti-Americanism, nor do I necessarily support the TPP (alright bill, bad timing), and being anti-world police is hardly a bad thing (even if it might not be the best philosophy). He is anti-American simply because he wants to fundamentally transform all of the institutions and traditions that compose the idea which is 'America'. It is ironic that Americans are celebrating a European-style Socialist candidate precisely at the same moment that Europeans are rejecting hardcore European Socialism. The abject failure of Greece and the panic in the EU as to what Grexit will really mean to the Euro is argument enough against the populist snake-oil Bernie Sanders is selling. I don't like the man because he's an old, white, creepy, socialist who seems to despise everything that makes America great. His policies are a one-way ticket to unsustainable debt, crippling tax-rates, stifling regulations, and global chaos as the only world super-power tumbles down to create a power-vacuum. Cold-War rhetoric would be to accuse the man of being in the pocket of Vladmir Putin. I hardly think that's true of Bernie Sanders, so I refrain from making the accusation. I don't think he's on the take from Putin, I think he's just some old hippie who would continue the Obama policy of being punked by Putin and every other two-bit dictator-wannabee and warlord around the world. |
| Let's go bowling. |
StopDropAndBowl said: I'll wait to see whether Bernie Sanders has a real plan. It is all well and good to say you're going to provide free-health care and college educations to 350,000,000 people without raising taxes on the poor/middle-class (a mathematical impossibility), it is a very different thing to actually stand in a debate and explain the mechanics of the system. FGAU1912 said: hes left so he anti American so hes anti TPP so hes anti American hes anti world police so hes anti American typical right wing cold war style rhetoric there At this point we should have clashed enough to know this kind of attack won't stick to me. I'm not one to accuse most rank-and-file leftists and liberals of anti-Americanism, nor do I necessarily support the TPP (alright bill, bad timing), and being anti-world police is hardly a bad thing (even if it might not be the best philosophy). He is anti-American simply because he wants to fundamentally transform all of the institutions and traditions that compose the idea which is 'America'. It is ironic that Americans are celebrating a European-style Socialist candidate precisely at the same moment that Europeans are rejecting hardcore European Socialism. The abject failure of Greece and the panic in the EU as to what Grexit will really mean to the Euro is argument enough against the populist snake-oil Bernie Sanders is selling. I don't like the man because he's an old, white, creepy, socialist who seems to despise everything that makes America great. His policies are a one-way ticket to unsustainable debt, crippling tax-rates, stifling regulations, and global chaos as the only world super-power tumbles down to create a power-vacuum. Cold-War rhetoric would be to accuse the man of being in the pocket of Vladmir Putin. I hardly think that's true of Bernie Sanders, so I refrain from making the accusation. I don't think he's on the take from Putin, I think he's just some old hippie who would continue the Obama policy of being punked by Putin and every other two-bit dictator-wannabee and warlord around the world. To fund a system of universal health-care and free college educations, (Note that Bernie Sanders is only planning on making public colleges free, which will in turn cause private colleges to have more competitive pricing) Bernie Sanders will definitely have to increase taxes or cut costs elsewhere. However, there is no reason those tax increases need to be primarily on the shoulders of the middle of lower class. Income tax rates on the highest income bracket were historically as high as 90% in the 1950's, today that number has fallen to 38%. This has caused the wealthy to accumulate more money than before. You said that Bernie Sanders "is anti-American simply because he wants to fundamentally transform all of the institutions and traditions that compose the idea which is 'America'", which traditions and institutions do you believe compose the idea of America? I do not see him attacking anything that is fundamental to America, but our perspectives might be different. The statement "It is ironic that Americans are celebrating a European-style Socialist candidate precisely at the same moment that Europeans are rejecting hardcore European Socialism" seems to be mostly false. The style of socialism that Bernie Sanders believes in is mostly practiced in northern Europe, and those countries are continuing to implement the same policies as they always have. The Greek government does not have particularly many qualities that Sanders admires, so I don't know why their collapse is particularly relevant. I think the primary reason you are being accused of using Cold War rhetoric is the use of the term socialist to explain why Sanders is supposedly a bad candidate. Prior to the Cold War, The term socialist was not seen in such a negative light, and outside the US the term is not seen particularly negatively either. Currently the leading political party in France is the Socialist Party, the second largest in Germany is the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Labor party of Denmark (which is 2nd largest in the country) are a member of Socialist International, there are many more examples, but it would take too long to list. The people of these countries didn't let the term 'Socialist' scare them away from voting and the large amount of power these parties had clearly hasn't toppled those countries. EDIT: Just saw this http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/02/bernie-sanders-gaining-on-hillary-clinton-in-iowa-poll-shows/ If Bernie continues to gain in the polls he may very easily catch up to Hilary. |
ixsetfJul 2, 2015 10:07 AM
| I don't have a signature. |
ixsetf said: StopDropAndBowl said: To fund a system of universal health-care and free college educations, (Note that Bernie Sanders is only planning on making public colleges free, which will in turn cause private colleges to have more competitive pricing) Bernie Sanders will definitely have to increase taxes or cut costs elsewhere. However, there is no reason those tax increases need to be primarily on the shoulders of the middle of lower class. Income tax rates on the highest income bracket were historically as high as 90% in the 1950's, today that number has fallen to 38%. This has caused the wealthy to accumulate more money than before. Income tax rates were as high as 90% but no one ever paid that much. Deductions and loopholes meant that the wealthy were usually paying an adjusted real tax-rate of ~40%. As we eliminated those loopholes and deductions we lowered the total rate, so we actually tax the wealthy now around the same that we taxed them then (adjusting for inflation). No businessperson or business would ever willingly pay a 90% tax-rate. They would simply move their locations to a different country, and you would end up losing massive amounts of jobs and capital, as well as untold amounts of lost potential tax-revenue. Also, as has been historically shown, most businesses will pass the tax onto the consume by raising prices, lowering employment, and depressing wages. Further, it has been shown multiple times that even a 100% tax on the top 5% would not fund the current expenditures of the Federal Government. Keep in mind that Bernie Sanders is planning to add hundreds of billions of dollars in social-welfare spending, even furthering the obligations on the American tax-payer. The wealthy simply do not have enough wealth to cover the cost of our burdens now, let alone any new burdens we might add under a Sanders administration. In order to pay for Bernie Sander's health-care/education plan we would either have to enact massive tax-hikes on everyone, cut massive amounts of spending, or borrow even more money. There is simply no other option. You said that Bernie Sanders "is anti-American simply because he wants to fundamentally transform all of the institutions and traditions that compose the idea which is 'America'", which traditions and institutions do you believe compose the idea of America? His extreme Federalism, love of high-punitive taxes, ambivalence towards the 2A, hatred of private entrepreneurship, love of re-distributive wealth policies (and the inverse hatred of private property rights), and his favoring of the bloated, alphabet-soup of bureaucracies and regulatory agencies all just seems to fly in the face of the traditions and institutions of this country. Namely the emphasis put on 2A rights, restrained Federalism, low-taxes, low-spending, high value of property-rights, and less unnecessary regulation that have always been at the core of American political thinking. The statement "It is ironic that Americans are celebrating a European-style Socialist candidate precisely at the same moment that Europeans are rejecting hardcore European Socialism" seems to be mostly false. The style of socialism that Bernie Sanders believes in is mostly practiced in northern Europe, I would have to hear more of his specific policies to tell if he is really suggesting anything even close to the "Nordic model", or how he expects a system that (barely) works for a small, homogeneous population to work the same for a massive, diverse population. As for whether Europe is rejecting socialism or not; it is largely. The Nordic model itself is a far more "capitalist" system than the classic European socialism of the 90s and early 2000s, and the southern countries you mentioned are either in the dog-house (France), or carefully rejecting hardcore-socialist theory (Germany/Nordic). As for whether even the "good" European systems are to be desired and emulated... let's wait until the dust from the Greek collapse settles. Most economists are not optimistic as to the fate of European economies in light of the coming Grexit... so I hardly think now is the time to be trumpeting the glories of European Socialism, during some of it's darkest days. |
| Let's go bowling. |
Decoys said: They do not even teach that in the US as far as I know. On the equivalent of things they also teach next to nothing about Canada. The US has non standardized education so they don't have a consistency from state to state or even school to school in the same state sometimes. I like Bernie Sanders but unfortunately he doesn't want education standardized in favour of having it tuned to each individuals ability which I can't see how that would be implimented on a large scale even though I am in favour of individualized education. Not really, I don't need to Google this information since I've taken a few American history courses during university - it's basic knowledge to know stuff up to the Reagan years. |
traedJul 2, 2015 12:40 PM
StopDropAndBowl said: Income tax rates were as high as 90% but no one ever paid that much. Deductions and loopholes meant that the wealthy were usually paying an adjusted real tax-rate of ~40%. As we eliminated those loopholes and deductions we lowered the total rate, so we actually tax the wealthy now around the same that we taxed them then (adjusting for inflation). We still have these loopholes, they were not closed up. You need to be a bit more specific if you want to be convincing. StopDropAndBowl said: No businessperson or business would ever willingly pay a 90% tax-rate. They would simply move their locations to a different country, and you would end up losing massive amounts of jobs and capital, as well as untold amounts of lost potential tax-revenue. Also, as has been historically shown, most businesses will pass the tax onto the consume by raising prices, lowering employment, and depressing wages. The only countries in the OECD that tax less than the US are Chile and Mexico, it would require a pretty large increase in tax rates to make us unsuitable for headquartering a business. While I understand that 90% might seem excessive, we have survived with rates as high as that before without the collapse of our economy. So it isn't ridiculous to think we could pay for Sanders proposed system without significantly increasing the tax burden on most citizens. I know you say there are loopholes that have been closed up, but you haven't actually named any. StopDropAndBowl said: Further, it has been shown multiple times that even a 100% tax on the top 5% would not fund the current expenditures of the Federal Government. Keep in mind that Bernie Sanders is planning to add hundreds of billions of dollars in social-welfare spending, even furthering the obligations on the American tax-payer. The wealthy simply do not have enough wealth to cover the cost of our burdens now, let alone any new burdens we might add under a Sanders administration. In order to pay for Bernie Sander's health-care/education plan we would either have to enact massive tax-hikes on everyone, cut massive amounts of spending, or borrow even more money. There is simply no other option. The Top 1% make about 20% of the income, this income is more than total federal expenditures. If you include local and state government spending, you would admittedly fall short. StopDropAndBowl said: You said that Bernie Sanders "is anti-American simply because he wants to fundamentally transform all of the institutions and traditions that compose the idea which is 'America'", which traditions and institutions do you believe compose the idea of America? His extreme Federalism, love of high-punitive taxes, ambivalence towards the 2A, hatred of private entrepreneurship, love of re-distributive wealth policies (and the inverse hatred of private property rights), and his favoring of the bloated, alphabet-soup of bureaucracies and regulatory agencies all just seems to fly in the face of the traditions and institutions of this country. Namely the emphasis put on 2A rights, restrained Federalism, low-taxes, low-spending, high value of property-rights, and less unnecessary regulation that have always been at the core of (modern) American political thinking. Federalists were one of the original two political parties in America. America wasn't founded on a tax structure. Bernie Sanders has a much more relaxed stance on gun control than Hilary. He is against the NSA data collection and wants to dissolve it, so at the very least he doesn't like that unnecessary bureaucracy. If you could be more specific about what sort of thing you are talking about, I could respond better. StopDropAndBowl said: The statement "It is ironic that Americans are celebrating a European-style Socialist candidate precisely at the same moment that Europeans are rejecting hardcore European Socialism" seems to be mostly false. The style of socialism that Bernie Sanders believes in is mostly practiced in northern Europe, I would have to hear more of his specific policies to tell if he is really suggesting anything even close to the "Nordic model", or how he expects a system that (barely) works for a small, homogeneous population to work the same for a massive, diverse population. As for whether Europe is rejecting socialism or not; it is largely. The Nordic model itself is a far more "capitalist" system than the classic European socialism of the 90s and early 2000s, and the southern countries you mentioned are either in the dog-house (France), or carefully rejecting hardcore-socialist theory (Germany/Nordic). How did the Nordic model barely work? Those countries are among some of the richest and happiest in the world. We have a more diverse population, but I don't see how that would have an effect honestly. Explain what you mean by "dog house". StopDropAndBowl said: As for whether even the "good" European systems are to be desired and emulated... let's wait until the dust from the Greek collapse settles. Most economists are not optimistic as to the fate of European economies in light of the coming Grexit... so I hardly think now is the time to be trumpeting the glories of European Socialism, during some of it's darkest days. Sanders doesn't advocate for the Greek system. Also you say Europe is rejecting socialism and at the same time falling into its darkest days, have you ever thought that the problems might not have resulted from socialism but the rejection of it? |
| I don't have a signature. |
| You all need to look at this. http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/ |
Decoys said: I was saying that because I was pointing out they do not teach that sort of thing over in the US. I already knew you are in Canada which is exactly why I mentioned Canada. I was explaining to you how they do not really teach this sort of thing so its not basic knowledge especially you saying it was in a university. Shit you get in a university is not basic. Also what I said was on topic, if you noticed I pointed out an actual running candidates stance on something relating to what I was saying. Also I missed where you said it was university originally, for some reason, so I was a little side tracked and was talking about the normal primary school levels in the US to compare it to other countries traed said: They do not even teach that in the US as far as I know. On the equivalent of things they also teach next to nothing about Canada. The US has non standardized education so they don't have a consistency from state to state or even school to school in the same state sometimes. If you read the first sentence of the original post, I said I'm not even American. If you read my reply to you I said to you I'm Canadian. In other words, I'm a Canadian living in Canada. Anyways stay on topic. |
traedJul 2, 2015 6:46 PM
traed said: I was saying that because I was pointing out they do not teach that sort of thing over in the US. I already knew you are in Canada which is exactly why I mentioned Canada. I was explaining to you how they do not really teach this sort of thing so its not basic knowledge especially you saying it was in a university. Shit you get in a university is not basic. Also what I said was on topic, if you noticed I pointed out an actual running candidates stance on something relating to what I was saying. Also I missed where you said it was university originally, for some reason, so I was a little side tracked and was talking about the normal primary school levels in the US to compare it to other countries As an American I can confirm that I learned this, we didn't go over the details of all elections, but we did cover most after 1950 and those with important historical figures. |
| I don't have a signature. |
ixsetf said: At least they teach it somewhere. Not any schools I attended.As an American I can confirm that I learned this, we didn't go over the details of all elections, but we did cover most after 1950 and those with important historical figures. |
ixsetf said: First we need to find a common ground of what kind of taxes we're talking about. If we're specifically outlining federal income taxes, then we're already only talking about ~50% of the revenue from taxes. It's also the tax the vast majority of Americans pay. You can try to isolate the top brackets if you want, but even then you're not really hitting the super wealthy because Bill Gates' wealth didn't come from a salary. Yeah, some of the loopholes and deductions still exist. And they exist for a reason, because even current tax rates are prohibitively high. High enough that the super-wealthy will pay consultants and lawyers millions of dollars a year to find those loopholes and deductions. Now let's get specific: let's talk about the top 1% The top 1% have an average pre-tax income of $1.4 million They have a tax rate of ~30% They paid an average of ~$352,000/yr in taxes. The total Federal receipts in 2010 was $2.1 trillion. 50% of that was from income (personal and corporate). So we got about $1.05 trillion from income taxes. The total share of the tax burden by the top 1% was ~25%. 25% of 1.05 trillion is $250 billion dollars. If they paid $250 billion in taxes, and that was about 30% of their income, that means they have a total taxable income of ~$1-trillion. (less than half of the total-receipts.) So, let's imagine that Bernie Sanders was allowed to enact a 90% tax-rate exclusively on the 1%. This is impossible now, because the top bracket (~$400K) encompasses more than just the top 1%. Right now the tax-brackets look like this: Individual (Unmarried): Married (Joint-filing) So let's say you said screw the 1% (and some of the top 2%) and raised that $400K-$450K tax rate to 90%. That would mean that the average "1%er" would pay an effective rate of ~72%, for a total of ~$1-million. So you'll have roughly tripled the revenue you get from the top 1-1.5% (~$250-billion to ~$750-billion). That would raise total tax receipts from $2.1-trillion to $2.6-trillion.*** Stay tuned for part II, where we'll talk about total-Federal expenditures and why Bernie Sanders couldn't pay for his free-education, free-healthcare plans even if he taxed every man, woman, and child on Earth at a 100% real-tax rate!!! ***I know that I only really solved for personal-income here and not corporate, but it is late, and I will not have time to go through all that data quite yet. Anyway, as you'll see in part II, the minimal amount more you could get by solving for corporate income tax-hikes would be like a drop in the ocean. Completely insignificant. The main reason I did this math was not to actually find a reasonable tax-rate, but to illustrate how even 90% tax-rates result in small changes to the total tax-revenue. |
StopDropAndBowlJul 4, 2015 1:00 AM
| Let's go bowling. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |