bearkat42
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you have tough guy.
Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Hillary broke the Internet with her barking..
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwj97rTU3_3KAhXGWx4KHTH2AxQQqG8IDDAB&url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/16/hillary-clinton-barks-like-dog-breaks-internet/80447162/&usg=AFQjCNFMgobWvhfPqJKO9H4zGG3j1F_Mog&sig2=cqxs6OrWl8-c8QUc2mhAJg
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
see4
Well-Known Member
see4
Well-Known Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/analysis-cruz-tax-plan-would-benefit-rich-explode-deficit/2016/02/16/9e8353ca-d50d-11e5-a65b-587e721fb231_story.html
Sounds like you want more of the same. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. You're a shill for Republican policy, and most definitely a racist.
red w. blue
Well-Known Member
I'm sure its a sound you have heard many times.
@Uncle Ben is proud of the fact he too has never paid more than 12% ETR.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
We've had 40 years of tax breaks for wealthy people and corporations, and our economy has crashed over it several times.
Not only do republican candidates fail to acknowledge the disasters they and their policies have caused, their platforms all call for more of the same, only more! That's fine- IF you're already a billion dollar corporation or multimillionaire. If not? Good luck!
So how are we to expect anything different- except more economic crashes and disaster?
Mr Sanders' economic plans are quite transparent about their economic stimulus effects, and would benefit those who most need a hand becoming part of the productive economy. What's wrong with this approach? Are poor people undeserving?
I'm almost surprised no republican candidate has proposed deporting the homeless.
Not only do republican candidates fail to acknowledge the disasters they and their policies have caused, their platforms all call for more of the same, only more! That's fine- IF you're already a billion dollar corporation or multimillionaire. If not? Good luck!
So how are we to expect anything different- except more economic crashes and disaster?
Mr Sanders' economic plans are quite transparent about their economic stimulus effects, and would benefit those who most need a hand becoming part of the productive economy. What's wrong with this approach? Are poor people undeserving?
I'm almost surprised no republican candidate has proposed deporting the homeless.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't they have a better chance if they followed the jobs? it's the least they could do.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
They're still quite convinced they can buy all the elections, so they needn't bother.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
3 days ago on The Five Greg Gutfeld gave an presented an "award winning video" showing her lies and with every clip of Hillary spewing her lies on camera there was a different dog barking after the clip. IT WAS FUCKIN' PRICELESS!Hillary broke the Internet with her barking..
It was his best, uncontrollable laughter in the studio. If you missed it, you REALLY missed it. 
On "The Five" today, Greg Gutfeld skewered Hillary Clinton for barking like a dog while making the claim that Republicans are untrustworthy.
He said it's pretty ironic that the Democratic presidential contender barked like a dog while she's the one who's being dogged by everyone over her "rampant fibbery" regarding her private email server and mistreatment of classified intelligence.
To illustrate Clinton's hypocrisy, Gutfeld ran down a long list of her own lies and half-truths, hilariously interspersed with actual barking dogs.
Some of these "greatest hits" included Clinton's claims that she never emailed any classified material, she landed under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia in 1996 and that she never told the family members of Benghazi victims that the 2012 terror attack was instigated by an anti-Muslim propaganda film.
"So there you have it," Gutfeld said. "Every time Hillary opens her mouth, her campaign goes to the dogs."
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/16/greg-gutfeld-reacts-hillary-clinton-barking-dog-calling-republicans-liars
see4
Well-Known Member
Being that was said by a "comedian", those "points" sure were comical.
1. Yes, he does mean free. To someone, the product or service will be free.
2. Nobody ever wants someone else's hard earned money. They want that hard earned money earner to pay their fair share.
3. Actually, the most prosperous countries today have high tax rates. The United States was the most prosperous when it had the highest tax rates.
4. They are when they are the ones making the laws. Wealth should not be prerequisite for power.
5. Social Security, Medicare and the Military Industrial Complex are all social programs.
That assclown is not a conservative. He's a Republican. Very big difference.
You really should get out more.
serhgroer
Member
Sanders will win even republicans will say "anyone but Trump" (except the ones he paid to vote for him.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You never acknowledge that the government is overspending... There are two sides to the equation here.
rocknratm
Well-Known Member
I dont think anyone here is backing hilary. Normally I would never watch the news, but It was interesting I saw a bit at the gym (local community center, socialism at work) and they were talking about how hilary is the democratic establishment candidate. Very interesting to see it out in the open like that, either im paying more attention now or things are a bit more transparent.
lets look at these 5 point and really analyze them.
Number one is reasonable. There is a cost to anything, the old economic saying is theres not such thing as a free lunch. So the first point makes some sense. But the costs will be on the rich. The negative impact will be on them, because economic disparity is out of control. You cannot morally justify the disparity between people who have multiple mansions, yachts, private planes and the average working class individual. Freedom is not the freedom to have as much physical goods and money as you can possible acquire. That my friends is greed. Why would one individual ever need to take home more that 250k per year? IF you cannot live a full, happy life on that, maybe you should reanalyze your goals and priorities in life. No religion or spiritual outlook would justify such a huge amount of money as necessary for happiness.
2&4 can be analyzed together. How do rich people get their money? When someone starts a business, they rarely do all the labor themselves. They have employees do the physical work while not giving them the full reward for their output of labor. This is because the person who starts the business controls the means of production, but this does not mean they have the right to take a disproportionate share of the profit. People are entitled to much more of the outcome from their labor than they typically receive.
Further, when someone starts a corporation they use public resources- fire, water, sewage, roads, police, ect. They need to pay closer to the real cost of these things, via higher taxes or wealth redistribution to their employees. That money they make using peoples labor and public resources needs to be put back into the system which they exploit to make their profits.
When companies move manufacturing to other countries they need to be taxed very high. Anything coming in or out of the country needs to be taxed alot as well. This would promote local manufacturing and create jobs in our country. Some materials we need to get from other countries if cost is a concern, but we need to look at the big picture and ask if this is sustainable. The bottom line profits cannot be the driving force of policy (rebuplican way), because this would leave the world in shambles (we are well on the way).
This leads me to #5. This country is still the most prosperous in the world. But it wont stay that way if we have no middle class and all the wealth end up in the hands of the top % of rich people (again, we are getting very close). Innovation? IMHO we dont need more inventions and scientific break throughs. We have enough technology, we have enough resources, medicine is advanced enough (cancer can be treated in different ways, high cbd treatments, going after the root cause, ect.). I think most scientists working in medicine will still work in medicine for the good of all people and because they enjoy science. Even if innovation becomes stagnant, realistically why do we need to advance any more? We dont need rapid advancement, we need a better quality of life for all people in this country. Thats what socialism has as a goal.
Lets talk about classes. People say there wont be any motivation under socialism, I dont agree. IN a socialist system, the lower class would be for people who dont work, cant work, or only want to work 8-16hrs a week. They could still sustain themselves, having guaranteed food clothing and shelter. This would be the smallest class. The middle class would be the biggest. This would include most working people, unskilled labor more so than skilled. If you work had 16-32 hrs, you should automatically be in this class. This would be pretty kushy, with enough to have hobbies, a nice house, a nice car, ect. The upper class would be skilled or highly educated people- scientists, doctors, lawyers, ect. These people would make more than the middle class but not a lot more- only a moderate amount. Basically all jobs would land people in the middle-upper class. There would be no upper 1%. This would not be allowed, the money would be taken from anyone who earns that much and redistributed through profit sharing or taxation.
#3, we are already prosperous. We are going downhill because the rich are greedy and hoarding all the resources. These super rich are building their empires on war money, oil money, and exploitative business models. IMO socialism would generally make all decisions for the good of all people, restructuring business models through wealth redistribution across the board.
lets look at these 5 point and really analyze them.
Number one is reasonable. There is a cost to anything, the old economic saying is theres not such thing as a free lunch. So the first point makes some sense. But the costs will be on the rich. The negative impact will be on them, because economic disparity is out of control. You cannot morally justify the disparity between people who have multiple mansions, yachts, private planes and the average working class individual. Freedom is not the freedom to have as much physical goods and money as you can possible acquire. That my friends is greed. Why would one individual ever need to take home more that 250k per year? IF you cannot live a full, happy life on that, maybe you should reanalyze your goals and priorities in life. No religion or spiritual outlook would justify such a huge amount of money as necessary for happiness.
2&4 can be analyzed together. How do rich people get their money? When someone starts a business, they rarely do all the labor themselves. They have employees do the physical work while not giving them the full reward for their output of labor. This is because the person who starts the business controls the means of production, but this does not mean they have the right to take a disproportionate share of the profit. People are entitled to much more of the outcome from their labor than they typically receive.
Further, when someone starts a corporation they use public resources- fire, water, sewage, roads, police, ect. They need to pay closer to the real cost of these things, via higher taxes or wealth redistribution to their employees. That money they make using peoples labor and public resources needs to be put back into the system which they exploit to make their profits.
When companies move manufacturing to other countries they need to be taxed very high. Anything coming in or out of the country needs to be taxed alot as well. This would promote local manufacturing and create jobs in our country. Some materials we need to get from other countries if cost is a concern, but we need to look at the big picture and ask if this is sustainable. The bottom line profits cannot be the driving force of policy (rebuplican way), because this would leave the world in shambles (we are well on the way).
This leads me to #5. This country is still the most prosperous in the world. But it wont stay that way if we have no middle class and all the wealth end up in the hands of the top % of rich people (again, we are getting very close). Innovation? IMHO we dont need more inventions and scientific break throughs. We have enough technology, we have enough resources, medicine is advanced enough (cancer can be treated in different ways, high cbd treatments, going after the root cause, ect.). I think most scientists working in medicine will still work in medicine for the good of all people and because they enjoy science. Even if innovation becomes stagnant, realistically why do we need to advance any more? We dont need rapid advancement, we need a better quality of life for all people in this country. Thats what socialism has as a goal.
Lets talk about classes. People say there wont be any motivation under socialism, I dont agree. IN a socialist system, the lower class would be for people who dont work, cant work, or only want to work 8-16hrs a week. They could still sustain themselves, having guaranteed food clothing and shelter. This would be the smallest class. The middle class would be the biggest. This would include most working people, unskilled labor more so than skilled. If you work had 16-32 hrs, you should automatically be in this class. This would be pretty kushy, with enough to have hobbies, a nice house, a nice car, ect. The upper class would be skilled or highly educated people- scientists, doctors, lawyers, ect. These people would make more than the middle class but not a lot more- only a moderate amount. Basically all jobs would land people in the middle-upper class. There would be no upper 1%. This would not be allowed, the money would be taken from anyone who earns that much and redistributed through profit sharing or taxation.
#3, we are already prosperous. We are going downhill because the rich are greedy and hoarding all the resources. These super rich are building their empires on war money, oil money, and exploitative business models. IMO socialism would generally make all decisions for the good of all people, restructuring business models through wealth redistribution across the board.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Congratulations, you've just legislated out incentives to excel.
We don't need innovation? ALL of our problems are already solved?
This isn't my idea of socialism. It isn't Mr Sanders', either.
rocknratm
Well-Known Member
the only problems I can think of right now that really matter are climate change and medicine (peoples health). Government can fund organizations to work on these problems with the tax revenue under this system.
Other problems just need money and resources, which wouldnt be an issue under true progressive taxation. If any other problems need infrastructure, that can be government driven.
Can you tell me what other problems you are thinking of? A few examples would be great.
I'M just spit balling here, socialism to this extreme would never be a reality. But government isnt the enemy, its corrupt government being one in the same with corporations.
If you wouldnt mind outlining in clear terms what your view of socialism is, that would help me too. I'm open to adapting/changing my views to new input if it makes sense.
Other problems just need money and resources, which wouldnt be an issue under true progressive taxation. If any other problems need infrastructure, that can be government driven.
Can you tell me what other problems you are thinking of? A few examples would be great.
I'M just spit balling here, socialism to this extreme would never be a reality. But government isnt the enemy, its corrupt government being one in the same with corporations.
If you wouldnt mind outlining in clear terms what your view of socialism is, that would help me too. I'm open to adapting/changing my views to new input if it makes sense.