HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » PROOF Bernie's proposals ...

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 05:20 PM

PROOF Bernie's proposals are NOT VIABLE!



Huh... I had that proof around here somewhere...

170 replies, 11174 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 170 replies Author Time Post
Reply PROOF Bernie's proposals are NOT VIABLE! (Original post)
Bubzer Feb 2016 OP
daleanime Feb 2016 #1
Betty Karlson Feb 2016 #2
cosmicone Feb 2016 #3
Ron Green Feb 2016 #4
TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #7
cosmicone Feb 2016 #9
retrowire Feb 2016 #10
Duckfan Feb 2016 #149
TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #15
The Wielding Truth Feb 2016 #67
cosmicone Feb 2016 #80
The Wielding Truth Feb 2016 #86
zentrum Feb 2016 #92
chapdrum Feb 2016 #98
BeanMusical Feb 2016 #155
geologic Feb 2016 #8
Jester Messiah Feb 2016 #27
gelsdorf Feb 2016 #36
hifiguy Feb 2016 #61
SusanaMontana41 Feb 2016 #64
Jester Messiah Feb 2016 #105
Jester Messiah Feb 2016 #75
chapdrum Feb 2016 #66
cascadiance Feb 2016 #102
840high Feb 2016 #147
pangaia Feb 2016 #11
dorkzilla Feb 2016 #14
SusanaMontana41 Feb 2016 #68
pangaia Feb 2016 #91
SusanaMontana41 Feb 2016 #94
locke_ender Feb 2016 #12
SusanaMontana41 Feb 2016 #70
Helen Borg Feb 2016 #18
fwiff Feb 2016 #20
truedelphi Feb 2016 #95
loyalsister Feb 2016 #22
raouldukelives Feb 2016 #126
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2016 #23
Shadowflash Feb 2016 #26
arcane1 Feb 2016 #28
zalinda Feb 2016 #29
cosmicone Feb 2016 #76
livingonearth Feb 2016 #97
cosmicone Feb 2016 #99
Bubzer Feb 2016 #32
cyberpj Feb 2016 #81
truedelphi Feb 2016 #89
ThreeWayFanny Feb 2016 #107
Bubzer Feb 2016 #121
rhett o rick Feb 2016 #136
NobodyHere Feb 2016 #137
ThreeWayFanny Feb 2016 #158
Bubzer Feb 2016 #160
ThreeWayFanny Feb 2016 #163
Bubzer Feb 2016 #167
ThreeWayFanny Feb 2016 #168
Bubzer Feb 2016 #169
ThreeWayFanny Feb 2016 #39
kstewart33 Feb 2016 #40
Fawke Em Feb 2016 #50
immoderate Feb 2016 #57
nyabingi Feb 2016 #58
monicaangela Feb 2016 #73
chapdrum Feb 2016 #74
cosmicone Feb 2016 #78
chapdrum Feb 2016 #88
asuhornets Feb 2016 #93
newthinking Feb 2016 #101
Doctor_J Feb 2016 #103
Triana Feb 2016 #111
intersectionality Feb 2016 #124
cosmicone Feb 2016 #125
intersectionality Feb 2016 #138
cosmicone Feb 2016 #139
intersectionality Feb 2016 #142
cosmicone Feb 2016 #143
intersectionality Feb 2016 #145
cosmicone Feb 2016 #148
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #127
rhett o rick Feb 2016 #133
Perseus Feb 2016 #150
cosmicone Feb 2016 #151
libdem4life Feb 2016 #153
Wibly Feb 2016 #154
mvd Feb 2016 #5
renate Feb 2016 #6
SusanaMontana41 Feb 2016 #77
seaglass Feb 2016 #13
locke_ender Feb 2016 #17
seaglass Feb 2016 #25
ThreeWayFanny Feb 2016 #41
Trajan Feb 2016 #48
locke_ender Feb 2016 #116
arcane1 Feb 2016 #33
ReallyIAmAnOptimist Feb 2016 #79
kstewart33 Feb 2016 #52
Matt_R Feb 2016 #128
uponit7771 Feb 2016 #16
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2016 #19
senz Feb 2016 #63
Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #21
FairWinds Feb 2016 #24
kstewart33 Feb 2016 #44
FairWinds Feb 2016 #112
kstewart33 Feb 2016 #122
ThreeWayFanny Feb 2016 #45
Trajan Feb 2016 #51
kstewart33 Feb 2016 #53
Trajan Feb 2016 #55
ThreeWayFanny Feb 2016 #109
ThreeWayFanny Feb 2016 #60
Trajan Feb 2016 #62
ThreeWayFanny Feb 2016 #104
Trajan Feb 2016 #106
ThreeWayFanny Feb 2016 #108
Trajan Feb 2016 #110
ThreeWayFanny Feb 2016 #114
kstewart33 Feb 2016 #123
cosmicone Feb 2016 #129
PassingFair Feb 2016 #164
cosmicone Feb 2016 #165
PassingFair Feb 2016 #166
yourpaljoey Feb 2016 #30
Chichiri Feb 2016 #31
chapdrum Feb 2016 #100
ancianita Feb 2016 #157
liberal_at_heart Feb 2016 #34
Yavin4 Feb 2016 #35
Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #46
Yavin4 Feb 2016 #115
Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #117
Yavin4 Feb 2016 #118
Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #120
NoMoreRepugs Feb 2016 #131
nolabels Feb 2016 #82
CentralMass Feb 2016 #37
Bubzer Feb 2016 #56
Yavin4 Feb 2016 #38
kstewart33 Feb 2016 #47
left-of-center2012 Feb 2016 #42
stopbush Feb 2016 #43
Stevepol Feb 2016 #69
stopbush Feb 2016 #96
left lowrider Feb 2016 #49
dchill Feb 2016 #65
SusanaMontana41 Feb 2016 #83
OkSustainAg Feb 2016 #54
Enthusiast Feb 2016 #59
senz Feb 2016 #71
Faux pas Feb 2016 #72
jmowreader Feb 2016 #84
Skid Rogue Feb 2016 #85
Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #87
Hoyt Feb 2016 #90
AzDar Feb 2016 #113
boston bean Feb 2016 #119
MrMickeysMom Feb 2016 #130
gordyfl Feb 2016 #132
cantbeserious Feb 2016 #134
2banon Feb 2016 #135
vaberella Feb 2016 #140
Jack Rabbit Feb 2016 #141
KeegsforBernie Feb 2016 #144
d_legendary1 Feb 2016 #152
ThreeWayFanny Feb 2016 #159
d_legendary1 Feb 2016 #162
KeegsforBernie Feb 2016 #170
Ivan Kaputski Feb 2016 #146
BeanMusical Feb 2016 #156
ChiciB1 Feb 2016 #161

Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 05:27 PM

1. What were we thinking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 05:28 PM

2. Great OP. Bookmarked. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 05:58 PM

3. Looks good on paper but impossible to enact

 

1. Corporate offshore tax - not doable period. There will be a massive corporate flight and inversions and it will cause a depression. California, Washington (state) and other export based economies will never support it.
2. Wall Street Speculation Tax - It may sound good to a socialist but almost every American speculates on Wall Street via 401-Ks mutual funds and IRAs. When people realize that the yields on their investments dwindle because of the "speculation" tax, there will be a massive resistance to such a tax.
3. Laughable proposal - either remove the cap entirely or increase it to a finite level. Anything else will result in a lawsuit because SS is a self-funded program where people put money in to get it back. No one wants to put money in so that others could get it back.
4. Closing carried interest loophole -- this one is actually doable.
5. Family leave with additional payroll tax -- this one is also doable.
6. Tax loopholes on estate taxes -- the so called "death tax" -- there are no loopholes currently and the one loophole of "living trusts" will require changes in trust laws all over the country. This one will not be popular. Also, new loopholes will be created just as fast as old ones close. People who have large estates want their heirs to get the money they earned instead of giving it away as freebies.
7. Fossil fuel company tax -- this will raise prices at the gas pump. Tax is an expense for business and they simply pass it on to consumers. When gas prices reach $7 a gallon, Bernie won't be so popular.
8. Medicare for all -- Just plain won't work unless doctors, nurses and allied health professionals agree to take a 50% pay cut while working 40% longer hours. Just. Cannot. Happen.

Word to the wise -- just because someone puts on paper that he will buy ground beef at 15 cents a pound and buns at 2 cents, lettuce at 1 cent, cheese slice at 3 cents and ketchup at 1 cent to sell a cheeseburger for 25 cents, that doesn't mean the numbers "work"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:05 PM

4. Masquerading as "reality,"

this is the whiniest post I've ever seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:12 PM

7. No We Can't! No We Can't! USA, We're #23! USA, We're #23! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:13 PM

9. I'll take it that you can't refute my criticisms n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:17 PM

10. it was refuted by the statement of "We're #23!"

basically, other countries pull it off, why not us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 03:05 PM

149. More Cowbell please.

Nice to see republicans contribute to DU every once and awhile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:22 PM

15. Abstract realities are a human construct, I prefer to remain grounded in truism! nt

Last edited Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:53 PM - Edit history (2)

.


While you are completely polarized, and closed to objectivity, I differ.


I come to HRC's defense when there are issues that warrant it, and SBS's when the like.

So far, your projected rancor scale prevents me from entertaining many of your comments.


.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:32 PM

67. Gee. I thought you said drown in tsunami-ism. Is it a fait accompli? No. It's not.

Don't give in.

So many have settled and given away too much to the heartless money lenders and ruthless, winner take all, businessmen. It's time to say no more.

It's time to fight for democracy not pander to the wealthy and cruel selfish bigots.This is not who we should be.

It is not strong to bend to the will of stupid greedy self important stooges and their masters.

We have been doing this since Reagan. It time to say, "NO MORE!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Wielding Truth (Reply #67)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:43 PM

80. The correct expression is "fait accompli" n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #80)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:49 PM

86. Thank you. The correction was made. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:56 PM

92. Go see Michael Moore's

"Where To Invade Next".

It spells out just how "we can't do it" is working for us when compared with the rest of the industrialized world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zentrum (Reply #92)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:15 PM

98. Our self-designated Exceptionalism has the OP

 

and others operating under a convenient (especially for The Owners) delusion that how other countries succeed where we fail is somehow irrelevant to our experience.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 04:23 PM

155. You're so funny, comicone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:13 PM

8. It's a list of what Hillary can't do...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geologic (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:43 PM

27. Won't. What she -won't- do.

 

She could, but she won't. Would piss off too many of her customers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:50 PM

36. We have the winner here ^^ n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:27 PM

61. Almost right.

 

It would piss off too many of her OWNERS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #61)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:30 PM

64. I love you, hifiguy, gelsdorf, geologic and Jester Messiah!

Big sloppy kisses all around!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SusanaMontana41 (Reply #64)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:54 PM

105. *grin* [nt]

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #61)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:39 PM

75. See, I started with that but I thought Customers got the point across better.

 

Either one works though!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:32 PM

66. That's it in a nutshell

 

As with almost any situation, if sufficient will is there, there's a very good chance "it" could happen.

Hillary would rather pay lip service, than actually effect change to benefit those outside the multi-millionaire class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:30 PM

102. So the new slogan should be "No We WON'T!"

 

rather than "No We Can't!"

Nice, and a more honest statement for them to rally behind too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 02:29 PM

147. .^that

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:18 PM

11. You must be a really depressing person to be around.


I'm sorry you don't feel good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:20 PM

14. LOL!!!

"Why is it everyone around me is drunk all the time"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:33 PM

68. Don't worry. Bernie's health plan will cover cosmicone, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SusanaMontana41 (Reply #68)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:55 PM

91. kerspluty





Oh. Montana... I live in NY.. but...years ago. BMW R75 (motorcycle),, Missoula, Kalispell, Big Sky, Red Lodge, Custer, Glacier, .. Lolo Pass.. Beartooth Pass



USA USA USA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #91)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:57 PM

94. Nebraskan by birth, Montanan by choice.

Not much you didn't see ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:19 PM

12. Brought to you by...

a supporter of the "I don't wanna" candidate. Can we have another round of "No, we can't" please?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to locke_ender (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:34 PM

70. No, I can't. Just can't do it. Wouldn't be prudent. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:24 PM

18. Of course, many of your arguments are not different

from the argument that increasing minimum wage will cause a depression... If companies like to move to India, then let them. For each one that goes to India, 5 new and better ones will emerge in the US. Companies who actually want to stay and create wealth in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:29 PM

20. Another, nope, it'll tick off the very rich post.

1. We have the single biggest market in the world. Pay to play. Do business here? Pay tax here. Still make billions.
2.Speculation. Uh-huh. Trickle down argument. Keep it all. Only those with HIGH investments would see any change.
3. Soc. Sec. Uh, no. The 250k cap is designed to protect those who are still middle class.
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Estate tax on those estates over $5M. Unpopular ONLY for the 1%. Taxes are not giving away as 'freebies'. There are many other choices of divesting wealth among heirs prior to death.
7. Fossil Fuel. Best time to do it, with prices at record lows.
8.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fwiff (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:58 PM

95. Thank you. For instace if Verizon wants to do business in the USA,

Then they need to cough up the appropriate amount of taxes. Not a zero percent return on the profits made upon the monthly checks paid by the millions of Americans who are utilizing their telecommunciations services.

Same with everyone else in the telecommunications field. Taxes must be paid before they can garner a single user.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:32 PM

22. Almost?

"almost every American speculates on Wall Street via 401-Ks mutual funds and IRAs"

So, is it an irrelevant bunch of noones who aren't speculators? Or are people who don't benefit from the current economic system just figments of the imagination?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 11:26 AM

126. That has been my observation.

We exist in the most change, the most honesty, the most representation and in the end, the most democracy each individual in Wall St, working in unison, cannot stop those on the bottom rungs from receiving.

For some, democracy for all is a guiding light. Not just a hobby in ones "personal time" but in ones life. For others, it is a blinding nuisance to be blanketed from sight under a pile of shareholder dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:32 PM

23. "No one wants to put money in so that others could get it back."

 

You don't even know how it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:43 PM

26. Woo hoo! More from the 'No We Can't' campaign.

I'm glad you've thrown in the towel already, but I'm voting for someone who will at least attempt to implement programs with the values I share.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:44 PM

28. Word to the wise: just because someone on DU says it can't be done, means nothing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:44 PM

29. Do you understand what the Wall Street Speculation Tax is?

It has absolutely nothing to do with the average investor. With the speculators, they will by and sell the exact same stock more than 100 times a day, or rather their computer will. It is called micro transactions. These are the transactions that will be taxed at a small fraction of what they really should be taxed. That stock that is bought and sold throughout the day, may only garner a few pennies of tax, but those pennies add up.

Z

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zalinda (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:40 PM

76. Everyone who invests in the market is a speculator

 

Economics 101.

Speculation means "One hopes the price will go up and takes a risk if the price goes down"

DOH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #76)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:13 PM

97. You don't understand short selling then.

''Speculation means "One hopes the price will go up and takes a risk if the price goes down"



There are plenty of speculators set to make money from the price going down. Such speculators don't give a damn if others lose. And, they don't give a damn about your 401k etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to livingonearth (Reply #97)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:16 PM

99. Shorts are also speculation

 

except that one hopes the price will go down and takes the risk if it goes up.

It. Is. Still. Speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:47 PM

32. Impossible? Maybe... but only if we dont try... which seems to be what you're advocating for.

1. Corporate offshore tax - not doable period. There will be a massive corporate flight and inversions and it will cause a depression. California, Washington (state) and other export based economies will never support it.

Massive corporate flight? Okay, let’s say they do perform a massive inversion from the richest nation in the world… but they’re still going to want the customer base. So they’re going to have to keep some form of presence here… meaning they’ll still be subject to tax laws here, and will still be ensnared by the offshore tax. An inversion would be a net loss for corporation given this scenario, so it wouldn’t happen.

California and Washington both deal in Export and Imports… their economies thrive on the movement of goods either in or out of the country… they’ll do just fine regardless.


2. Wall Street Speculation Tax - It may sound good to a socialist but almost every American speculates on Wall Street via 401-Ks mutual funds and IRAs. When people realize that the yields on their investments dwindle because of the "speculation" tax, there will be a massive resistance to such a tax.

The 401k as a retirement vehicle is, how can I put this... it’s a loser. There are so many better places to invest your money. Honestly, the only ones making money on 401k vehicles, are the ones managing them. An IRA is only marginally better… and that’s assuming you got them started early in life. The reality with either one is that unless you have hundreds of thousands invested, any return you get from these versus a defined pension plan, is going to be abysmal.

3. Laughable proposal - either remove the cap entirely or increase it to a finite level. Anything else will result in a lawsuit because SS is a self-funded program where people put money in to get it back. No one wants to put money in so that others could get it back.

So you agree that the rich need to pay more. Glad to see we agree. Bernie’s plan may not be ideal… but hillary’s plan is almost identical.

4. Closing carried interest loophole -- this one is actually doable.

Agreed

5. Family leave with additional payroll tax -- this one is also doable.

Agree again

6. Tax loopholes on estate taxes -- the so called "death tax" -- there are no loopholes currently and the one loophole of "living trusts" will require changes in trust laws all over the country. This one will not be popular. Also, new loopholes will be created just as fast as old ones close. People who have large estates want their heirs to get the money they earned instead of giving it away as freebies.

So your argument is: They’ll break it anyway so why bother fixing it? That seems absurd to me. The whole “giving it away as freebies” comment is a GOP argument that’s not worth the dignity of a response.

7. Fossil fuel company tax -- this will raise prices at the gas pump. Tax is an expense for business and they simply pass it on to consumers. When gas prices reach $7 a gallon, Bernie won't be so popular.

And? Global Climate change is a fact. The viability of using fossil fuels needs to end. Electric cars need to happen…or some other non-polluting alternative. People are going to have to get outside their comfort zone on this one… this is necessary if we want the planet to continue to be human friendly.

8. Medicare for all -- Just plain won't work unless doctors, nurses and allied health professionals agree to take a 50% pay cut while working 40% longer hours. Just. Cannot. Happen.

Actually… doctors and other medical practitioners take a huge loss every time someone goes to the ER without coverage… they make up the difference by charging substantially more to everyone else. Single payer would ensure they get paid for services rendered, and so costs could reasonably decrease without dramatic impact to the bottom line.


Word to the wise, just because you disagree with a plan put forth, doesn't mean the numbers don't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Reply #32)


Response to Bubzer (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:53 PM

89. Thank you for taking the time to logically refute the nonsense of

THE OP.

Very well done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:58 PM

107. Just to warn those who might actually believe what you say about 401ks....

 

RE: The 401k as a retirement vehicle is, how can I put this... it’s a loser. There are so many better places to invest your money.

LOL, anyone who doesn't have one, or an IRA is.....

..... no, I won't say loser, because I'm sure there are some folks who would be better off with a defined benifit rather than a defined contribution. But my 401 K is absolutely positively a gold plated winner and anyone who has the opportunity should take FULL advantage of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThreeWayFanny (Reply #107)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 12:09 AM

121. I hate to tell you this ThreeWayFanny...

Your 401k would be the lottery-winning rainbow-farting unicorn amongst a huge field of dung-beetles.

Sure, 401k's can do well. However, chances of it working out that way are highly unlikely. Anyone wanting to do investing, who might be considering a 401k should do some serious research beforehand (as with any investment) so they know what they're getting into. I suggest this as a starting point:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=the%20problem%20with%20401k%20plans

and here:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Reply #121)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 12:40 PM

136. Yikes! The next thing you know you'll be telling us that some politicians LIE.

 

Seriously, I would like to see a comprehensive article about why the Stock Market is really a rip-off for the common persons. I think it is. Investing my ass. Put your money on a number on the roulette wheel and call it "investing".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Reply #121)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 12:41 PM

137. My 401k has done quite well for me.

 

Defined pensions are good, assuming the people offering them don't go bankrupt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Reply #121)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 05:16 PM

158. LOL, what a load of crapola.....

 

.... lucky if I reach 6 figures? Ha, I've been in the sevens for some long time now. Do yourself a favor and stop watching YouTube talking heads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThreeWayFanny (Reply #158)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 12:13 AM

160. You're in the Sevens?... Now thats a huge hurkin stinkin load.

The only way you'd be in the "sevens" is if you had disposable income enough to qualify you for upper class from the get go... that or you're the fund manager screwing the mutual fund owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Reply #160)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:30 PM

163. So now we know how much you know....

 

.... nothing. You might want to stop making a fool of yourself... at least in public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThreeWayFanny (Reply #163)

Thu Feb 18, 2016, 12:12 AM

167. Sure, sure. I'm sure you know all there is to know about investing.

I'm sure your vast amounts of expertise and scholarly know-how are far superior to all those so-called experts... right?
And, um, I'm sure you actually retired with a 401k and so, have direct experience... right? No? Well then I guess you haven't an effing clue then do you.
But, by all means, feel free to prattle on with your "expertise".

Retirement Dreams Disappear With 401(k)s
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/retirement-dreams-disappear-with-401ks/

For millions, 401(k) plans have fallen short
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/20/l-it-the-401k-is-a-failure.html

6 Problems With 401k Plans
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/11/6-problems-with-401k-plans.asp

401(k)s Are Still a Problem
http://time.com/money/3624637/401k-retirement-problems-getting-better/

7 of the Biggest 401k Problems
http://www.fiduciarynews.com/2014/04/7-of-the-biggest-401k-problems-and-their-solutions/

The Problems With 401(k)s
http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=599803

10 ways to spot 401(k) abuse
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/financial-literacy/10-ways-to-spot-401-k-abuse-1.aspx

401(k) Plans Are Not Helping Employees Meet Their Retirement Goals
https://www.mainstreet.com/article/401k-plans-are-not-helping-employees-meet-their-retirement-goals

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Reply #167)

Thu Feb 18, 2016, 12:11 PM

168. Definitely I DO NOT know all there is to know about investimg.....

 

.... Who does?

I do know, however, that my 401k is well into seven figures and that defined contribution retirement plans are VERY advantageous for some, just as defined benifit plans are of greater advantage for others.

The ongoing effort to characterize defined contribution retirement plans as a gross injustice is demogougic clap trap. I'm glad this "issue" hasn't gotten much traction and I'm certain to share my personal experience when it comes up to counter this infintial demonization of a viabe, useful, and for some, advantageous, option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThreeWayFanny (Reply #168)

Thu Feb 18, 2016, 12:42 PM

169. You're free to express whatever you like, obviously.

Just be prepared to offer more than your opinion when making the argument. I see you're new here, or at least your account is new... so you should know that people here rarely accept an opinion as being superior to proffered supportive evidence... even if it comes from a "talking head".

So far, all you've offered is your opinion... I've got plenty of supportive links... and I could bring up the retirement of my parents, and the parents of two friends of mine, all who were heavily invested in a 401k, and who are getting terrible returns... better than a simple savings account, but they could have done much better with non-401k investments... I could have cited all that... but it would be considered anecdotal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:51 PM

39. +100 !! (NT)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:51 PM

40. C, now that's a refreshing dose of reality.

Please keep posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:01 PM

50. No We Can't!!!



But every other industrialized, first-world country on Earth can!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:13 PM

57. Doable? Meaning what? Permitted by our overlords?

 



--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:15 PM

58. The main problem we are facing now

is that we've allowed corporations to gain too much power and to get away with hoarding wealth they should normally be paying in taxes.

All of these schemes they have to get out of paying their fair share of taxes need to be abolished, and if these mega-companies don't want to live by the same rules we all live by, they should be forced to relocate. We won't give them any more tax breaks and we won't fight wars in other countries to defend their foreign assets (which is what pretty much all of our warmaking is about ultimately).

Corporations are parasitic organizations who will do literally anything to make sure profits are healthy, even deliberately hurting the public. They are granted charters by the public to operate and we, the people of this country, need to regain our control over these corporations and not be ruled by them.

We don't have a feudal system in this country and unless I'm missing something, it seems the wealthy, their corporations, their defenders, and the people who think it's not possible to take them on, seem to want a return to Lords, Counts, Dukes, Barons, etc. This is what we're heading to unless we take back the power we've given to the wealthy and their companies. Whole states will end up being the Duchy of Koch or the Barony of Adelson...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:35 PM

73. This is a great

list of reasons why Hillary will never try to accomplish anything in office. Something of which you appear to approve. I guess she can't...Bernie will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:36 PM

74. Corporate inversions happen because

 

they are permitted.

Just as soon as enough "patriots" of both parties wake up, corporations will be PROHIBITED from inverting.

If they refuse to abide, their charter is revoked.

Just like effing that.

No wonder there's no money for (boring) infrastructure, now and indefinitely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chapdrum (Reply #74)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:41 PM

78. If the inversions are not permitted

 

They will shut the US operations down and start somewhere else.

The lawsuits will tie it up in courts forever and none of that money will be available for freebies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #78)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:52 PM

88. "They will shut the US operations down...

 

and start somewhere else..."

Then that's what they should do.

Your statement carries a strong implication that they do not need the American consumer to maintain their businesses.

IF that is the case, they can stop taking our tax money via their subsidies, and EFF OFF.

And "freebies." Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:56 PM

93. Good Post!!!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:26 PM

101. Reality is more complex. He is setting an agenda that people can get behind.

We will *never* get there by "baby stepping" , compromising; which contiually moves the country to the right and de-energizes the population.

Yes, these things will not happen immediately. But in the first years the President will set the tone and use the bully pupit to continue energizing support. I expect these things to begin the second term, after we have both houses.

That is the only way forward to a progressive future and it is up to us. He is doing this the correct way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:38 PM

103. So show me the Clinton plans tht CAN be enacted. And here's the catch:

 

They can't be any more right wing than the ones we already have. I just know that the Hillarians plan to cheer wildly when she cuts SS benefits or makes the ACA even more expensive, but that doesn't count. And don't forget if she's the nominee we will suffer more losses in the house and senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 09:42 PM

111. CBO reports to back up your assertions please.

 

Particularly #8.

#1 can work if the policies are written properly, as can #2 and #6 and for that matter, #7.

Since the policies haven't been written in detail yet and are thus far only proposals, and the devil is in the details, you have no idea whether they'll be "impossible" to enact or not. That depends on how they are written when signed into law. Most of them, Clinton won't even TRY to get passed. At least Sanders would try. And I'm pretty damn sure that's what people want-- someone who will at LEAST damn try instead of limping along with the status quo which is the same status quo that got us into this gross income inequality mess.

Your bias is just screaming. And that's fine, you're entitled to it. But I am as entitled to be very very skeptical of it since you have absolutely no data to base some of your assertions on because the policies don't yet exist and there isn't any data.

I'm sorry but how the hell do you know? You don't even know what the details of these policies might be, much less have any data to assert it "won't work" or is "impossible to enact".

I say it's about time somebody tried -- because people are sick and tired of the goddamned Koch Bros and Wall St. and corprat lobbyists driving the economic bus to destinations that are great for THEM but which suck red monkey asses in hell for everyone else. That's the Hillary bus. And a whole lotta people just don't want to ride that one anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 09:48 AM

124. I stopped at the point about the 401k scam...

That's some bullshit corporatist fantasy for "I want to have no interest in my former employees welfare once they hit 65." Speculation was grounds for execution for quite some time because it's entire purpose is to create a boom where there is none. In the words of the oil people I grew up with, There ain't no booms without no busts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intersectionality (Reply #124)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 10:13 AM

125. Speculation creates market stability

 

When one looks at a something with a rational lens, one finds that locking in futures in commodities gives a stable market for the producers while a guaranteed price for the consumers.

Let's say you're United Airlines and you buy 50 million gallons of jet fuel a year. Instead of being enslaved to the market's vagaries, you simply agree to buy the 50 million gallons in the future at a fixed price. This allows you to not be at the mercy of wild swings. The people who supply the jet fuel also have a guaranteed buyer at a fixed price.

The same goes for farm outputs. Without a futures market, the farmers would be worse off.

Wall street speculation is the investment engine that allows companies to expand and create jobs. If you are Boeing, GE, GM, Chrysler, Apple, Google, Facebook and need hundreds of millions of dollars to bring your products to market, you can't just go to a bank and borrow it. You raise the money on wall street, put people to work and share the profits with people who believed in you and took the risk.

Demonizing capital markets is what happened in the early days of communism and now guess what? Moscow, Shanghai and Beijing have a thriving stock market. So does Ho Chi Minh City although it is tiny in comparison.

Believing that all assets and all income belong to the "people" kills innovation and capital formation and leads to misery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #125)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 12:53 PM

138. Hillary sig with a scare about communism and defense of speculation? Checks out...

Very impressive you conflate Boeing's purchase of 50M gallons of jet fuel to risky trade swaps. The next thing you know you'll be saying that the way that futures and speculation shift money to the 1% is the exact reason trickle down economics is a YUUUUGE success! Jobs for everyone, amirite?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intersectionality (Reply #138)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:02 PM

139. All industries the world over buy futures

 

The futures market stabilizes and prevents destructive wild fluctuations.

I suggest reading up about it. One should not judge an entire industry based solely on its abusive parts. Madoff is not representative of the fund managers. There ARE honest and reputable fund managers out there who don't rob, steal or run ponzi schemes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #139)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:47 PM

142. It's like you didn't even read my hilarious comment about trickle down...

Sure, sure. They're not all ponzi scheme runners. And they're probably not all Martin Shkreli's. Do they grow the job market? I'd guess not considering no matter how much business and futures they trade they seem to retain similar job numbers while the rest of American industries fluctuate wildly depending on how much damage these oh-so-benevolent hedge fund managers create. Hell, it's like you didn't experience 2008. Who the hell are you anyway? Candian Cruz?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intersectionality (Reply #142)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:52 PM

143. Don't change the goal posts

 

Speculation in the stock market DOES increase employment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #143)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 02:28 PM

145. And then you act like speculation is some sort of benevolent force that just magically creates jobs.

You are out of touch with reality. Your understanding of economics looks like econ 101 where people pretend supply and demand is a real thing. The neoliberal wing of the party is out of touch with how economic realities exist. It's really tragic that you fail to stop believing in this economic magical realism where everything Paul Krugman says is True and morally right because it creates jobs and jobs are morally right... right? Wrong. The prison industry creates jobs. And you know what? The only defense people have of keeping prisons open is "because it creates jobs." Keep on repeating the same old tired phrase in defense of the same exploitative structures replicated in a different place. Just remember, there are realists in the party and we're coming for your fantasy of how the world works. We will no longer be complicit with your fair trade agreements or other games that deal death through policy from our party.

"It was private speculative debts—exotic mortgage bonds financed by short-term borrowing at very high costs—that produced the crisis of 2008. The burden of private debts continues to hobble the economy’s potential. In the decade prior to the collapse of 2008, private debts grew at more than triple the rate of increase of the public debt. In 22 percent of America’s homes with mortgages, the debt exceeds the value of the house. Young adults begin economic life saddled with student debt that recently reached a trillion dollars, limiting their purchasing power. Middle-class families use debt as a substitute for wages and salaries that have lagged behind the cost of living. This private debt overhang, far more than the obsessively debated question of public debt, retards the recovery.

The debt debate is reminiscent of Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. "

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/05/09/debt-we-shouldnt-pay/

As someone who graduated in 2009 and had to deal with the economy post-speculative explosion, I'd like to kindly ask you to stop peddling your bullshit, and feel free not to respond. You won't hear back from me as I won't be seeing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intersectionality (Reply #145)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 02:39 PM

148. The debt was asinine but people who fell for it

 

were Icelandic and Irish banks and foreign investors. None of the US banks bought the toxic debt. Only one Chinese and one Indian bank bought a little of the debt.

Just because debt was misused in the last crisis doesn't mean all debt is bad. When IBM or GE borrow money, they create jobs with the debt.

Like all low-information revolutionaries, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Should the financial sector be regulated more? Sure -- Dodd-Frank was enacted just for that. Should the financial sector be liquidated and the spoils given to the revolutionaries as freebies? No -- it will kill the economy.

What is also ignored is that hundreds of thousands of ordinary people bought houses they couldn't afford, knowing they couldn't afford them and later got foreclosed on -- their contribution to the crisis is ignored because they are the "proletariat." Keeping them blameless is ludicrous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 11:34 AM

127. After reading this list I'm curious. What, exactly, is left of the Progressive platform for

Hillary or any other candidate to run on?

This is pretty much a declaration that the GOP has held the right arguments for the last several decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 12:31 PM

133. "It's too hard, it's too hard." "Let's just give all our money to Goldman-Sachs."

 

Funny how easy it is for the Wealthy 1% to triple their wealth while the rest pay taxes. But ask for fair healthcare and whine, whine, whine. Seems that some think that Corp-Profits are a Right and basic healthcare is a unicorn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 03:07 PM

150. Lets break it down

1. Corporate offshore tax - not doable period. There will be a massive corporate flight and inversions and it will cause a depression. California, Washington (state) and other export based economies will never support it.
YOU Tax their imports to the USA, we are still the biggest market in the World, you really believe they won't want to sell their products here?

2. Wall Street Speculation Tax - It may sound good to a socialist but almost every American speculates on Wall Street via 401-Ks mutual funds and IRAs. When people realize that the yields on their investments dwindle because of the "speculation" tax, there will be a massive resistance to such a tax.
Although this one may be difficult to implement, it is not impossible, and I feel it will eliminate speculation and bring real values to the corporations.
Maybe we can charge a premium to foreign companies to be able to trade their stock in the NYSE.

3. Laughable proposal - either remove the cap entirely or increase it to a finite level. Anything else will result in a lawsuit because SS is a self-funded program where people put money in to get it back. No one wants to put money in so that others could get it back.
That is what we do today.

4. Closing carried interest loophole -- this one is actually doable.
5. Family leave with additional payroll tax -- this one is also doable.
6. Tax loopholes on estate taxes -- the so called "death tax" -- there are no loopholes currently and the one loophole of "living trusts" will require changes in trust laws all over the country. This one will not be popular. Also, new loopholes will be created just as fast as old ones close. People who have large estates want their heirs to get the money they earned instead of giving it away as freebies.
On a trip to Canada I made a comment when paying a restaurant bill, I was shocked at the amount of tax that I would be paying, but all the Canadians laughed and then proceeded to explain why they didn't mind paying the extra taxes. It is a myth that Universal Health Care and other government sponsored benefits are evil, just like the republicans want to portrait it...every country that enjoys those benefits, their citizens are very happy about it, everything has a cost, but it is a fact that we pay more in health care and education than any of those countries that have free education and universal health care. In the long run, people WILL HAVE more money in their pockets.

7. Fossil fuel company tax -- this will raise prices at the gas pump. Tax is an expense for business and they simply pass it on to consumers. When gas prices reach $7 a gallon, Bernie won't be so popular.
Well, considering that the price at the pump is, in average, about $1.30, which is way below what the republicans left it at, a small, controlled increase won't hurt. Now, if the republicans were to take office, you can bet that the price of oil will go back to GWB levels, and for no reason, its just their corrupt way of governing.

8. Medicare for all -- Just plain won't work unless doctors, nurses and allied health professionals agree to take a 50% pay cut while working 40% longer hours. Just. Cannot. Happen.
Instead of listening to Fox News, try to talk to people in Canada, Europe and find out the realities of Universal Health Care.

Word to the wise -- just because someone puts on paper that he will buy ground beef at 15 cents a pound and buns at 2 cents, lettuce at 1 cent, cheese slice at 3 cents and ketchup at 1 cent to sell a cheeseburger for 25 cents, that doesn't mean the numbers "work".

Word to you -- Open your mind, research the realities of the European countries where "Social-Democratic" policies are implemented, and you will find that your misconceptions are just that, all based on the noise of the corrupt republican party, nd our corrupt corporate system.

"Social-Democracy" is capitalism, but a regulated capitalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Perseus (Reply #150)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 03:15 PM

151. hahahahahaha

 

1. You tax imports and it will be a disaster. iPhones will cost twice as much. Google ads will cost twice as much and the advertisers will pass the costs on to their consumers so everything will cost more. Very inflationary.

2. You charge more to foreign companies to raise money in the US and American companies will pay more to raise money abroad. No gain.

3. No. Currently the cap is $117K. What Bernie is doing is keep the current cap and then add another tier of $250K+ leaving the $117K to $249,999 untouched. It is ridiculous.

6. We are not Canadians. Our tax system is far more complex and as a superpower, our expenses are far greater as well.

7. The price at the pump won't stay low forever. Once the economy picks up, the prices will be back in the $5 range.

8. Doctors in Canada, EU and other places make 50% less than US doctors. Same with nurses, pharmacists, therapists and other. When the AMA says they'll accept 50% less for twice as much work, I'll buy it.

What was put on paper was deceptive and the. numbers. just. don't. add. up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 03:35 PM

153. We pulled off trillions in wars...still going strong. Explain, please, why it's better to send

 

our best and brightest to pound sand while people just whine and insist we can't afford an average standard of living for all of our citizens.

I know, we can't cut the military budget. We can't just re-apportion money. We can't, we can't we can't.

So remind me again why this is so popular...or better yet, why Bernie is surging with "Yes, we can." That Revolution (so attacked as today's DU Meme of the Day) includes the awakening of the huddled masses who don't give a shit about Oligarchy and dropped out.

I could take issue with some of your points...but really don't care. This post is for those who "already have theirs". I used to use that litmus test to describe Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 04:01 PM

154. Can't work cause you say so!

Arighty then.
Whatever you say.
Can't do it.
Love the made up part about how doctors, nurses and allied heatlh professionals would have to take a 50% pay cut, without a single piece of evidence to back it up!
Perhaps you should go back to the GOP. They love this sort of voodoo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:09 PM

5. K&R

Thanks for the post. This shows they are all "doable" - we just need the will to fight for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:11 PM

6. lol... I love the way a stray wisp of hair is included in the graphic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renate (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:41 PM

77. You, too? You're here because that's where the sexy boy is?

What a couple of frauds we are.

FEELIN' THE BERN? BERN THE HOUSE DOWN!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:19 PM

13. It's deceptive. I can post this over and over again too. Wall Street speculation tax pays only some

of the free tuition proposal.

College for All Act - bill submitted by Sanders May 2015 - read it.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1373/text

The federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would
be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaglass (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:23 PM

17. And your solution would be?

What does your candidate offer as an alternative? Oh, that's right... "No, we can't" which, as usual, implies we shouldn't even try. What a positive message she has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to locke_ender (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:41 PM

25. My solution would be don't publish charts that are deceptive. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaglass (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:54 PM

41. Now THAT'S a revolutionary idea! Why didn't Bernie think of that? eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaglass (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:59 PM

48. I have a different solution

 

Oh wait .. you are already in that list ...

Moving on ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaglass (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 10:17 PM

116. Brilliant!

Ah yes, it's all about the charts. Excellent. Thanks for not actually contributing. I asked for your solution, you tell me ignorance is your preferred option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to locke_ender (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:47 PM

33. Clinton is funded by the student loan industry, so we know she wants tuition to equal debt.

 

Ka-CHING! $$$$

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to locke_ender (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:42 PM

79. Free associating DECEPTIVE and presidential candidates....

...Sanders is the only one that DOESN'T come to mind.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaglass (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:04 PM

52. And with far more state legislatures being Republican and not Democratic controlled....

It's kind of safe to say that Republican state legislatures won't allocate billions of their state monies to free education, isn't it?

Or is Bernie also counting on a Revolution at the state level, too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Reply #52)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 11:39 AM

128. Kinda like the way ACA and Medicaid is worded.

IF the states don't want to participate, then the people of the state will be left out in the cold. There might be a Federal option, but that is only speculation at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:23 PM

16. Sigh, not even half the cost or questions people are asking looking at the face of his plans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:28 PM

19. He's making government BIGGER!!!

 

<----CNBC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:30 PM

63. And BETTER!!!

 

Woe is us!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:32 PM

21. What nonsense. Can't be done. Hillary has it nailed down - just look

I went through all her website issue statements, links, pdfs, etc. It's so MUCH MORE detailed and specific than any of those old actual figures and stuff that Bernie fellow is trying to put over on us. Why look:

Alzheimer's Cure:
Invest $2 billion per year in research for Alzheimer’s and related disorders. Under Hillary’s plan, Medicare will cover comprehensive Alzheimer’s care-planning sessions, as well as the cost of properly documenting every diagnosis and care plan.
- There's so much more there's even a PDF you can get. And you know what? Not one word on how she will pay for it. But who cares? She gets things done.

Climate Change:
Create good-paying jobs by making the United States the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.
Set national goals to have 500 million solar panels installed; generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America; cut energy waste in homes, schools, and hospitals by a third; and reduce American oil consumption by a third.
Lead the world in the fight against climate change by bringing greenhouse gas emissions to 30 percent below what they were in 2005 within the next decade—and keep going.
And SO MUCH MORE in her PDF. Except how she pays for any of it.

College:
Ensure no student has to borrow to pay for tuition, books, or fees to attend a four-year public college in their state.
Enable Americans with existing student loan debt to refinance at current rates.
Hold colleges and universities accountable for controlling costs and making tuition affordable.
Wait for it . . . DETAILS: Fully paid for:
This plan will cost around $350 billion over 10 years—and will be fully paid for by limiting certain tax expenditures for high-income taxpayers.


Early Education:
Invest in early childhood programs like Early Head Start.
Ensure that every 4-year-old in America has access to high-quality preschool in the next 10 years.
Provide child care and scholarships to meet the needs of student parents.
SORRY. NO PDF. NO DETAILS. BUT SHE CAN DO IT BECAUSE SHE GETS THINGS DONE!

The Economy:
Give working families a raise, and tax relief that helps them manage rising costs.
Create good-paying jobs and get pay rising by investing in infrastructure, clean energy, and scientific and medical research to strengthen our economy and growth.
Close corporate tax loopholes and make the most fortunate pay their fair share.

Now there's lots of stuff here to go through:
She is calling for extending a tax cut of up to $2,500 per student to help deal with college costs as part of her New College Compact, and for cutting taxes for businesses that share profits with their employees.
No details unfortunately
She’s put forward a small-business agenda to expand access to capital, provide tax relief, cut red tape, and help small businesses bring their goods to new markets.
This one has a PDF! That's got to have details. Oops sorry. It's really just a pdf about her growing up and her 4 ways to jump start small business. Oh well.

Under this section she is also going to:
Create a New College Compact. Boost public investment in infrastructure and scientific research. Lift up participation in the workforce—especially for women.
- Nope no details

Ensure more workers share in near-record corporate profits
. THIS ONE HAS DETAIL!
Hillary’s plan creates a 15 percent tax credit for companies that share profits with workers on top of wages and pay increases.
There's even a PDF attached to this one so you would think chock full of details. Think again!
Raising the minimum wage and strengthening overtime rules. Hillary believes we are long overdue in raising the minimum wage. She has supported raising the federal minimum wage to $12, and believes that we should go further than the federal minimum through state and local efforts, and workers organizing and bargaining for higher wages, such as the Fight for 15 and recent efforts in Los Angeles and New York to raise their minimum wage to $15. She also supports the Obama administration’s expansion of overtime rules to millions more workers.
Must admit this one puzzles me. Supports raising federal minimum wage to $12 - but don't understand the connection to those fighting for $15. Oh well. No details here.

Reform our tax code so the wealthiest pay their fair share.
Ok this has a PDF. But it goes to her College Compact. But DETAILS. Oh good. Cause it's a long PDF. And here is how she pays for it:
Clinton's New College Compact plan costs in the range of $350 billion over 10 years and will be fully paid for by closing tax loopholes and expenditures for the most fortunate.
You can't argue with that detail. Especially since I already read it under her College section.

I'm only at the "E" for Economy and I'm already tired. I'm sure the details is somewhere in there. I'll take a nap and go search later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:39 PM

24. Hey Mr. cosmicone . .

 

Your post deserves a polite response, which I will try for.

Most of your arguments do hinge on the assertion that the
capitalists will not like the proposals.

Of course they won't, which is why a "political revolution" is necessary.

And I think it is fair to ask Bernie to better explain what he means by that.

I'd also point out (as have some above) that other countries are already doing
what you claim is not possible: Health care - Canada; Free Uni. - most of Europe;
Transactions tax - the UK.

And please do not give us tired canards that the US is "different", "exceptional", "big", "diverse", etc.

(There is also mind boggling waste in military spending, which Bernie alluded to last week. As I argue all the time, REAL military spending is on the order of $ 1.3 TRILLION per year, which as Ike said is "theft."

Respectfully, Veterans For Peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FairWinds (Reply #24)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:58 PM

44. Better or worse, the U.S. is not Europe or Canada.

One fact to ponder: Almost half of the total US federal budget funds our military.

And how big are the Canadian, French, German, Italian, Austrian and British armies?

So might they all have just a wee bit more money to spend on single payer healthcare and low-cost or free college education than we do?

You're comparing an apple to radishes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Reply #44)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 09:55 PM

112. I would ask you to read up on the military-industrial-congressional complex

 

The US spends at least 2/3 more than it needs to on the military, much of
it on outrageous corporate welfare weapons that the military neither wants nor
needs. As Ike said, they are stealing us blind.

The countries you mention have MUCH more to spend on human needs because they are
not in the thrall of militarists, and still have some democracy remaining.

Are you really OK with our country hanging from a cross of iron?

Democrats need to stand for peace, not the Forever War.

Presidents should VETO any military spending that includes corporate weapons welfare, including
any funds for mercenaries like

Veterans For Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FairWinds (Reply #112)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 12:42 AM

122. Absolutely agree with you on military spending.

With all the rot and corruption, the military budget is a fiasco. Ike was completely right and that speech was just about the best thing he did while in office.

But that's not the point here. The point is that current spending is the reality which leaves little left to fund single payer healthcare. So if we first have to cut the rot out of military spending, that is not going to happen anytime soon. Too many special interests with too much power in Congress.

So we are stuck with a single payer plan that is financially not feasible. So why not improve Obamacare and steadily work toward single payer? We have a better chance of achieving that.

That's the problem that I have with Bernie. His plans 1) won't ever get passed by Congress; and 2) if by some miracle they did, it would be a financial disaster which the middle class certainly cannot afford.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FairWinds (Reply #24)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:58 PM

45. If your plan is a "political revolution"....

 

..... you don't have a plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThreeWayFanny (Reply #45)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:02 PM

51. WE are the political revolution

 

You say we don't exist?

Keep telling yourself that, until we boot your favored candidate from the race entirely ..

It's going to happen ... Get ready ... Get set ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #51)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:06 PM

53. It might be wise to wait for the revolution to happen first.

Before you start proclaiming it.

The Iowa and NH numbers of voters didn't look that promising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Reply #53)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:09 PM

55. What revolution

 

Doesn't exist ....



Byebye ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kstewart33 (Reply #53)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 09:25 PM

109. And they are democrates . ... a revolution takes more ...

 

....than the party base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #51)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:25 PM

60. You say you want a revolution?

 

Well, you know, we'd all like to change the world...

....Sanders (is less)l less than convincing — not so much on details about how he would pay for his ambitious plan but on the fundamental matter of whether it is achievable. Sanders’s imagined “political revolution” assumes two things: First, that Americans are backing the kind of far-reaching change he champions; second, that they could be inspired to turn out in numbers sufficient to oust the incumbent politicians blocking its enactment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/01/28/bernie-sanders-unloads-on-the-washington-posts-editorial-board/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThreeWayFanny (Reply #60)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:30 PM

62. Check and check

 

It's well known that Americans, by and large, support the large scale programs provided by the New Deal and Great Society programs ... Even when they say 'icky' to the word 'Socialism'

You are honestly trying to knock the extraordinary energy surrounding the Sanders juggernaut?

Phony crowds? ... They LOVE rallies but hate voting?

Hmm ... I guess we'll have to wait for the results ...

I expect Hillary to drop out after Super Tuesday ... Truly .... Gone ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #62)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:44 PM

104. Yes, and ObamaCare....

 

.... was a cakewalk, LOL

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “People want to criticize me, okay,” and “Fine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThreeWayFanny (Reply #104)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:54 PM

106. I had a feeling you were visiting from the GOP camp

 

Your choice of words indicate your true origin ... That's all republican speak, which makes sense if you are a Hillary supporter ...

Reasonable people agree - we will pay taxes to provide for certain services, including education, social security, etc ...

Some people don't like all that 'spending', you know, like republicans and Hillary supporters ...the rest of us DEMAND it ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #106)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 09:08 PM

108. If you think I'm a GOP troll...

 

.... rat me out to MIRT and let them decide. In the mean time I consider your post to be "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate." And what's worse, without substance or merit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThreeWayFanny (Reply #108)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 09:40 PM

110. I think you espouse republican talking points

 

Whatever you are, frankly, I could not give two shirts ...

What I do know is: Your conservative bona fides are worn on your sleeve, and that's good enough for me ...

I don't come here to kibbutz with right wingy people ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #110)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 10:08 PM

114. I thought the explinations...

 

..to my alert were intersting. If you don't want to discuss an issue, with me or whoever, fine. You need not be insulting, rude or divisive. Civility counts.

I've included only the resposes that gave explinations:

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE

Explanation: Surely a rude and careless post. The kind of post that makes reasonable discussion almost impossible, and DU a less pleasant place to visit. Worth hiding, but I'll leave it.

Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT

Explanation: I hate getting involved in another one of these pissing matches but this was a bit over the top.

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE

Explanation: Tensions are running high. This post is on edge, but just this side of it. I'd tone it down a bit.

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE

Explanation: Nothing the DUer said remotely resembles 'Republican speak.' It's from some who doesn't buy into Bernie Sander's campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThreeWayFanny (Reply #108)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 12:44 AM

123. TWF, you are not a troll.

Keep posting. INHO, you're making sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FairWinds (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 11:51 AM

129. Thank you for the polite response

 

I never said the numbers are incorrect because "capitalists will not like the proposals"

Instead of making this a big deal, I'll tell you what is different between the UK, Europe and Canada on one hand and the US on the other. It is simply market forces. American physicians, nurses and allied health professionals are paid at least TWICE than similar personnel in those countries. Thus, American hospitals also cost nearly twice to three times those in other countries.

How in the world is Bernie going to make the doctors take a 50% pay cut and see nearly twice as many patients? Pray tell.

This is why Bernie's healthcare proposals are pure fantasy. They sound good but they. just. don't. add. up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #129)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:02 PM

164. Doctors had a hard time swallowing universal health care in Canada, Australia, and Europe, too...

But they DID.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PassingFair (Reply #164)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:22 PM

165. 50% pay cut with double the hours is not having a hard time

 

The doctors will simply refuse to work.

Why do you think Medicare never cuts doctors' fees? Congress routinely increases doctors' fees or fails to cut them because they know that they will have a revolt on their hands if doctors simply refused to treat patients unless they paid cash.

Doctors are not obligated to and cannot be forced to work for less by the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #165)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 10:00 PM

166. Doctors went on strike in Canada, Australia and Belgium to name a few...

You open up the medical schools for enrollment and people
get with the program pretty fast.

Where are they gonna go? Canada?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:47 PM

30. That list is full of..... WIN!

Very handy, thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:47 PM

31. Let's start with taxing corporate offshore income.

How's he going to do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chichiri (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:18 PM

100. Just another example of how we have rendered ourselves

 

helpless before legal fictions called corporations.

For eff's sake, humans created them out of nothing.

The fact that there is not sufficient will to remedy this sad state speaks poorly for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chapdrum (Reply #100)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 04:28 PM

157. The entire country can be full of will, but without jurisdictional standing, the Bernie electorate

has no standing.

That's what "offshore" means -- sovereign jurisdiction.

Which is why the US is itself the largest offshore tax haven jurisdiction on the planet, with near 350,00+ corporations having their corporate homes in Wilmington, Delaware -- Joe Biden country.

Also, with fifty separate state legal jurisdictions, and with more Goliath money than all we 99% Davids can shake a legal stick at, the chances of revoking corporate charters or closing any loopholes are remote.

Yes, I'm a Bernie supporter, but the weight of the laws are against Bernie and he knows it. Those corporate charter precedents were established long ago.

The ONLY hope of Bernie people against corporations are the fifty states' attorneys general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:47 PM

34. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:48 PM

35. I count 3 direct payroll tax hikes on that list

and the Wall Street Speculation tax would hit pension and 401K funds directly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #35)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:58 PM

46. Most people do not do heavy buy and sell in their 401K

This is geared toward those high frequency trades.

At 0.5% on stocks and 0.1% on bonds I don't think many people would notice much difference in their portfolios as 401Ks don't do that many transactions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #46)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 10:16 PM

115. No, but their 401K fund managers do make big trades all of the time

Each time they do, they'll be hit with a transaction tax which lowers the amount in everyone's 401K.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #115)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 10:34 PM

117. I don't believe that's true. I will check

With my brother in law again who is a broker. But it is my understanding that it's a charge per transaction so it is applied to the individuals 401, not the trader himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #117)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 10:40 PM

118. They have to make transactions in order to maintain the value of the fund

Stocks move up and down all of the time. They have to move money into and out of positions to maintain value. Under Bernie's plan, each time they do, they get hit with a tax. Should they leave fund money in an under-performing stock?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #118)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 10:48 PM

120. I believe you are misinformed how it works

A financial transaction tax, a tiny surcharge on the sale of stocks, bonds, derivatives, treasury securities and other financial instruments traded daily in vast quantities could, by different estimates, raise $50 billion to $350 billion per year in a way that for most taxpayers would be painless. Nearly two-dozen nations levy an FTT and 11 members of the European Union plan to have one in place next January.

The United States, which had an FTT from 1914 to 1966, will re-institute the tax if Vermont Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders gets his way. Barring campaign finance reform or a mass uprising against America’s growing income inequality, he probably won’t. K Street lobbyists will load their trebuchets with bags of Wall Street cash, lob them at members of Congress and back the opponents of members who don’t see things their way.

That doesn’t mean that a financial transaction tax isn’t a good idea. It is.

Sure, it’s being pushed by progressives like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, but it’s also backed by Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Sheila Bair (former head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), John Bogle (founder of the Vanguard Group), Nobel laureate economists Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, and Republicans Paul Volker (former chairman of the Federal Reserve) and David Stockman (former director of the Office of Management and Budget), among others.

An FTT would raise a lot of sorely needed money that might otherwise have to be borrowed. It would serve as a check on the kind of irresponsible investing that nearly brought down the economy and led to the bailout of much of Wall Street and the auto industry. It would reduce the high-volume computer-controlled investing blamed for wild swings in the market. And it would be paid almost entirely by the financial services industry.

Talk that it would drain people’s 401(k)s is fear mongering. The tax paid on trading in those accounts would amount to a few bucks per year for most savers. That loss, under some proposals, would be more than offset by increases in tax credits and deductions for middle-class households.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/17449196-95/editorial-tax-pushed-by-sanders-is-a-sensible-idea

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #120)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 12:21 PM

131. Bingo - it is fear mongering.

Let's go back in time before discount electronic trading arrived and every buy and sell went through a full service broker at substantial costs for us little guys - didn't stop us from making money and staying in the market did it? Or am I missing something???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #35)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:46 PM

82. When my employer tells everybody there can be no cost of living increase because health care premium

then I am being taxed. Citizens did not create our healthcare system but we all have been saddled with it. When we stand up and demand reform and overhaul of system that is broke and failing, a system that is replete with graft in many areas. Somehow, if we the people would want to make the government responsible to us in plural then however it's done, then, it is wrong because a few that are now better off don't think it's fair for them. The complainers then call it a tax

At any rate, a financial system that erected for daily gains is not a system, it's a gambling hall.

So the gambling halls don't like solid erected systems that benefit a population in general because it will cut into their profits, so sad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:50 PM

37. 170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html

170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders’ Plan To Reform Wall St. And Rein In Greed.


In our view, Sanders’ plan for comprehensive financial reform is critical for avoiding another ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial crisis. The Senator is correct that the biggest banks must be broken up and that a new 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking, must be enacted.

Wall Street’s largest banks are now far bigger than they were before the crisis, and they still have every incentive to take excessive risks. No major Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash, and fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’ potential gains. In addition, the banks and their lobbyists have succeeded in watering down the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and the financial institutions that pose the greatest risk to our economy have still not devised sufficient “living wills” for winding down their operations in the event of another crisis.:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralMass (Reply #37)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:12 PM

56. That's a pretty big deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:51 PM

38. You do know that as president. He cannot implement ANY of these taxes.

Congress would have to approve them all. Again, how is he going to get Congress to pass these new measures into legislation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #38)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:59 PM

47. And with Republicans controlling both Houses in Congress? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:54 PM

42. Shouldn't this be in the Hillary group? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:57 PM

43. Based on incredibly optimistic growth numbers

and unrealistic savings he's already had to pull back on.

Anyone can put numbers on a page and say they're real. It takes a special kind of naivety to believe them.

Congrats! You have that level of naivety!

You're special!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:33 PM

69. One guy that believes them: Prof. Gerald Friedman at U of MA Amherst.

He may have looked into Bernie's plan as deeply as you have. Friedman is an eco prof at U of MA. Maybe you would like to check a couple sites that deal with Friedman's analysis and a KC economist who similarly OK's Bernie's plan?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html

http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/economist-explains-why-bernie-economy-would-soar

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stevepol (Reply #69)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:59 PM

96. Thanks. Those are exactly the unrealistic projections I'm talking about.

At least he agrees that the program will cost at least $15-trillion over 10 years. IIRC, that's at least $4-trillion more than Bernie's numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:01 PM

49. Please do not use ironic titles for information as good as this

 

Seriously-I almost didn't click it. thinking it was just another "no we can't" thread.

If you had called it what it is a lot more people would look at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left lowrider (Reply #49)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:31 PM

65. Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left lowrider (Reply #49)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:47 PM

83. True dat. Guess I'm getting used to it.

F E E L T H E B E R N!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:06 PM

54. I am for

direct income tax. Why beat around the bush. Cut the Bloated military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:21 PM

59. Kicked and recommended to the Max!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:35 PM

71. Bernie had his proposals put through the CBO algorhithm to ensure accurate figures.

 

Thom Hartmann mentioned this late last week. Bernie has been in Congress/Senate for decades and knows the Congressional Budget Office quite well. Thom didn't give the details of how it works. Hope someone will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:35 PM

72. Oh Bravo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:47 PM

84. This looks as dodgy as supply-side theology

Closing estate tax loopholes is going to pay for his Keep Our Pension Promises Act and his Responsible Estate Tax Act? He's going to adjust the estate tax twice - once in the Responsible Estate Tax Act, again in the Medicare for All Health Care Plan?

The whole thing is built on an even shakier foundation than Saint Ronnie's insistence you could increase tax revenues by cutting tax rates...because nothing on Bernie's list can't be legally evaded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:48 PM

85. The president can't raise, or lower taxes.

This plan is 100% dependent on congress.

It's not "no we can't." It's "no Congress won't."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:50 PM

87. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, bubzer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:55 PM

90. Yep, he's going from $3 Trillion on Healthcare annually to $1.38 Trillion by just saying it.

Nope, removing insurance profits only gets you $200 Billion at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 10:04 PM

113. But Chelsea is worried! Must settle for Hillary!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 10:43 PM

119. Wow, the numbers on the left add up to the numbers on the right!

I'm convinced, NOT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 11:53 AM

130. YUUUGE K&R!!!

Thank you for this bit of information whilst you keep looking for that "proof"!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 12:22 PM

132. Who's the Real Dreamer?

The New York Times reported that Clinton’s flailing campaign is trying out a new line: that Sanders is a “one-note” candidate who is captive to an obsession with Wall Street and campaign spending.

Clinton is determined to prove that Sanders is not ready for office, but that she is. “If we broke up the big banks tomorrow,” Clinton asked a group of union members, “would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community?”

Just so we’re clear: Sanders is an unserious pie-in-the-sky candidate because he wants to rein in campaign spending and institute a health care system that is commonplace in Europe.

Clinton, on the other hand, will eradicate sexism and racism in America. Who’s the dreamer here?


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/16/kirsten-powers-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democratic-primary-2016-column/80407150/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 12:35 PM

134. We Us Together - Vs - No Can't and Impossible -- The Choice Is Clear

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 12:37 PM

135. Kickin' & a Recken'

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:23 PM

140. This is brilliant. Thank you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:26 PM

141. K/R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:56 PM

144. Need help debunking an article!

http://fee.org/articles/why-bernie-sanders-has-to-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/

Seems very weird to me. And I'm trying to prove someone wrong :p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KeegsforBernie (Reply #144)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 03:17 PM

152. Well for one thing they cite the Heritage foundation as a source

which is a right wing think tank. Second Sanders isn't taxing the middle class like he wants to tax billionaires. For example a billionaire pays 17% of a million dollars in taxes vs. you and I paying 35% of $40,000. This shows that the rich are not taxed at the same rate as the middle class. Tax loopholes provided by our legislators allow the rich to avoid paying more than they have to. If you want to know the types of scams they use, see chart the poster put up describing how the rich get off on paying their fair share.

Third the taxes he's imposing on working Americans is $1.61 + 2.2% income based premium. I have no idea where these guys are getting 9% from, unless they are figuring the 6.2% premium that employers pay for. Medicare for all would be much cheaper than paying through the nose for private insurance that doesn't cover 100% of medical bills.

Fourth they are assuming decreased economic output as a result of the tax hikes on the wealthy (which is right wing baloney). Taxing off-shore corporate income means that American mom and pop businesses won't have to compete with cheap labor from China. It levels the playing field somewhat. This means that you can build a business here and succeed without having to worry about Wal-Mart crushing you into next Tuesday.

I'd go into more detail, but I've got some stuff I gotta do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to d_legendary1 (Reply #152)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 06:03 PM

159. If i weren't such a trusting and naive person...

 

..... i would suspect this one time poster of being a concern troll. But, hey, maybe I'm just concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThreeWayFanny (Reply #159)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 05:28 PM

162. You might be right

but then again I'm a sucker for debunking right wing garbage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to d_legendary1 (Reply #152)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 05:30 PM

170. Thank you!

And no I'm not a concern troll or whatever that is. I'm just wanting to educate my friends but I want to make sure I'm doing it with the correct information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 02:29 PM

146. OMG I was wrong again

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 04:27 PM

156. Kick and R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Original post)

Wed Feb 17, 2016, 12:16 AM

161. Was Going To Get Back To This Yesterday...

Glad to see it's back on top! Gonna have to copy this one for myself so I can SHOW other people that it's NO SO COMPLICATED!
Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread