--ALEX-- said: LMAO at Trump fans trying their HARDEST to pretend Bernie is X, Y,and Z! For the love of god do not bother with these people...they already support Trump which says EVERYTHING you need to know about them. They have zero substance, are not interested in real world logic or ANY logic for that matter. But I’m GLAD that they’re nervous! And trust me, they ARE...and for good reason, Bernie is a REAL populist unlike their FAKE piece of shit serial criminal cult-leader. Nevada is 5 days away! Let’s go 3 for 3! Go Bernie Go! Thanks Alex for speaking the truth. GO BERN GO. |
shirakawa_megumi said: GamerDLM said: You changed your claim. You said not being white resulted in various bonuses and then proceeded to link a case in which a non-white group (asians) were allegedly being discriminated against via college quotas. So you moved the goal post to include white and asians and then added nothing to show how other non-white groups were getting "bonuses". If white and asians are discriminated against, then rest "wins", it's that obvious? And yes, in this particular example both white and asian people are discriminated against. Except you didn't show a case where whites were being discriminated against, you showed a case where asians were being discriminated against. Now you're conflating the two groups for no reason. |
| I'm gonna err on the side of caution and say that we're still goign to have Trump for another four years. |
 |
Boxxo said: Kyotosomo said: snip This whole post is just Bernie derangement syndrome. Bernie is a tame socdem in any other country. Guess burgers have been getting fucked over too long that ideology has been literally drilled into their heads. The fact that you think any of those candidates would have a better chance against Bernie is also delusional. Run another cookie cutter centrist and you will basically get the same result as 2016. Dems will get a low voter turn outs and Trump will win again. No one is going to go out and vote for some corporate establishment puppet everyone has been seeing through their bullshit. I can also tell you are a pseud who indulges in ideology too much because you use terms like "basic economics" as if economics had the falsifiability that something like STEM has. There is no such thing. When will people understand that what is likely the majority of Americans don't want the U.S. to turn into some cucked, economically weak EU country or the like where the Leviathan cares more about some catastrophic climate change boogeyman than the struggling working class. I highly doubt that Bernie would be just another demsoc in any other country too. Bernie wants to keep military budget at around the same levels, for example. He wants to implement wealth tax, which, as far as I know, has been tried and deemed a failure in pretty much all those other "democratic socialist countries" You are the only one who is delusional if you think Bernie has a better shot than one of the centrists at beating Trump. Trump is the favorite against any Dem imo, but Bernie has a snowball's chance in hell at winning a general election. Bernie fanatics spend too much time in their internet echo chambers to understand the American electorate. If you are against the terms "basic economics" then I don't know what to tell you. Bernie IS economically illiterate. I compel you to find anything in an economic textbook that supports Bernienomics. I compel you to find a single Nobel laureate that would support Bernienomics. Gunnar Myrdal is probably the closest thing among Nobel laureates to a democratic socialism supporter, and even HIS ideas aren't compatible with Bernie's fantasies. Hell, read the works of Marx and Lenin themselves. See how Lenin says that the purpose of socialism is communism, and see how Marx says communism requires a kind of ascended population of "Communist individuals"....aka a fantasy |
Boxxo said: Kyotosomo said: snip This whole post is just Bernie derangement syndrome. Bernie is a tame socdem in any other country. Guess burgers have been getting fucked over too long that ideology has been literally drilled into their heads. The fact that you think any of those candidates would have a better chance against Bernie is also delusional. Run another cookie cutter centrist and you will basically get the same result as 2016. Dems will get a low voter turn outs and Trump will win again. No one is going to go out and vote for some corporate establishment puppet everyone has been seeing through their bullshit. I can also tell you are a pseud who indulges in ideology too much because you use terms like "basic economics" as if economics had the falsifiability that something like STEM has. There is no such thing. Basically. Bernie is the best chance against trump. Also, it is sad to see the extent Americans have been conditioned to enable such a blatently corrupt state that has committed so many heinous acts, and has destroyed the lives of so many around the world, in order to defend bad economic theory due to red scare nonsense over any left wing economics(unless it's military Keynesian or corporate welfare), and a candidate who actually has an interest to combat such corruption, and is able to energize the amount of people needed for it. |
 I can see you |
Boxxo said: The only thing America has over EU countries higher GDP, but that is a joke measurement. EU countries overall have better living standards and are not the corporate hellscape America is. There are barely any homeless people, everyone has healthcare, not everyone is drastically in debt like in America, free college, abundant public transport, infrastructure that is not falling apart, etc. Talk about clueless LOL. EU countries do NOT overall have a higher standard of living than the U.S. That is a myth propogated by delusional leftists. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/2019-human-development-index-ranking Here the U.S. is ranked 15. Only 6 EU countries are ranked ahead of the U.S. And only one of those countries has a population greater than that of Florida. 10 of the countries on that list have a population less than that of NYC. All the countries ahead of the U.S., including Germany, have a fraction of the population of the U.S. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111 According to the OECD Better Life Index only 4 EU countries rank higher than the top 10 ranking U.S. What both of these rankings also don't take into account is the fact that the EU standard of living is rapidly declining in relation to that of the U.S. A bloated welfare state can only last so long until it collapses. The U.S. has lower homeless rates than a ton of the EU countries, including the vaunted Germany and Nordic countries https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2019/05/CASEY_Louise_Paper.pdf Everyone in the U.S. receives healthcare too. We just don't have a standard universal healthcare. Debt is used differently in the U.S. than it is in other countries. In the U.S. you can file for bankruptcy and still live a great life, for example. Tell me more about how Europeans get to use public transportation and rent. That just goes to show how poor people in Europe are compared to the U.S. where personal motor vehicle and the dream of owning property is more in reach. America ranks highly in infrastructure as well. Just face it. You don't know what you're talking about lol. Have you even been to the U.S. before? Boxxo said: climate change is a big problem. I can disregard your whole post and laugh at you with regards to this statement because of its sheer amount of brainlessness The climate change models championed by children who skip school like Greta are based on the Navier-Stokes fluid dynamics equations. These equations are so poorly understood that they are among the handful of famous Millennium Prize equations – anyone who can solve an equation gets a million dollar prize. I'll give you a hint – nobody won the prize yet. The fact of the matter is that there is no concrete scientific evidence suggesting that if governments don't take control of an insane amount of already limited resources, the earth will face global catastrophe in the near future/our lifetimes. But of course, you're exposing yourself as a brainwashed sheep who is just parrotting what the leftist machine spouts. Talk about uneducated lol. Boxxo said: Bernie is the working class candidate. Everyone else is an establishment puppet. Bernie correctly identifies that he working class is getting squeezed, but offers nothing that will help them. A 0% Federal Funds Rate will fuck over the working class. Hell I can see him making interests rates negative since that's what all of the euro countries are going towards now, and we all know how much he worships them. Raising taxes on the working class does not help them. Ballooning the federal deficit to insane levels does not help the working class. A stupid wealth tax that penalizes saving does not help the working class (hint: saving and investing is the key to upward class movment) A green new deal that will cost DOUBLE the U.S. defense budget per year and make energy more expensive is not going to help the working class. A bloated military, which Bernie says he wants to keep; as well as the U.S. keeping the role of world police, which bernie supports, are both bad for working class. Boxxo said: Nope he is pretty much a standard demsoc. Though I guess most burgers are too ideologically bind to see that having their oligarchs' ideology drilled into their heads. Anything that is centrist is seen as far left over there lol. I have no interest in discussing the similarities and differences between other democratic socialists. All that matters is that Bernie doesn't really know what he's talking about. The only way to take down oligarchs is to vote for right wing libertarians. Boxxo said: Well if anyone has a shot it is basically Bernie. Run on a centrist and you will get the same result as 2016. The only person capable of getting a high voter turnout is Bernie. If he gets the nomination more centrists would turn to him. Again, the only people who believe this are non-Americans and the Bernie fanatics in the U.S. I don't know where the myth that Bernie has widespread support comes from. Why do people think that Bernie can fuel high voter turnout for dems? Bernie got slaughtered by HILLARY in the 2016 democratic primary. What makes you think that most Americans subscribe to Bernie's policies? If Bernie gets stomped by Hillary, what do you think is going to happen in a general election where conservatives, libertarians, centrists and independents get to vote? Boxxo said: There is no such thing as basic economics. Everything is much more complex than the pseuds who spout this bullshit phrase can comprehend. Most of the shit in economics is unfalsifiable. I find it incredibly hilarious when econfags pretend they are a part of STEM. The only thing economics is capable of is propping up the current system. It is entirely limited in its scope. Mainstream economics has no empirical basis or track record of macro predictive success. I agree 100% that all the mainstream economics nowadays who try to mimic physicists with their models, formulas and publications are clueless. They think economies can be solved by math equations which is bullshit. That does not mean that “basic economics” does not exist. Economics IS a vast, well described subject of academic scrutiny. There ARE basics – most of them are just ignored. For example, Keynesians ignore Say's Law of Markets because only by ignoring the law can they pretend to be scientists and use their poor models and bullshit equations. The Austrian School of Economics, for example, is based on praxeology and does not pretend they are STEM. Boxxo said: Nobel in econ is a joke prize. It doesn't matter. Most of the winners have been rats that propped up the status quo. Economics is about propping up the status quo economic system providing an intellectual veneer to the prevailing hegemony. I wouldn't go so far to call it a joke prize. The fact of the matter is, however, that all of those economists know more about economies than Bernie does, and all of them disagree with his rhetoric. I even cited Marx and Lenin for you. If you know anything about their works and their ideas, you know that what Bernie is proposing doesn't make sense economically. |
Kyotosomo said: A good amount of corruption would be solved by removing the financial intensive to be corrupt.long useless rant Yes, bernie is so very corrupt, and the real problem in politics, guy who suggests voting for bloomberg and deep state pete. Great priorities you have. |
I can see you |
| Thread Cleaned Trolling will not be tolerated. Please do not bait or otherwise troll users based on their political alignment, further instances of this will result in the thread being locked. Site & Forum Guidelines I.3.: Trolling, abuse and/or harassment of any community member (user or moderator) will not be tolerated. |
    Summertime days, passing gentlySunlight, leading to an encounter; Dreams that don't want to end Continue onwards toward the next day While she waits in the air. |
Bayek said: I'm not opposed to Bloomberg, although his health policy is shit and it shows he doesn't understand the problem. Also, if he's really courting Hillary Clinton as a running mate, he's dead to me.Ahhh, mmmm, nope. I'm going to have to say Michael Bloomberg is the best choice at this point. He is the most qualified person to ever run for office and he's a truly upstanding man of the people. I can't point to any specifics, but I was paid enough to advertise for him so... |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
shirakawa_megumi said: And thank God. When people show up at the hospital, we don't check their ID and their wallets and turn them away. We treat them. Emergency care is expensive. The citizens fork the bill. Health insurance to illegals give illegals the chance to pay for their own healthcare. And even if the government subsidizes the insurance and care, preventative is dozens of times cheaper than emergency care. On the other hand, picture a world where people don't go to hospitals when they're sick, and they have their own separate back alley way economy like Brazilian shantytowns.First seconds. All want to give free healthcare to illegals. I'm not baiting or otherwise trolling or harassing you based on your political alignment, but I don't know why conservatives (besides you) insist on emptying their wallets to pay for illegal immigrants, but I know I sure don't. This is the same problem as capital punishment. Years and years of studies have proven that capital punishment is much more expensive than feeding felons for dozens of years, and yet people still insist on emptying their wallets on this misguided emotively guided reasoning than they refuse to pay less money to feed felons. Or, you know, just disregard due process. Fuck the Constitution. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Kyotosomo said: Trump just drastically increased deficit and this is the argument you want to make?America's blatantly corrupt state is precisely WHY you'd have to be a fucking moron to vote for Bernie. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
RandomChampion said: I don't know how you graduated nursing when you don't believe in global warming, bro. Bernie is not a socialist. He is not a Marxist. Despite what he calls himself, the way Americans use these words are wrong, and Bernie is just making a statement. In none of Bernie's policies does he explicitly prescribe that the government should take over private industries.If you are against the terms "basic economics" then I don't know what to tell you. Bernie IS economically illiterate. I compel you to find anything in an economic textbook that supports Bernienomics. I compel you to find a single Nobel laureate that would support Bernienomics. Gunnar Myrdal is probably the closest thing among Nobel laureates to a democratic socialism supporter, and even HIS ideas aren't compatible with Bernie's fantasies. Hell, read the works of Marx and Lenin themselves. See how Lenin says that the purpose of socialism is communism, and see how Marx says communism requires a kind of ascended population of "Communist individuals"....aka a fantasy Setting that aside, while I agree with Boxxo that economics doesn't have the same rigor as hard sciences (hell, empirical economics is a recent invention), I would also argue that Republicans don't understand economics. Specifically, they don't understand the effect of externalities. They (and many leftists) don't understand the tragedy of the commons. They don't understand that we function in a spaceship economy, not a cowboy economy. Global resources are limited, and we possess the technology where one private interest can negatively affect the productivity of numerous other parties in a way that takes technical competency, beyond that of an average citizen, to prove. One example of this is global warming: the costs to economy are projected to be in the trillions, and the lack of prevention and regulation is the most expensive mistake one could make. That's like arguing people shouldn't maintain their cars because it's too expensive! Government agencies need to measure pollution outputs and implement carbon taxes so that the hidden costs passed from one private party could be recovered by the public. When people ignore these negative externalities, they are effectively giving handouts to polluters and creating black markets of capital inefficiency. So no, it's not liberals who want to tax businesses that don't understand economics, it's corporatists who want to give free handouts to the wealthy that don't understand economics. I'm a Yang guy, so you have a point there with the wealth tax, but for everything Bernie doesn't understand about economics, there's at least 3 things Trump doesn't understand about economics. And morality. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Bayek said: I'm not opposed to Bloomberg, although his health policy is shit and it shows he doesn't understand the problem. Also, if he's really courting Hillary Clinton as a running mate, he's dead to me.Ahhh, mmmm, nope. I'm going to have to say Michael Bloomberg is the best choice at this point. He is the most qualified person to ever run for office and he's a truly upstanding man of the people. I can't point to any specifics, but I was paid enough to advertise for him so... Shouldn't he already be dead to you for his not so long ago past implementive support of stop and frisk and racial profiling? Even if he really were against it now, it shows he can make rash poorly informed decisions about big topics that are well known. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/leaked-audio-bloomberg-aspen-institute-racial-profiling-stop-and-frisk-policing.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/13/bloomberg-stop-and-frisk-remarks-campaign-trail/4748417002/ What do you think about the half baked idea I've been throwing around that Bernie making Yang a running mate would be a good match? I think the two could have complimentary strengths and weaknesses. I didn't give deep analysis this is more intuitive of an observation. |
traed said: I don't pick candidates on one issue. It's about the whole package and how they're going to contribute to the political landscape. I'm never going to agree with everyone on everything. Let's talk about the wealth tax that I'm against. Let's talk about single-payer healthcare, which I'm for, but I have little confidence that the bureaucracy as it is now could pull it off without a hitch. That was my main argument for a public option to slowly out-compete and phase out private health insurance. No company gets it right the first time. Go look at early versions of eBay, Google, Reddit, etc. Go read about how many trials every successful company had to go through to get to where they are. Then consider why people think either the government is too corrupt to do anything at all, or why people think the government is like superman and can do everything at the flip of a switch. It doesn't work like that.katsucats said: I'm not opposed to Bloomberg, although his health policy is shit and it shows he doesn't understand the problem. Also, if he's really courting Hillary Clinton as a running mate, he's dead to me. Shouldn't he already be dead to you for his not so long ago past implementive support of stop and frisk and racial profiling? Even if he really were against it now, it shows he can make rash poorly informed decisions about big topics that are well known. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/leaked-audio-bloomberg-aspen-institute-racial-profiling-stop-and-frisk-policing.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/13/bloomberg-stop-and-frisk-remarks-campaign-trail/4748417002/ By those disagreements, I'm very much not a Bernie Bro. And so he should be dead to me... except not. I look at the whole field, where he fits in against the other candidates, where he fits in in general, and whether he could provide net positive influence to the country. traed said: I don't think Bernie would ever choose Yang as a running mate. It's too much of a risk to his campaign. He's a frontrunner, and he doesn't need to make these kind of moves. Polls show any Democratic candidate can beat Trump. I don't necessarily believe this but Bernie and his fans sure do.What do you think about the half baked idea I've been throwing around that Bernie making Yang a running mate would be a good match? I think the two could have complimentary strengths and weaknesses. I didn't give deep analysis this is more intuitive of an observation. But would they be a good match? I think they stand in a similar place in the ideological spectrum, but they have vastly different approaches to the same problems. That's either a good match or a disaster. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: I don't pick candidates on one issue. It's about the whole package and how they're going to contribute to the political landscape. I'm never going to agree with everyone on everything. Let's talk about the wealth tax that I'm against. Let's talk about single-payer healthcare, which I'm for, but I have little confidence that the bureaucracy as it is now could pull it off without a hitch. That was my main argument for a public option to slowly out-compete and phase out private health insurance. No company gets it right the first time. Go look at early versions of eBay, Google, Reddit, etc. Go read about how many trials every successful company had to go through to get to where they are. Then consider why people think either the government is too corrupt to do anything at all, or why people think the government is like superman and can do everything at the flip of a switch. It doesn't work like that. By those disagreements, I'm very much not a Bernie Bro. And so he should be dead to me... except not. I look at the whole field, where he fits in against the other candidates, where he fits in in general, and whether he could provide net positive influence to the country. As I implied it's not an issue in itself it's the preview of how they may make decisions which gives a very vague outline of policy on non platformed issues in this case of Bloomberg. Though there is a lot of speculation here which is why looking at a persons character also is needed which is further speculative but more accurate than looking only at a candidates platform advertised. There are ways to speed up forming new or better government systems which is to simply take over the private ones or copy them in the things they got right. I don't think Bernie would ever choose Yang as a running mate. It's too much of a risk to his campaign. He's a frontrunner, and he doesn't need to make these kind of moves. Polls show any Democratic candidate can beat Trump. I don't necessarily believe this but Bernie and his fans sure do. But would they be a good match? I think they stand in a similar place in the ideological spectrum, but they have vastly different approaches to the same problems. That's either a good match or a disaster. Well because of order of command and Bernie having more experience where they differ will most likely be Bernie with final say. I more so was suggesting Yang may be able to inform Bernie on things he doesn't know enough about like the internet for example. That's what I had in mind not that i thought their positions are 100% compatible. |
traedFeb 16, 2020 5:38 PM
traed said: Well because of order of command and Bernie having more experience where they differ will most likely be Bernie with final say. I more so was suggesting Yang may be able to inform Bernie on things he doesn't know enough about like the internet for example. That's what I had in mind not that i thought their positions are 100% compatible. Y'know, there are more positions than VP to consider if we're gonna speculate on who would make Bernie a stronger ticket. Yang would likely be at home in the commerce or treasury departments, and could show his strengths there. As an aside, having Warren on as VP would solidify the progressive vote and give some of the corpo-dems a little air to relax. Both of these would push Sanders well into the lead (at least polling-wise), either alone or together. That being said it's something of a risk when he is performing well so far, and is likely going to beat Buttigieg for the ticket on his own merits as it looks so far. |
| Nico nico ni~eed a siggy like the all the cool kids Really wish we had a rep system so I could farm it and spam rep+ |
traed said: Which is unrealistic and likely unconstitutional. There are ways to speed up forming new or better government systems which is to simply take over the private ones or copy them in the things they got right. traed said: Bernie would have the final say because he would be the president (like you said, order of command), but depending on the issue, his experience is likely irrelevant. I'm not sure what Yang contributes to this ticket then. It would be like Trump making Mike Pence his bitch.Well because of order of command and Bernie having more experience where they differ will most likely be Bernie with final say. traed said: Yeah, sure, Yang could probably contribute to the administration in some capacity, but not in one such where Bernie gets the final say. I more so was suggesting Yang may be able to inform Bernie on things he doesn't know enough about like the internet for example. That's what I had in mind not that i thought their positions are 100% compatible. ItsaNico said: I'm going to vote Trump out of protest is either Warren or Booty Judge (sorry, that's inappropriate) wins the primary. I got tired of Warren refusing the answer questions straight in the early primary debates.As an aside, having Warren on as VP would solidify the progressive vote and give some of the corpo-dems a little air to relax. Both of these would push Sanders well into the lead (at least polling-wise), either alone or together. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: I don't know how you graduated nursing when you don't believe in global warming, bro Tell me where I said I don't believe in global warming. All I said was that the science doesn't support what the climate fear mongers like Bernie suggest we do. Double digit trillions over the course of next 10 years? Fukin lol katsucats said: Bernie is not a socialist. He is not a Marxist. Despite what he calls himself, the way Americans use these words are wrong, and Bernie is just making a statement. In none of Bernie's policies does he explicitly prescribe that the government should take over private industries. We both know that the semantics of the term can be discussed ad nauseum. The fact of the matter is that Bernienomics embraces an economic system that involves taking large portions of whatever is produced by private enterprise, and redistributing it. So while it is not the classical socialism, it's socializing a huge portion of the fruits of private enterprise. This might sound familiar to you. I'll give you a hint – it starts with an “f” and ends with an “-ist” but I don't care to argue about that. It's the sibling of socialism anyway. The bottom line is that Bernie is economically illiterate. katsucats said: Setting that aside, while I agree with Boxxo that economics doesn't have the same rigor as hard sciences (hell, empirical economics is a recent invention), I would also argue that Republicans don't understand economics. Specifically, they don't understand the effect of externalities. They (and many leftists) don't understand the tragedy of the commons. They don't understand that we function in a spaceship economy, not a cowboy economy. Global resources are limited, and we possess the technology where one private interest can negatively affect the productivity of numerous other parties in a way that takes technical competency, beyond that of an average citizen, to prove. One example of this is global warming: the costs to economy are projected to be in the trillions, and the lack of prevention and regulation is the most expensive mistake one could make. That's like arguing people shouldn't maintain their cars because it's too expensive! Government agencies need to measure pollution outputs and implement carbon taxes so that the hidden costs passed from one private party could be recovered by the public. When people ignore these negative externalities, they are effectively giving handouts to polluters and creating black markets of capital inefficiency. So no, it's not liberals who want to tax businesses that don't understand economics, it's corporatists who want to give free handouts to the wealthy that don't understand economics. I agree that pretty much every Republican (at least the ones I've obvserved) save Rand Paul doesn't understand economics...or just promotes policies that line the pockets of special interests. If you are skeptical of empirical economics, then why do think the solution to the tragedy of the commons is in the form of top-down regulation, of which a well known flaw is knowledge problems? Mises, an Austrian economist, described the tragedy of commons decades before the guy who wrote the essay “Tragedy of the Commons”. The hallmarks of Austrian economics are praxeology and deductive reasoning, which allows it to avoid all the shortcomings empirical economics brings with it. In any case, the solution to the tragedy of the commons is not government regulation. https://mises.org/library/austrian-theory-environmental-economics Here is the Austrian argument if youre interested katsucats said: So no, it's not liberals who want to tax businesses that don't understand economics, it's corporatists who want to give free handouts to the wealthy that don't understand economics Liberals do not understand economics. The corporatists who want to redistribute wealth to the wealthy either don't understand economics or understand what they are doing and simply want to line the wealthy's pockets. katsucats said: I'm a Yang guy, so you have a point there with the wealth tax, but for everything Bernie doesn't understand about economics, there's at least 3 things Trump doesn't understand about economics. And morality. This conversation isn't about Trump. Trump is a protectionist, monetary expansionist, hardcore Keynesian – all things I think are bullshit economics. His economic policies are terrible imo. I do think they are better than what Bernie proposes, though. Bernie will run a similar racket as Trump, and then some. Bernie's Green New Deal or whatever he calls it is an economic disaster, and Bernie just wants to raise taxes pretty much across the board. |
Kyotosomo said: MasterGlyth said: A good amount of corruption would be solved by removing the financial intensive to be corrupt. Yes, bernie is so very corrupt, and the real problem in politics, guy who suggests voting for bloomberg and deep state pete. Great priorities you have. At no point did I say anybody should vote for Bloomberg or Buttigieg haha, I love how you literally have to make shit up in your head to cope with other people disagreeing with you lol. Kyotosomo said: Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar could have EASILY destroyed Trump in a general election. And the later two I think most Republicans actually wouldn't even bee too upset about being president...I think under either of those later two we could actually see the country to start to heal and unify again after the 12 years of divisive bullshit under Trump and Obama. However as long as all three of them are in the race they'll continue to split the vote and Bernie will walk away with the victory ...So sadly it looks like Trump will be president in 2020 These candidates could beat trump, you don't want trump, corrupt jerk offs are the better alternative, its's sad the vote is split, the country could "heal and unify" under bloomberg, ok then. Poor attempt at backtracking here. |
I can see you |
Kyotosomo said: I don't know why you're so much against Bernie Sanders, since you didn't say anything specific about any of his policies, and considering that half of the Democratic candidates are for:The only candidate for whom the deficit issue is a factor is MAYBE Bernie Sanders because whereas everybody else would just hold us steady on the path to ruin, he would actually quadruple the speed at which we get there (although I doubt he'd actually be able to push most of what he wants through congress, but who knows considering how fucking insane the Democratic party has become not to mention most people REALLY hate Trump so we could see a sweeping victory for the Democrats). Although honestly that would maybe actually be a GOOD thing, which is why I actually would consider voting for him. We're heading over the cliff either way so having Bernie be the one to do it blowing out all the spending immediately (as opposed to making us wait a couple more decades) at least in that case as ignorant as our population is even they would so clearly see that spending was what destroyed our economy (no matter how much the media were to lie and spread their propaganda there'd be no way of twisting it into being anybody else fault) so at least in the case we could hammer it into these idiots' heads that way we could avoid repeating the mistake for a century or two (assuming the planet can still sustain 10 - 15 billion people at that point which I have doubts of). Plus life would be awesome the next five or six years until the crash on account of all the free shit we'd be getting (even knowing we couldn't afford it).
I see nothing about Bernie's policies that are unique to just him. But let's break this down for a second.
Investment is CHEAP, not EXPENSIVE. Not investing when you should is EXPENSIVE. Cutting the FDA programs that regulate our air and water quality is expensive. A 1% uptick in cancer costs hundreds of billions down the road. And I think, in my opinion, that's the problem with this kind of assessment. Too many people focus on current costs as opposed to future costs. Any Poker player will tell you what matters is not whether you win or lose a particular hand, but the expected value of the hands you play. Any businessman will tell you if don't put money down to secure a new machine, or system network, you might lose tons of money from increased operating costs. Any programmer will tell you if you don't spend time and money testing your system, you accrue technical debt. They all understand one thing: Not spending money is expensive. And putting all this aside, studies have shown that if Bush Jr. never implemented his tax cuts to the wealthy, national debt would have never ballooned in the first place. Trump just cut corporate rates from 35% to 21%. The 35% was a temporary discount from like 40%. Trump made the discount into a permanent 21%. That's the true cause of our debt, not even the 700 billion per year that we waste on our military, once again TWICE (actually more like 4 times) as expensive as other countries like China, for a questionable benefit, due to military contracts. The top tax bracket of what many remember as the "Golden Age", the 1950s, was 70%. So yeah, where was I again? Oh yeah. No. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: traed said: Which is unrealistic and likely unconstitutional.There are ways to speed up forming new or better government systems which is to simply take over the private ones or copy them in the things they got right. There are completly legal fairly realistic ways to do it but I haven't hashed out every step on how. For example shorten patent life then make use of the patented systems big corporations created. Another way is buying a major company. katsucats said: traed said: Bernie would have the final say because he would be the president (like you said, order of command), but depending on the issue, his experience is likely irrelevant. I'm not sure what Yang contributes to this ticket then. It would be like Trump making Mike Pence his bitch.Well because of order of command and Bernie having more experience where they differ will most likely be Bernie with final say. katsucats said: Yeah, sure, Yang could probably contribute to the administration in some capacity, but not in one such where Bernie gets the final say. Eh well i was being a bit too imprecise. While I did imply VP I didn't necessarily mean being VP inherently. I didn't quite get a feeling of Yang as a president since he doesn't have political experience but I think he should be somewhere in the government katsucats said: ItsaNico said: I'm going to vote Trump out of protest is either Warren or Booty Judge (sorry, that's inappropriate) wins the primary. I got tired of Warren refusing the answer questions straight in the early primary debates.As an aside, having Warren on as VP would solidify the progressive vote and give some of the corpo-dems a little air to relax. Both of these would push Sanders well into the lead (at least polling-wise), either alone or together. That's not worst ive seen people call Butigege ive seen him called Buttplug I've explained this elsewhere in the thread to someone else. That is not a proper protest vote strategy because it reads as a signal "Dems should go further to the right. Conservatives only!". A protest vote is voting third party for someone with policies most closely matching what you want (try looking on Isidewith they list some of the third party candidates) because it signals what you want or an unapplicable write in which tells them who you want... not voting for someone with policies opposed to what you want which is just political masochism. |
traedFeb 16, 2020 7:58 PM
RandomChampion said: The scientific projections express a fearful scenario, and to not hedge against that risk is playing the biggest lottery.katsucats said: Tell me where I said I don't believe in global warming. All I said was that the science doesn't support what the climate fear mongers like Bernie suggest we do. Double digit trillions over the course of next 10 years? Fukin lolI don't know how you graduated nursing when you don't believe in global warming, bro RandomChampion said: Fascism isn't redistributing wealth that's been concentrated to the top back to the bottom. Wealth redistribution is inherent in every economic system, and in fact since income disparity is at all time highs due to 30 years of policy that distribute upward (i.e. trickle-down), it isn't at all inappropriate to redistribute it back down.katsucats said: We both know that the semantics of the term can be discussed ad nauseum. The fact of the matter is that Bernienomics embraces an economic system that involves taking large portions of whatever is produced by private enterprise, and redistributing it. So while it is not the classical socialism, it's socializing a huge portion of the fruits of private enterprise. This might sound familiar to you. I'll give you a hint – it starts with an “f” and ends with an “-ist” but I don't care to argue about that. It's the sibling of socialism anyway. The bottom line is that Bernie is economically illiterate. Bernie is not a socialist. He is not a Marxist. Despite what he calls himself, the way Americans use these words are wrong, and Bernie is just making a statement. In none of Bernie's policies does he explicitly prescribe that the government should take over private industries. RandomChampion said: I'm not skeptical of empirical economics. I noted that it's a relatively recent invention to demonstrate the point that economics is not as formally studied as hard sciences. Science is backed by observations, and has been since 1700s. Economics has not been backed by any observations until recently. That's why all the overly reductive equations of classical economics (e.g. E = C+I+G+NX) look like a joke. If anything, empirical economics is a step in the right direction.If you are skeptical of empirical economics, then why do think the solution to the tragedy of the commons is in the form of top-down regulation, of which a well known flaw is knowledge problems? If you re-read Garrett Hardin's article, he proposes that regulation is the only solution to the problem of the commons, and I think he makes a sound argument. RandomChampion said: You can't deductively reason away empirical system, and the idea that one could model a complex system involving a multitude of variables without a feedback loop onto reality is unscientific and disturbing. The primary assumption in both capitalism and socialism is that human beings are rational, and modern psychology and neuroscience have already soundly disproved that notion.Mises, an Austrian economist, described the tragedy of commons decades before the guy who wrote the essay “Tragedy of the Commons”. The hallmarks of Austrian economics are praxeology and deductive reasoning, which allows it to avoid all the shortcomings empirical economics brings with it. RandomChampion said: I scanned that and found it laughable. For it to reject Pareto optimality and regulation in favor of regulating property rights is like shifting goalposts and playing footsy. And of course, there's the same problems here as in alchemy and miasma theory -- both of which tried to "reason" their way into science with fascinating results.In any case, the solution to the tragedy of the commons is not government regulation. https://mises.org/library/austrian-theory-environmental-economics Here is the Austrian argument if youre interested RandomChampion said: I'm guessing you take after libertarian laissez-faire capitalism, which is, in my opinion, just as stupid as socialism. Imagine putting everything into a neat box and just pretending inefficiencies can never occur. For example, if industries are concentrated in a certain area so as to provide jobs, capital theorists must assume that people can just vote with their dollars and move out to rural areas, causing jobs to follow, that there can never be a real estate market breakdown because people are rational agents. Or that people can just "refuse" to put money in a bank or conduct business with any of a number of enterprises that are essential to their productivity.katsucats said: Liberals do not understand economics. The corporatists who want to redistribute wealth to the wealthy either don't understand economics or understand what they are doing and simply want to line the wealthy's pockets. So no, it's not liberals who want to tax businesses that don't understand economics, it's corporatists who want to give free handouts to the wealthy that don't understand economics To be honest, if you think classical capitalism is "understanding economics", whether Keynesian or Austrian, this is the end of our conversation. Nothing can be salvaged from such a grievant misunderstanding. RandomChampion said: I completely disagree. Raising taxes to fund social programs is a net positive unless you make more than $32 million.This conversation isn't about Trump. Trump is a protectionist, monetary expansionist, hardcore Keynesian – all things I think are bullshit economics. His economic policies are terrible imo. I do think they are better than what Bernie proposes, though. Bernie will run a similar racket as Trump, and then some. Bernie's Green New Deal or whatever he calls it is an economic disaster, and Bernie just wants to raise taxes pretty much across the board. Economics doesn't stand in a silo, isolated from any other component in life. Imagine a country without services -- without a military, without police, without public roads, without food regulations. Everything just depends on "property rights", and the miraculous thought that every citizen magically knows everything. Like if I sell you a poisonous pear that doesn't kill you today, but increases the chance your son will have birth defects. And you're a rational, knowledgeable agent. So you don't buy my pear. Or somehow you could exercise your tome of "property rights" and argue successfully in court that my pear caused you damage. What kind of reality do you live in? Of course government is necessary, and of course redistribution is necessary. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand economics. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
traed said: Which is still unrealistic, given the Senate and the Supreme Court.katsucats said: Which is unrealistic and likely unconstitutional. There are completly legal fairly realistic ways to do it but I haven't hashed out every step on how. For example shorten patent life then make use of the patented systems big corporations created. Another way is buying a major company. traed said: A protest vote is hitting where it hurts. The whole lesser of two evils perspective is what's giving the parties such leeway to get away with their bullshit. The parties need to be made aware when people no longer puts up with it. We already lost 2016 due to the superdelegates fiasco, and now Hillary Clinton and the establishment are still pushing weight around Tulsi Gabbard for supporting Bernie, and the media leaving out Yang, and framing debates around certain narratives. Enough is enough.katsucats said: I'm going to vote Trump out of protest is either Warren or Booty Judge (sorry, that's inappropriate) wins the primary. I got tired of Warren refusing the answer questions straight in the early primary debates. I've explained this elsewhere in the thread to someone else. That is not a proper protest vote strategy because it reads as a signal "Dems should go further to the right. Conservatives only!". A protest vote is voting third party for someone with policies most closely matching what you want (try looking on Isidewith they list some of the third party candidates) because it signals what you want or an unapplicable write in which tells them who you want... not voting for someone with policies opposed to what you want which is just political masochism. For the record, I do not think Warren or Buttigieg could beat Trump. So if the establishment is just trying to vote in a "safe option", then fuck the party. Their grotesque mishandling of the Iowa caucus is practically a signal for Republicans to attack Bernie's single-payer plan, because if the government can't run an app that asks people 3 questions, how the fuck can they run a complete rehaul of one of the largest industries? Once again, I am not against single-payer, but these incumbent assholes need to start playing ball. It's not any more political masochism as marching for a cause on a cold weekend is masochism. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| @katsucats The Iowa app was made by a private company for the Democratic Party of Iowa. As far as i am aware party officials and independent private contractors are not considered part of the government https://www.npr.org/2020/02/04/802583844/what-we-know-about-the-app-that-delayed-iowas-caucus-results |
traed said: It was made by people in connection to Pete Buttigieg. And it doesn't matter who made it. It was the government who contracted it several weeks before the caucus. They absolutely have the responsibility to make sure that it works. It was a project at such a scope that I could make myself.@katsucats The Iowa app was made by a private company for the Democratic Party of Iowa. As far as i am aware party officials and independent private contractors are not considered part of the government https://www.npr.org/2020/02/04/802583844/what-we-know-about-the-app-that-delayed-iowas-caucus-results When Bernie implements Medicare4All, do you think they're going to do everything in house, or hire private contractors? lol |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: traed said: It was made by people in connection to Pete Buttigieg. And it doesn't matter who made it. It was the government who contracted it several weeks before the caucus. They absolutely have the responsibility to make sure that it works. It was a project at such a scope that I could make myself.@katsucats The Iowa app was made by a private company for the Democratic Party of Iowa. As far as i am aware party officials and independent private contractors are not considered part of the government https://www.npr.org/2020/02/04/802583844/what-we-know-about-the-app-that-delayed-iowas-caucus-results When Bernie implements Medicare4All, do you think they're going to do everything in house, or hire private contractors? lol Where was the government involved? I mean isn't party activities seporate from government activities? Even though technically it's an extension of government since it's voting but this is the primary not the presidential election. The presidential elections are the ones ran by the state governments. I'm not even sure what the exact plan is. I have so much going on I can't keep up on everything. |
traed said: Sure, you can technically argue that the party isn't the same department that will likely oversee Medicare4All, but people aren't going to see that. And they're right. There's no reason to believe that the White House will be much more competent. There's no significant factor that you could point out in the difference between the people the party hire and the people the White House will hire. But at the very least, if they're going to sell this vision to the American people, then there's no room for mistakes at the marketing board room. Yet, this was an egregious mistake.katsucats said: It was made by people in connection to Pete Buttigieg. And it doesn't matter who made it. It was the government who contracted it several weeks before the caucus. They absolutely have the responsibility to make sure that it works. It was a project at such a scope that I could make myself. When Bernie implements Medicare4All, do you think they're going to do everything in house, or hire private contractors? lol Where was the government involved? I mean isn't party activities seporate from government activities? Even though technically it's an extension of government since it's voting but this is the primary not the presidential election. The presidential elections are the ones ran by the state governments. I'm not even sure what the exact plan is. I have so much going on I can't keep up on everything. If I was as inclined toward conspiracy theories as the typical Bernie Bro, we might as well speculate the the party did this intentionally to destroy Bernie. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Please god let Bernie win the nomination. It will be so easy for Trump to roll over him. Also, P.P. Butt has more delegates so is Bernie really the frontrunner? |
| Hunter x Hunter is a 1/10 |
winfoharso said: Only if you mean physically. I can imagine the fat ass rolling over him. lolPlease god let Bernie win the nomination. It will be so easy for Trump to roll over him. Also, P.P. Butt has more delegates so is Bernie really the frontrunner? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
winfoharso said: Please god let Bernie win the nomination. It will be so easy for Trump to roll over him. Also, P.P. Butt has more delegates so is Bernie really the frontrunner? I genuinely LOVE how the tables have turned in 2020... In 2016, everyone said that Trump had ZERO shot, that Hillary would win easily! And now Trump supporters are soooo cocky! By all means continue to act cocky, continue to exude all that confidence you’re all brimming with! After all...Trump won soooo handedly in 2016! Oh wait...he lost the popular vote huh? And oh wait...the crucial Rust Belt states he won he mostly won by razor thin margins! And OH wait....all those promises he made that were important to voters who live in the Rust Belt got FUCKED when jobs did NOT return from China, and Trump decided to give a massive tax cut to the richest Americans! And OH WAIT....he was running against one of the most HATED candidates ever! and OH WAIT....if he were to run against Bernie who is a REAL populist unlike him who turned out to be a FAKE populist, Bernie’s policies actually resonate with the working and middle class! But PLEASE continue to be cocky Trump fans...by all means, continue to believe that Trump is unbeatable! |
--ALEX-- said: What are you talking about? He had like the biggest inauguration... EVER! LOLBut PLEASE continue to be cocky Trump fans...by all means, continue to believe that Trump is unbeatable! |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| @Kyotosomo "if you can even call being a politician a real job despite the fact they provide nothing of value to society)" What? Are you alright, man? You can go ahead and live in an anarchy for a few years, and then come back and tell me how it was, assuming if you live to tell the tale of course. |
Kyotosomo said: MasterGlyth said: These candidates could beat trump, you don't want trump, corrupt jerk offs are the better alternative, its's sad the vote is split, the country could "heal and unify" under bloomberg, ok then. Poor attempt at backtracking here. Do you hear yourself speak lol? You just answered your own question about why you were wrong and misread what I said, and STILL left with the same opinion haha. I don't want any of them to win (the two candidates I would have voted for are already out), I am purely stating if the Democrats want a candidate with a significantly better chance of winning (50% - 70% chance instead of Bernie's 40% chance); those are the three people to do it. But hey if they want to fuck themselves over that's fine by me, if it means getting to see all the people who are ruining the Democratic party lose their shit when Bernie gets destroyed in the general election that's fine by me. I'd take four more awful years of Trump if it means them all getting the slap across the face they deserve plus the Democratic party finally getting the wake up call that it needs a major reform from the ground up as it's now just a shadow of its glory days and is being driven to the fringes by its radicals and has become so toxic that it's destroying our country's social discourse and ruining millions of peoples' personalities for whom its driving batshit crazy with political fervor. Plus hey if they reform then I'll happily root for the Republicans to get destroyed too so I can cross my fingers they go through a reform too going for a more Libertarian-Republican streak since there are no new Republicans anymore anyway all the young people with Conservative parents just end up going Libertarian-Republican now a days. I didn't ask a question and don't care for the rest of the overly simplistic analysis about voting. I just quoted your advertisement for other candidates being better for the country. Claiming not to favor anyone is the easy way out that doesn't have honesty to it. |
I can see you |
Kyotosomo said: This is a hilarious categorical error. Of course it's a math issue. And taxes are a part of the math.katsucats said: I don't know why you're so much against Bernie Sanders, since you didn't say anything specific about any of his policies, and considering that half of the Democratic candidates are for:
I see nothing about Bernie's policies that are unique to just him. But let's break this down for a second.
Investment is CHEAP, not EXPENSIVE. Not investing when you should is EXPENSIVE. Cutting the FDA programs that regulate our air and water quality is expensive. A 1% uptick in cancer costs hundreds of billions down the road. And I think, in my opinion, that's the problem with this kind of assessment. Too many people focus on current costs as opposed to future costs. Any Poker player will tell you what matters is not whether you win or lose a particular hand, but the expected value of the hands you play. Any businessman will tell you if don't put money down to secure a new machine, or system network, you might lose tons of money from increased operating costs. Any programmer will tell you if you don't spend time and money testing your system, you accrue technical debt. They all understand one thing: Not spending money is expensive. And putting all this aside, studies have shown that if Bush Jr. never implemented his tax cuts to the wealthy, national debt would have never ballooned in the first place. Trump just cut corporate rates from 35% to 21%. The 35% was a temporary discount from like 40%. Trump made the discount into a permanent 21%. That's the true cause of our debt, not even the 700 billion per year that we waste on our military, once again TWICE (actually more like 4 times) as expensive as other countries like China, for a questionable benefit, due to military contracts. The top tax bracket of what many remember as the "Golden Age", the 1950s, was 70%. So yeah, where was I again? Oh yeah. No. What you said on investment philosophy in regards to Global Warming / Resource Depletion was true (the long term is ALWAYS more important than the short term) and hey as far as I'm concerned we shouldn't be spending ANYTHING on the Military; we should just setup a coast guard to protect our boarders in the HIGHLY UNLIKELY event another country invades us (we already have more weapons stored up than we could ever use). But holy crap everything else you said was such a profoundly massive misunderstanding of the most basic fundamentals of economics as well as the problems with the US Education System / Healthcare System I wouldn't even know where to begin; I could spend all days explaining how incredibly wrong you are. However your blurb on taxes I WILL explain to you as that's a very easy one to correct. The debt crisis is NOT a tax issue, it's a MATH issue. Kyotosomo said: And you're accusing me of getting fed propaganda! Here's a couple graphics derived from the Congressional Budget Office statistics (analysis by centrist thinktank): https://www.cbpp.org/blog/whats-driving-projected-debt. Social security, Medicare, and welfare are structural spending items. Undoubtedly, you've seen pie charts where they take up 50% of the spending from trolls trying to mislead naive people like you. What these pie charts never include are the effects of policy. They tell us what we're spending money on, but they don't tell us how much revenue we're achieving and from where.I don't know what kind of propaganda pushers you read that bullshit from on HW but his tax cuts have NOTHING to do with our ballooning debt and no sane person with any understanding of the debt crisis thinks that they did. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are ballooning the debt because when the creators calibrated the programs they didn't know how vastly the country was going to change and that people were going to start living decades longer, starting having way less kids (forcing a small group to pay for the expenses of a much larger group), and start living much unhealthier lives (far more medical expenses to deal with). Kyotosomo said: Luckily for me, we are talking about Bush era tax cuts. That's a specified period in time 10-20 years ago, not some unspecified ad infinitum into the future. Nice strawman there buddy. CBO estimates the Social Security Trust Fund will reach peak in 2021 before deflating. So what does this have to do with what I'm talking about? Your desperation. Currently, social security benefits account for some manageable percentage of our budget -- budget that could have been increased to drive down debt if we didn't give all these tax cuts to the wealthy.These programs were doomed to fail from the start because the math simply doesn't add up; they only continue to get more and more expensive as time passes more than we could ever hope to pay for. It has nothing to do with taxes. We could DOUBLE everybody's taxes and it STILL wouldn't even put a dent in the debt (in fact in just a few years we'd be back to spending more than we take in). Hell we could TRIPLE everybody's taxes (we're talking pretty much full on fascist government confiscation of property) for DECADES and we would STILL be nowhere near paying off the debt. And keep in mind, that's ignoring the fact that in reality doubling taxes would devastate the economy and tripling them would outright destroy it so in reality we wouldn't ACTUALLY be bringing in double / triple the revenue. So anybody who claims addressing the debt crisis is a matter of raising taxes is fucking delusional. These three programs along with the military make up over 80% of our spending and will actually make up over 90% in the near future; they ARE the debt problem. Kyotosomo said: I don't see how they can be eliminated outright constitutionally, given that workers have paid into it for decades. You might make an argument for future claimants to get reduced benefits, or phasing it out after converting it to a tax, such that people are not paying into a social security fund.They either need to be outright eliminated, replaced with something actually calibrated to the modern day, or be massively reformed (at the very least claimant age pushed forward a couple decades for social security / medicare, military cut to a fraction of its size, and medicaid introduce nutrition/exercise requirements plus have its inner workings smoothed so that we can still cover the poor but have it not cost such a massive amount). Kyotosomo said: A historical fact doesn't amount to much in the understanding of the theory of economics, but if you thought that was your smoking gun, I misread a chart by a column. Big whoop! 91% -- actually 92% -- reinforces my point. It certainly doesn't defeat it. But you just couldn't resist the small victories, huh?P.S. The top tax rate in the 1950s was NOT 70% LMAO anybody with a background in economics is going to laugh at you if you say that in front of them. First of all, your bullshit technicality number wasn't even correct, technically the top tax rate was actually as high as 91%. Kyotosomo said: You're right. The effective top rate on the wealthy at the time was 42% (https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/). The effective top rate in 2014 was 36%. And that was before Trump cut taxes to 37% for individuals and a whopping 21% for corporations. You really think that doesn't make an impact? A 40% permanent tax break to corporations.Second of all though, you ever wonder why economists who argue in favor of higher taxes don't ever bring that figure up? It's because it's a myth, nobody actually payed the full 91%. You think rich people dodge taxes now? Holy shit let me introduce you to the 1950s. In reality the effective tax rate in 1950s was roughly the same as it is now, in fact the effective tax rate in this country has remained roughly the same for about 80 years now, always floating around 35% - 45% which is about as much as you can get away with without driving them or their money off shore although the optimal tax rate is still less than that. In my opinion, you and all the other Libertarian fad chasers these days need to get your head out the gutter and stop trying to downplay the role of government, while actively weakening it. We have Trump making it okay for states to teach the Bible as science, cutting taxes to the wealthy while cutting social benefits to the poor, installing people who donated to his campaign to head the FDA and EPA's, rolling back regulation that keep our food, water, and air clean, fighting lawsuits with states that want better regulations, and Fox News got you looking at pie charts, like -- BUT MEDICAID! DRAIN THE SWAMP! SQUIRREL! You know where the biggest swamp is? The South. When all the Republicans get flooded by global warming! LOL |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Free healthcare and College for all does sound appealing. I can see why people are getting on the Bernie Sanders train. But objectively speaking, what is the probability any of that passes? According to what i've read Sanders plans a tax increase on all families earning over 29k a year, while also providing illegal immigrants with free healthcare. Sounds like it could lead to more people living in poverty depending on how high the taxes are. |
JunkYardHiro said: Not very much at all, your income tax would increase by 2.2% to cover your single-payer healthcare with the rest coming from a 6.2% tax to employers. His main change would be the inclusion of new, more progressive upper-end tax brackets capping off at 52% for those making above 10,000,000 rather than a flat 37% on incomes of over 500,000.Free healthcare and College for all does sound appealing. I can see why people are getting on the Bernie Sanders train. But objectively speaking, what is the probability any of that passes? According to what i've read Sanders plans a tax increase on all families earning over 29k a year, while also providing illegal immigrants with free healthcare. Sounds like it could lead to more people living in poverty depending on how high the taxes are. people on the lower end would see a significant net saving of money, considering the average household spends 5,000 dollars per person on healthcare annually |
  ｍａｌ'ｓ ＣＹＢＥＲ ｒａｃｃｏｏｎ ＣＹＢＥＲ ｂｏｏｐ ! ｆｒｏｍ ｔｈｅ ｄｉｓｔａｎｔ ｙｅａｒ ｏｆ ２０２６ ｔｈｅＣＹＢＥＲ ｐｏｌｉｃｅ ａｒｅ ａｆｔｅｒ ｍｅ ! |
Wakai- said: JunkYardHiro said: Not very much at all, your income tax would increase by 2.2% to cover your single-payer healthcare with the rest coming from a 6.2% tax to employers. His main change would be the inclusion of new, more progressive upper-end tax brackets capping off at 52% for those making above 10,000,000 rather than a flat 37% on incomes of over 500,000.Free healthcare and College for all does sound appealing. I can see why people are getting on the Bernie Sanders train. But objectively speaking, what is the probability any of that passes? According to what i've read Sanders plans a tax increase on all families earning over 29k a year, while also providing illegal immigrants with free healthcare. Sounds like it could lead to more people living in poverty depending on how high the taxes are. people on the lower end would see a significant net saving of money, considering the average household spends 5,000 dollars per person on healthcare annually To add to this there's a possible debate as to what happens to employee medical benefits if his health care bill managed to pass in its current form. For example it could be converted to added revenue to employees or shifted to other forms of benefits, in the worst case scenario the business could pocket them. I don't remember if he explicitly stated a requirement as to how they have to shift the benefits. |
| We all know Bloomberg is the chosen one after Biden fell out of favor. Sanders just going to get snubbed again. lol |
GamerDLM said: It also provides union leaders with new leverage when it comes to negotiating new collective bargaining contracts. Wakai- said: Not very much at all, your income tax would increase by 2.2% to cover your single-payer healthcare with the rest coming from a 6.2% tax to employers. His main change would be the inclusion of new, more progressive upper-end tax brackets capping off at 52% for those making above 10,000,000 rather than a flat 37% on incomes of over 500,000. people on the lower end would see a significant net saving of money, considering the average household spends 5,000 dollars per person on healthcare annually To add to this there's a possible debate as to what happens to employee medical benefits if his health care bill managed to pass in its current form. For example it could be converted to added revenue to employees or shifted to other forms of benefits, in the worst case scenario the business could pocket them. I don't remember if he explicitly stated a requirement as to how they have to shift the benefits. |
ｍａｌ'ｓ ＣＹＢＥＲ ｒａｃｃｏｏｎ ＣＹＢＥＲ ｂｏｏｐ ! ｆｒｏｍ ｔｈｅ ｄｉｓｔａｎｔ ｙｅａｒ ｏｆ ２０２６ ｔｈｅＣＹＢＥＲ ｐｏｌｉｃｅ ａｒｅ ａｆｔｅｒ ｍｅ ! |
| Nevada has come and gone, and it appears Sanders has gotten an indisputable lead for now. This probably signals issues with Biden's reliance on the black voters going into SC since it appears the bloc is splitting. People tell me that I should think about Bloomberg but all he really runs on is anti-Trump which is silly. Another establishment corpo-dem that will only chip support off of Biden if anything. SC will be a big signal as to what ST will look like, Bloomberg or not. |
| Nico nico ni~eed a siggy like the all the cool kids Really wish we had a rep system so I could farm it and spam rep+ |
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 |