Democratic Debate

[Earl]

Hello dukkha,



Pardon me while I hand your argument a debilitating blow. No disrespect, of course. But I must clear the air.

We are all still waiting.

Waiting in vain.

Waiting for one shred of evidence to support the silly conservative myth that high taxes ever made a rich man poor.

NEVER. Not once in HISTORY has a rich man ever been taxed into poverty.

'Crushing taxes,' eh?

I laugh at the very thought of it. Just what is being crushed here? Surely not any amount of personal wealth. Whose net worth is significantly cut due to taxes?

Great wealth, subjected to your 'crushing taxes,' is still great wealth.

'Crushing taxes,' indeed. Completely fictitious.

There IS NO SUCH THING.

IMAGINARY!

A thousand poor mouths could be fed amply with the taxes paid by a rich man who, after those taxes, STILL LIVES IN THE LAP OF LUXURY.

After those 'crushing taxes,' his unimpacted luxurious lifestyle is as if he had never been taxed at all! A 'burden' which he does not feel. A shrug, a scrawled check, done. That is the height of how 'crushing' it is for him. Money in the bank. More money than he could ever spend in a score of lifetimes of decadent luxury.

Crushing taxes, indeed.

What a LAUGH.

Pardon me while I hand your argument a debilitating blow. No disrespect, of course. But I must clear the air.

High taxes are disincentives for the wealthy to start a company or expand their existing companies. American companies do not bring them back to America with crushing taxes.

This results in higher unemployment and lower GDP.

Those people looking for a job were "crushed."

What a LAUGH that you do not understand this.

 

[Earl]

Hello dukkha,



Pardon me while I hand your argument a debilitating blow. No disrespect, of course. But I must clear the air.

We are all still waiting.

Waiting in vain.

Waiting for one shred of evidence to support the silly conservative myth that high taxes ever made a rich man poor.

NEVER. Not once in HISTORY has a rich man ever been taxed into poverty.

'Crushing taxes,' eh?

I laugh at the very thought of it. Just what is being crushed here? Surely not any amount of personal wealth. Whose net worth is significantly cut due to taxes?

Great wealth, subjected to your 'crushing taxes,' is still great wealth.

'Crushing taxes,' indeed. Completely fictitious.

There IS NO SUCH THING.

IMAGINARY!

A thousand poor mouths could be fed amply with the taxes paid by a rich man who, after those taxes, STILL LIVES IN THE LAP OF LUXURY.

After those 'crushing taxes,' his unimpacted luxurious lifestyle is as if he had never been taxed at all! A 'burden' which he does not feel. A shrug, a scrawled check, done. That is the height of how 'crushing' it is for him. Money in the bank. More money than he could ever spend in a score of lifetimes of decadent luxury.

Crushing taxes, indeed.

What a LAUGH.

Pardon me while I hand your argument a debilitating blow. No disrespect, of course. But I must clear the air.

High taxes are disincentives for the wealthy to start a company or expand their existing companies. American companies do not bring them back to America with crushing taxes.

This results in higher unemployment and lower GDP.

Those people looking for a job were "crushed."

What a LAUGH that you do not understand this.

 

[Micawber]

Pardon me while I hand your argument a debilitating blow. No disrespect, of course. But I must clear the air.

High taxes are disincentives for the wealthy to start a company or expand their existing companies. American companies do not bring them back to America with crushing taxes.

This results in higher unemployment and lower GDP.

Those people looking for a job were "crushed."

What a LAUGH that you do not understand this.

Listen Hurl, if that is your real name, you couldn't debilitate a quadriplegic. You are speaking in parallel to politalk.
He asserted no person has been taxed poor to counter Bukkake's melodrama about being saddling under crushing debt by tax.
Your offshore argument has no bearing. In fact it agrees with him on the point. If a rich man has an expat path away from taxes, he will
not be taxed poor now, will he.

 

[LV426]

No problem with free child care with proof of employment....
Vocational education programs, for sure....they're out there...people (kids and aduts( should be taking advantage of all the opportunities....but they don't come looking for you...you actually have to go to them....
Let's also focus on Work ethic..... 5 people called off yesterday from one of the places we work with.... because there was a "holiday"....?????

How does one legislate "work ethic"?

 

[LV426]

When everything is free, ... you get this ...

But that exists right now when everything is not free. So...what is your dumb point?

 

[LV426]

lol..you'll owe a crushing debt of taxes to the government you meant to say

Would you rather pay $7,100 for health care or $2,440?

 

[Bigdog]

But that exists right now when everything is not free. So...what is your dumb point?

It exists in Liberal shit holes where everything is free. The rest of America doesn't want human feces maps like libs do.

 

[Bigdog]

Would you rather pay $7,100 for health care or $2,440?

Lunchbox Joe blew up that whole fake narrative.

 

[LV426]

It exists in Liberal shit holes where everything is free. The rest of America doesn't want human feces maps like libs do.

Not everything is free in liberal areas. And there's crushing poverty in red rural America. So what's your response to that?

 

[Getin the ring]

So in last nights "Pick A Clown" show I'm curious to see who got the big floppy Red shows award among the liberals fruitcakes in the forum

Personally I think you know how much trouble the party must be in when no one , not one of them told the truth about their "plans".

Socialists, an entire stage full of socialist and one forgetful old man who want to be president, a very sad display

 

[LV426]

Lunchbox Joe blew up that whole fake narrative.

What narrative is fake?

M4A is funded by a 4% tax on income for individuals, and a 7.5% tax on income for businesses.

Right now, the average worker pays 12% of their income for health care that is restricted within their provider network.

So is 4% > or < 12%?

 

[LV426]

So in last nights "Pick A Clown" show I'm curious to see who got the big floppy Red shows award among the liberals fruitcakes in the forum
Personally I think you know how much trouble the party must be in when no one , not one of them told the truth about their "plans".
Socialists, an entire stage full of socialist and one forgetful old man who want to be president, a very sad display

"Socialist" isn't a dirty word anymore.

"Billionaire" is, though.

 

[Getin the ring]

What narrative is fake?

M4A is funded by a 4% tax on income for individuals, and a 7.5% tax on income for businesses.

Right now, the average worker pays 12% of their income for health care that is restricted within their provider network.

So is 4% > or < 12%?

stop embarrassing yourself,

where on earth do you come up with such nonsense..
the charade is over, you have al been exposed
here's your prize

 

[LV426]

stop embarrassing yourself,
where on earth do you come up with such nonsense..
the charade is over, you have al been exposed
here's your prize

Your problem is that you're a coward who is afraid of confronting the hard reality that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The median Household income in the US is $61,000.
According to KFF, the average worker spends $7,100 on their health care.
$7,100/$61,000 = 12%
Bernie's M4A plan swaps out private taxes for a flat 4% payroll tax on individuals, and a flat 7.5% tax on business income.

So by doing some simple math...
4% x $61,000 = $2,440

So is $2,440 > or < $7,100?

 

[Cypress]

Whereas I don't agree with the free tuition, and debt forgiveness, I agree with the other issues on that list. The Stimulus went a long way toward expanding child care, which allowed lower income people to go out and work.

In our changing economy, we should be more focused on training service related workers, than we are on paying for a liberal arts degree for all who want one.

I think debt forgiveness is merited. My generation basically went to college for almost next-to-nothing. University of California at the time was about 800 bucks tuition and fees for the whole quarter. Peanuts to pay for a top tier public university.

The millenials are being saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in debt - and thus a serf-like indentured servitude to debt for years on end. That is something us old farts did not have to deal with.

Subsidized or free college, university, or trade school makes eminent sense to me, for a civilized 21st century nation.

 

[LV426]

I think debt forgiveness is merited. My generation basically went to college for almost next-to-nothing. University of California at the time was about 800 bucks tuition and fees for the whole quarter. Peanuts to pay for a top tier public university.
The millenials are being saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in debt - and thus a serf-like indentured servitude to debt for years on end. That is something us old farts did not have to deal with.
Subsidized or free college, university, or trade school makes eminent sense to me, for a civilized 21st century nation.

Plus it would be an economic stimulus, with an entire generation no longer having to be saddled with debt that delays things like starting a family or buying a home.

 

[Getin the ring]

Your problem is that you're a coward who is afraid of confronting the hard reality that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The median Household income in the US is $61,000.
According to KFF, the average worker spends $7,100 on their health care.
$7,100/$61,000 = 12%
Bernie's M4A plan swaps out private taxes for a flat 4% payroll tax on individuals, and a flat 7.5% tax on business income.

So by doing some simple math...
4% x $61,000 = $2,440

So is $2,440 > or < $7,100?

when talking to you I have to dumb it down about three grade levels, but here you go

Bernies numbers don't add up, there is not enough money in his "Plan" to fund all of what he is proposing

What Mr. Sanders said:

“I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up. They’re going to go up significantly for the wealthy and for virtually everybody, the tax increase they pay will be substantially less than what they were paying for premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.”

This lacks evidence. Mr. Sanders’s health care plan would substantially increase the amount that the federal government spends. Estimates of its precise cost vary, but according to an estimate from the conservative Mercatus Center, which Mr. Sanders has mentioned approvingly, federal spending would need to increase by about 10 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, triple what the government spends on the military. But under Medicare for all, Americans who currently pay health insurance premiums or pay directly when they go to the doctor or pharmacy would be relieved of those costs. For most American families, that would be a substantial savings.

But that does not mean that “virtually everybody” would end up paying less over all. Mr. Sanders has suggested various possible tax increases that could pay for this expansion, including a payroll tax that would affect workers across the economic spectrum. He has not provided enough details about the mix and magnitude of taxes for economists to measure what sorts of families would be better or worse off under Medicare for all. An Urban Institute analysis of Mr. Sanders’s health care proposal, which included more tax details, found that the proposed taxes would only pay for about half of the cost of the plan.

it's smoke and mirrors fruitcake, but keep drinking the coolaid

 

[LV426]

Bernies numbers don't add up, there is not enough money in his "Plan" to fund all of what he is proposing

Show your work.

An Urban Institute analysis of Mr. Sanders’s 2016 health care proposal, which included more tax details, found that the proposed taxes would only pay for about half of the cost of the plan.

Show your work.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Althea,

Correct. trump's mistake is his belief that he's only POTUS for those who supported him, and a vindictive ass to those who didn't.

He tricked just enough of Bernie's supporters, coupled with a few in labor, and squeaked out an EC win. That won't happen again, because everyone knows exactly who he is now.

They were warned in '16. Now they realize their folly.

Agreed.

 

[Getin the ring]

And then you add in giving free education, relieving student debt, increasing the social safety nets

and you want ME to show the numbers

how about 10+10+10 does not equal 15

you'll eventually catch on, but meanwhile, hey, vote for Bernie, please