Here's My Summary on the GOP Folks

[Rustic]

Okay, I will try to make it short, and it's only for the remaining ones at this point (2/12/16)
Carson: Nice, smart, fair sense of humor, an outsider of the political realm, drifting away and away...
Kasich: Zen in his heart, mist in his future.
Bush, oh no, it's Jeb: Once upon a time, that playbook worked. Now I'm depressed, out of energy...
Rubio: Too young to fight, too charming to hate. Working in the Senate where absence is great.
Cruz: Crusader for some, phony clown for others.
Trump: You, ruined the game!!! Now it's so fun!

 

[Clementine]

Politics is not something Ben Carson has a talent for, its a ruthless business.

Politics are evil. Our founders intended for citizens to serve other citizens. The politicians are ruining the country. Need to get back to public servants who see is as an honor to serve the country, not playing politics to further one's career. When people, like Hillary, have been in politics for a long time it makes them more dangerous, not better for the country. That goes for people on both sides. The longer they are in Washington and in bed with Wall Street, the more corrupt they get.

 

[ZackB]

You are a poor pussy poster, Clayton. Go eat the shit of a cancer ridden dog.

You do known that cancer can't be passed on through fecal matter, right?

I added cancer to the description of the dog emitting the feces because it implies that the fecal material may be funky (i.e., diarrhea) and it upgrades the creepiness factor.

Does that sufficiently clarify it for your dumb ass, moron? No, I do not believe that cancer is contagious. In fact, I have quite a bit of experience with cancer due to having a friend and 2 family members experience it and go through treatment of the same (2 out of 3 survived, which I convey only because you seem like the kind of idiot who needs to have every last detail explained to him).

Maybe I should dumb down my comments. I forget that 9/10 people are ignorant morons who intellectually operate on a level slightly above that of a slug.

 

[aaronleland]

ZackB is an angry dude. He needs some pussy.

 

[aaronleland]

Four years ago? I was just a little bit too young to vote.

Do you have a boyfriend? A/S/L? What are you wearing?

God I hope you're not actually asking that crap.

Leave me alone. I'm just trying to decipher her political leanings.

I really try to avoid feminist ideology, but you asking that crap is obviously sexist and stupid.

What are you wearing?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Politics is not something Ben Carson has a talent for, its a ruthless business.

Politics are evil. Our founders intended for citizens to serve other citizens. The politicians are ruining the country. Need to get back to public servants who see is as an honor to serve the country, not playing politics to further one's career. When people, like Hillary, have been in politics for a long time it makes them more dangerous, not better for the country. That goes for people on both sides. The longer they are in Washington and in bed with Wall Street, the more corrupt they get.

Absolutely! We need less career politicians and more peanut farmers and nuclear engineers!

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

Okay, I will try to make it short, and it's only for the remaining ones at this point (2/12/16)
Carson: Nice, smart, fair sense of humor, an outsider of the political realm, drifting away and away...
Kasich: Zen in his heart, mist in his future.
Bush, oh no, it's Jeb: Once upon a time, that playbook worked. Now I'm depressed, out of energy...
Rubio: Too young to fight, too charming to hate. Working in the Senate where absence is great.
Cruz: Crusader for some, phony clown for others.
Trump: You, ruined the game!!! Now it's so fun!

Not all of Bernie's proposals work (though most do), but his integrity is what this country needs. He has more of it in spades than any other candidate in the race.

Of course the republicans make Hillary look like Bernie so I would take either one.

I honestly don't think I know Sanders enough to judge on his integrity, but what are the top three policies from Sanders that appeal to you? How much detail do you know on his "plan" to implement those policies? Just curious.

1) Medicare for all (I don't think it is obtainable). Paid for with higher taxes on the middle class and poor substituting the more expensive insurance premiums.

2) Fixing our broken infrastructure system while creating middle class jobs in the process. Paid for with higher taxes on the wealthy.

3) Addressing climate change by turning our system away from fossil fuels.

4) Free college tuition paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculation.

5) Addressing Wall Street corruption and white collar crime.

6) Raising the minimum wage.

I think all of these are tall orders, but any candidate in this race face challenges from congress.

I think most of Sanders' proposals rely on the assumption that by taxing the rich, the government will have enough money to cover his plans. I don't really think this assumption is even remotely justifiable given the current situation in America. Besides, many of his proposals are essentially drastic redistribution of wealth through bureaucracy, and I seriously doubt that these proposals are eventually beneficial for the country.
I know it's a yuuuge topic, but I guess we will have time to talk about it in the future.
BTW, I notice that you call these "tall orders", which reminds me of the fact that you said deporting the illegals is also rather difficult. It seems to me that what you feel about Sanders' proposals is similar to what I feel about many proposals on the GOP side. It's just that the principles we believe are a little different!

 

[Billy000]

Okay, I will try to make it short, and it's only for the remaining ones at this point (2/12/16)
Carson: Nice, smart, fair sense of humor, an outsider of the political realm, drifting away and away...
Kasich: Zen in his heart, mist in his future.
Bush, oh no, it's Jeb: Once upon a time, that playbook worked. Now I'm depressed, out of energy...
Rubio: Too young to fight, too charming to hate. Working in the Senate where absence is great.
Cruz: Crusader for some, phony clown for others.
Trump: You, ruined the game!!! Now it's so fun!

Not all of Bernie's proposals work (though most do), but his integrity is what this country needs. He has more of it in spades than any other candidate in the race.

Of course the republicans make Hillary look like Bernie so I would take either one.

I honestly don't think I know Sanders enough to judge on his integrity, but what are the top three policies from Sanders that appeal to you? How much detail do you know on his "plan" to implement those policies? Just curious.

1) Medicare for all (I don't think it is obtainable). Paid for with higher taxes on the middle class and poor substituting the more expensive insurance premiums.

2) Fixing our broken infrastructure system while creating middle class jobs in the process. Paid for with higher taxes on the wealthy.

3) Addressing climate change by turning our system away from fossil fuels.

4) Free college tuition paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculation.

5) Addressing Wall Street corruption and white collar crime.

6) Raising the minimum wage.

I think all of these are tall orders, but any candidate in this race face challenges from congress.

I think most of Sanders' proposals rely on the assumption that by taxing the rich, the government will have enough money to cover his plans. I don't really think this assumption is even remotely justifiable given the current situation in America. Besides, many of his proposals are essentially drastic redistribution of wealth through bureaucracy, and I seriously doubt that these proposals are eventually beneficial for the country.
I know it's a yuuuge topic, but I guess we will have time to talk about it in the future.
BTW, I notice that you call these "tall orders", which reminds me of the fact that you said deporting the illegals is also rather difficult. It seems to me that what you feel about Sanders' proposals is similar to what I feel about many proposals on the GOP side. It's just that the principles we believe are a little different!

Taxing is the ONLY way to pay for government spending, so yeah, taxing the wealthy is the answer. It's a perfectly reasonable proposal considering the wealthy are wealthier than ever before while the middle class continues to shrink. The tax rate in the 50's on the top earners was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth. Why? Because it forced the wealthy to invest their money. Investment today among the wealthy is quite low because it's just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they save/make through tax havens and loopholes. Also, Bernie's tax proposals for the top earners is no where near 90%.

I will concede, however, that we do need to cut spending. It's called our defense budget.

When I said Bernie's proposals were tall orders, I was referring to the stonewall of congress. With congressional approval, his ideas are quite feasible. The difference with Trump, is that even with congressional approval, there is no way in hell that we could possibly deport all the illegals. It would be a logistical nightmare that would take a couple of decades to pull off and would cost trillions. Has Trump explained how he would pay for it? No of course not. He hasn't explained how he would pay for any of his proposals.

 

[Billy000]

Four years ago? I was just a little bit too young to vote.

Do you have a boyfriend? A/S/L? What are you wearing?

God I hope you're not actually asking that crap.

Leave me alone. I'm just trying to decipher her political leanings.

I really try to avoid feminist ideology, but you asking that crap is obviously sexist and stupid.

What are you wearing?

That's better.

 

[SwimExpert]

I think most of Sanders' proposals rely on the assumption that by taxing the rich, the government will have enough money to cover his plans.

Like most Americans, your understanding of Sanders is rudimentary and superficial. What ultimately drives Sanders is his perceptions about economic inequality. At the heart of it, Sanders doesn't want government programs or increased taxes, per se. But he wants to utilize these things as a means to an end. Sanders is less concerned with tax increases paying for programs than he is with the combination of tax increases and programs increasing the health of the economy by managing the rampant inequality we have today. Sanders believes (not unreasonably) that by leveling the playing field a bit the economy will end up faring better. And with the subsequent economic prosperity the long term revenues/expenditures balance of government spending will improve.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, I will try to make it short, and it's only for the remaining ones at this point (2/12/16)
Carson: Nice, smart, fair sense of humor, an outsider of the political realm, drifting away and away...
Kasich: Zen in his heart, mist in his future.
Bush, oh no, it's Jeb: Once upon a time, that playbook worked. Now I'm depressed, out of energy...
Rubio: Too young to fight, too charming to hate. Working in the Senate where absence is great.
Cruz: Crusader for some, phony clown for others.
Trump: You, ruined the game!!! Now it's so fun!

Not all of Bernie's proposals work (though most do), but his integrity is what this country needs. He has more of it in spades than any other candidate in the race.

Of course the republicans make Hillary look like Bernie so I would take either one.

I honestly don't think I know Sanders enough to judge on his integrity, but what are the top three policies from Sanders that appeal to you? How much detail do you know on his "plan" to implement those policies? Just curious.

1) Medicare for all (I don't think it is obtainable). Paid for with higher taxes on the middle class and poor substituting the more expensive insurance premiums.

2) Fixing our broken infrastructure system while creating middle class jobs in the process. Paid for with higher taxes on the wealthy.

3) Addressing climate change by turning our system away from fossil fuels.

4) Free college tuition paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculation.

5) Addressing Wall Street corruption and white collar crime.

6) Raising the minimum wage.

I think all of these are tall orders, but any candidate in this race face challenges from congress.

I think most of Sanders' proposals rely on the assumption that by taxing the rich, the government will have enough money to cover his plans. I don't really think this assumption is even remotely justifiable given the current situation in America. Besides, many of his proposals are essentially drastic redistribution of wealth through bureaucracy, and I seriously doubt that these proposals are eventually beneficial for the country.
I know it's a yuuuge topic, but I guess we will have time to talk about it in the future.
BTW, I notice that you call these "tall orders", which reminds me of the fact that you said deporting the illegals is also rather difficult. It seems to me that what you feel about Sanders' proposals is similar to what I feel about many proposals on the GOP side. It's just that the principles we believe are a little different!

Taxing is the ONLY way to pay for government spending, so yeah, taxing the wealthy is the answer. It's a perfectly reasonable proposal considering the wealthy are wealthier than ever before while the middle class continues to shrink. The tax rate in the 50's on the top earners was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth. Why? Because it forced the wealthy to invest their money. Investment today among the wealthy is quite low because it's just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they save/make through tax havens and loopholes. Also, Bernie's tax proposals for the top earners is no where near 90%.

I will concede, however, that we do need to cut spending. It's called our defense budget.

When I said Bernie's proposals were tall orders, I was referring to the stonewall of congress. With congressional approval, his ideas are quite feasible. The difference with Trump, is that even with congressional approval, there is no way in hell that we could possibly deport all the illegals. It would be a logistical nightmare that would take a couple of decades to pull off and would cost trillions. Has Trump explained how he would pay for it? No of course not. He hasn't explained how he would pay for any of his proposals.

For one, nobody paid 90% in federal taxes in the 50's. Two, there were few places to move to back then. Traveling was more dangerous, we didn't have the communications we have today, and there was not nearly the wage difference between us and other countries.

Today is an entirely different story. We need to keep those evil wealthy people in this country. They can easily leave anytime they desire. They no longer have to fly in big-wigs to have important meetings, they can do it over the internet for free. A business owner does not have to be in a foreign country to run it. And if he did, he could still monitor his investments from his cell phone while sitting on the toilet.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think most of Sanders' proposals rely on the assumption that by taxing the rich, the government will have enough money to cover his plans.

Like most Americans, your understanding of Sanders is rudimentary and superficial. What ultimately drives Sanders is his perceptions about economic inequality. At the heart of it, Sanders doesn't want government programs or increased taxes, per se. But he wants to utilize these things as a means to an end. Sanders is less concerned with tax increases paying for programs than he is with the combination of tax increases and programs increasing the health of the economy by managing the rampant inequality we have today. Sanders believes (not unreasonably) that by leveling the playing field a bit the economy will end up faring better. And with the subsequent economic prosperity the long term revenues/expenditures balance of government spending will improve.

Maybe he's thinking that, but it's a flawed theory.

My father taught me years ago, the big guy never loses. If you tax him, he will recoup those taxes in other places. It may be by not increasing wages for employees or make them contribute more towards their healthcare plan, it may be increasing the price of his products or services, it may be moving out of a state or the country altogether, but the big guy never loses because he always passes those losses to us little people.

 

[Billy000]

Not all of Bernie's proposals work (though most do), but his integrity is what this country needs. He has more of it in spades than any other candidate in the race.

Of course the republicans make Hillary look like Bernie so I would take either one.

I honestly don't think I know Sanders enough to judge on his integrity, but what are the top three policies from Sanders that appeal to you? How much detail do you know on his "plan" to implement those policies? Just curious.

1) Medicare for all (I don't think it is obtainable). Paid for with higher taxes on the middle class and poor substituting the more expensive insurance premiums.

2) Fixing our broken infrastructure system while creating middle class jobs in the process. Paid for with higher taxes on the wealthy.

3) Addressing climate change by turning our system away from fossil fuels.

4) Free college tuition paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculation.

5) Addressing Wall Street corruption and white collar crime.

6) Raising the minimum wage.

I think all of these are tall orders, but any candidate in this race face challenges from congress.

I think most of Sanders' proposals rely on the assumption that by taxing the rich, the government will have enough money to cover his plans. I don't really think this assumption is even remotely justifiable given the current situation in America. Besides, many of his proposals are essentially drastic redistribution of wealth through bureaucracy, and I seriously doubt that these proposals are eventually beneficial for the country.
I know it's a yuuuge topic, but I guess we will have time to talk about it in the future.
BTW, I notice that you call these "tall orders", which reminds me of the fact that you said deporting the illegals is also rather difficult. It seems to me that what you feel about Sanders' proposals is similar to what I feel about many proposals on the GOP side. It's just that the principles we believe are a little different!

Taxing is the ONLY way to pay for government spending, so yeah, taxing the wealthy is the answer. It's a perfectly reasonable proposal considering the wealthy are wealthier than ever before while the middle class continues to shrink. The tax rate in the 50's on the top earners was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth. Why? Because it forced the wealthy to invest their money. Investment today among the wealthy is quite low because it's just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they save/make through tax havens and loopholes. Also, Bernie's tax proposals for the top earners is no where near 90%.

I will concede, however, that we do need to cut spending. It's called our defense budget.

When I said Bernie's proposals were tall orders, I was referring to the stonewall of congress. With congressional approval, his ideas are quite feasible. The difference with Trump, is that even with congressional approval, there is no way in hell that we could possibly deport all the illegals. It would be a logistical nightmare that would take a couple of decades to pull off and would cost trillions. Has Trump explained how he would pay for it? No of course not. He hasn't explained how he would pay for any of his proposals.

For one, nobody paid 90% in federal taxes in the 50's. Two, there were few places to move to back then. Traveling was more dangerous, we didn't have the communications we have today, and there was not nearly the wage difference between us and other countries.

Today is an entirely different story. We need to keep those evil wealthy people in this country. They can easily leave anytime they desire. They no longer have to fly in big-wigs to have important meetings, they can do it over the internet for free. A business owner does not have to be in a foreign country to run it. And if he did, he could still monitor his investments from his cell phone while sitting on the toilet.

Do you honestly believe the tax havens and loopholes we have today existed back then? Of course not. Look I agree that 90% would be too high nowadays, but our EFFECTIVE tax rate on corporations and top earners is laughably low. Can you imagine how much more revenue we would have in this country if those people actually paid the official rate?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I honestly don't think I know Sanders enough to judge on his integrity, but what are the top three policies from Sanders that appeal to you? How much detail do you know on his "plan" to implement those policies? Just curious.

1) Medicare for all (I don't think it is obtainable). Paid for with higher taxes on the middle class and poor substituting the more expensive insurance premiums.

2) Fixing our broken infrastructure system while creating middle class jobs in the process. Paid for with higher taxes on the wealthy.

3) Addressing climate change by turning our system away from fossil fuels.

4) Free college tuition paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculation.

5) Addressing Wall Street corruption and white collar crime.

6) Raising the minimum wage.

I think all of these are tall orders, but any candidate in this race face challenges from congress.

I think most of Sanders' proposals rely on the assumption that by taxing the rich, the government will have enough money to cover his plans. I don't really think this assumption is even remotely justifiable given the current situation in America. Besides, many of his proposals are essentially drastic redistribution of wealth through bureaucracy, and I seriously doubt that these proposals are eventually beneficial for the country.
I know it's a yuuuge topic, but I guess we will have time to talk about it in the future.
BTW, I notice that you call these "tall orders", which reminds me of the fact that you said deporting the illegals is also rather difficult. It seems to me that what you feel about Sanders' proposals is similar to what I feel about many proposals on the GOP side. It's just that the principles we believe are a little different!

Taxing is the ONLY way to pay for government spending, so yeah, taxing the wealthy is the answer. It's a perfectly reasonable proposal considering the wealthy are wealthier than ever before while the middle class continues to shrink. The tax rate in the 50's on the top earners was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth. Why? Because it forced the wealthy to invest their money. Investment today among the wealthy is quite low because it's just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they save/make through tax havens and loopholes. Also, Bernie's tax proposals for the top earners is no where near 90%.

I will concede, however, that we do need to cut spending. It's called our defense budget.

When I said Bernie's proposals were tall orders, I was referring to the stonewall of congress. With congressional approval, his ideas are quite feasible. The difference with Trump, is that even with congressional approval, there is no way in hell that we could possibly deport all the illegals. It would be a logistical nightmare that would take a couple of decades to pull off and would cost trillions. Has Trump explained how he would pay for it? No of course not. He hasn't explained how he would pay for any of his proposals.

For one, nobody paid 90% in federal taxes in the 50's. Two, there were few places to move to back then. Traveling was more dangerous, we didn't have the communications we have today, and there was not nearly the wage difference between us and other countries.

Today is an entirely different story. We need to keep those evil wealthy people in this country. They can easily leave anytime they desire. They no longer have to fly in big-wigs to have important meetings, they can do it over the internet for free. A business owner does not have to be in a foreign country to run it. And if he did, he could still monitor his investments from his cell phone while sitting on the toilet.

Do you honestly believe the tax havens and loopholes we have today existed back then? Of course not. Look I agree that 90% would be too high nowadays, but our EFFECTIVE tax rate on corporations and top earners is laughably low. Can you imagine how much more revenue we would have in this country if those people actually paid the official rate?

This goes back to the theory of action/reaction. When you take a negative action against a group of people, it's going to have a negative reaction.

That's besides the fact that every time a spending issue is discussed, those on the left yell Tax The Rich. Well....... we can't keep taxing the rich for everything. We can't tax the rich for free college. We can't keep taxing the rich for environmental causes. We can't keep taxing the rich for your concerns such as NASA and infrastructure. We can't tax the rich to keep up with our healthcare spending or to provide everybody with it.

Why people believe that the rich have so much money that it's almost endless is beyond me. They just don't have the resources to support the entire country.

 

[Billy000]

1) Medicare for all (I don't think it is obtainable). Paid for with higher taxes on the middle class and poor substituting the more expensive insurance premiums.

2) Fixing our broken infrastructure system while creating middle class jobs in the process. Paid for with higher taxes on the wealthy.

3) Addressing climate change by turning our system away from fossil fuels.

4) Free college tuition paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculation.

5) Addressing Wall Street corruption and white collar crime.

6) Raising the minimum wage.

I think all of these are tall orders, but any candidate in this race face challenges from congress.

I think most of Sanders' proposals rely on the assumption that by taxing the rich, the government will have enough money to cover his plans. I don't really think this assumption is even remotely justifiable given the current situation in America. Besides, many of his proposals are essentially drastic redistribution of wealth through bureaucracy, and I seriously doubt that these proposals are eventually beneficial for the country.
I know it's a yuuuge topic, but I guess we will have time to talk about it in the future.
BTW, I notice that you call these "tall orders", which reminds me of the fact that you said deporting the illegals is also rather difficult. It seems to me that what you feel about Sanders' proposals is similar to what I feel about many proposals on the GOP side. It's just that the principles we believe are a little different!

Taxing is the ONLY way to pay for government spending, so yeah, taxing the wealthy is the answer. It's a perfectly reasonable proposal considering the wealthy are wealthier than ever before while the middle class continues to shrink. The tax rate in the 50's on the top earners was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth. Why? Because it forced the wealthy to invest their money. Investment today among the wealthy is quite low because it's just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they save/make through tax havens and loopholes. Also, Bernie's tax proposals for the top earners is no where near 90%.

I will concede, however, that we do need to cut spending. It's called our defense budget.

When I said Bernie's proposals were tall orders, I was referring to the stonewall of congress. With congressional approval, his ideas are quite feasible. The difference with Trump, is that even with congressional approval, there is no way in hell that we could possibly deport all the illegals. It would be a logistical nightmare that would take a couple of decades to pull off and would cost trillions. Has Trump explained how he would pay for it? No of course not. He hasn't explained how he would pay for any of his proposals.

For one, nobody paid 90% in federal taxes in the 50's. Two, there were few places to move to back then. Traveling was more dangerous, we didn't have the communications we have today, and there was not nearly the wage difference between us and other countries.

Today is an entirely different story. We need to keep those evil wealthy people in this country. They can easily leave anytime they desire. They no longer have to fly in big-wigs to have important meetings, they can do it over the internet for free. A business owner does not have to be in a foreign country to run it. And if he did, he could still monitor his investments from his cell phone while sitting on the toilet.

Do you honestly believe the tax havens and loopholes we have today existed back then? Of course not. Look I agree that 90% would be too high nowadays, but our EFFECTIVE tax rate on corporations and top earners is laughably low. Can you imagine how much more revenue we would have in this country if those people actually paid the official rate?

This goes back to the theory of action/reaction. When you take a negative action against a group of people, it's going to have a negative reaction.

That's besides the fact that every time a spending issue is discussed, those on the left yell Tax The Rich. Well....... we can't keep taxing the rich for everything. We can't tax the rich for free college. We can't keep taxing the rich for environmental causes. We can't keep taxing the rich for your concerns such as NASA and infrastructure. We can't tax the rich to keep up with our healthcare spending or to provide everybody with it.

Why people believe that the rich have so much money that it's almost endless is beyond me. They just don't have the resources to support the entire country.

The tax burden isn't just on them for one. However, they should pay the most because it is what's realistic for paying for any government spending. Like it or not, the Bush tax cuts that were later extended by Obama have greatly contributed to our national debt. We would have saved trillions had they not passed.

The wealthy are wealthier than ever before. Of course they can be taxed more.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think most of Sanders' proposals rely on the assumption that by taxing the rich, the government will have enough money to cover his plans. I don't really think this assumption is even remotely justifiable given the current situation in America. Besides, many of his proposals are essentially drastic redistribution of wealth through bureaucracy, and I seriously doubt that these proposals are eventually beneficial for the country.
I know it's a yuuuge topic, but I guess we will have time to talk about it in the future.
BTW, I notice that you call these "tall orders", which reminds me of the fact that you said deporting the illegals is also rather difficult. It seems to me that what you feel about Sanders' proposals is similar to what I feel about many proposals on the GOP side. It's just that the principles we believe are a little different!

Taxing is the ONLY way to pay for government spending, so yeah, taxing the wealthy is the answer. It's a perfectly reasonable proposal considering the wealthy are wealthier than ever before while the middle class continues to shrink. The tax rate in the 50's on the top earners was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth. Why? Because it forced the wealthy to invest their money. Investment today among the wealthy is quite low because it's just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they save/make through tax havens and loopholes. Also, Bernie's tax proposals for the top earners is no where near 90%.

I will concede, however, that we do need to cut spending. It's called our defense budget.

When I said Bernie's proposals were tall orders, I was referring to the stonewall of congress. With congressional approval, his ideas are quite feasible. The difference with Trump, is that even with congressional approval, there is no way in hell that we could possibly deport all the illegals. It would be a logistical nightmare that would take a couple of decades to pull off and would cost trillions. Has Trump explained how he would pay for it? No of course not. He hasn't explained how he would pay for any of his proposals.

For one, nobody paid 90% in federal taxes in the 50's. Two, there were few places to move to back then. Traveling was more dangerous, we didn't have the communications we have today, and there was not nearly the wage difference between us and other countries.

Today is an entirely different story. We need to keep those evil wealthy people in this country. They can easily leave anytime they desire. They no longer have to fly in big-wigs to have important meetings, they can do it over the internet for free. A business owner does not have to be in a foreign country to run it. And if he did, he could still monitor his investments from his cell phone while sitting on the toilet.

Do you honestly believe the tax havens and loopholes we have today existed back then? Of course not. Look I agree that 90% would be too high nowadays, but our EFFECTIVE tax rate on corporations and top earners is laughably low. Can you imagine how much more revenue we would have in this country if those people actually paid the official rate?

This goes back to the theory of action/reaction. When you take a negative action against a group of people, it's going to have a negative reaction.

That's besides the fact that every time a spending issue is discussed, those on the left yell Tax The Rich. Well....... we can't keep taxing the rich for everything. We can't tax the rich for free college. We can't keep taxing the rich for environmental causes. We can't keep taxing the rich for your concerns such as NASA and infrastructure. We can't tax the rich to keep up with our healthcare spending or to provide everybody with it.

Why people believe that the rich have so much money that it's almost endless is beyond me. They just don't have the resources to support the entire country.

The tax burden isn't just on them for one. However, they should pay the most because it is what's realistic for paying for any government spending. Like it or not, the Bush tax cuts that were later extended by Obama have greatly contributed to our national debt. We would have saved trillions had they not passed.

The wealthy are wealthier than ever before. Of course they can be taxed more.

You can't go into debt by not bringing in enough money. You do go into debt by spending too much.

 

[Billy000]

Taxing is the ONLY way to pay for government spending, so yeah, taxing the wealthy is the answer. It's a perfectly reasonable proposal considering the wealthy are wealthier than ever before while the middle class continues to shrink. The tax rate in the 50's on the top earners was 90% and that was a time of great economic growth. Why? Because it forced the wealthy to invest their money. Investment today among the wealthy is quite low because it's just easier for them to keep the ridiculous amount of money they save/make through tax havens and loopholes. Also, Bernie's tax proposals for the top earners is no where near 90%.

I will concede, however, that we do need to cut spending. It's called our defense budget.

When I said Bernie's proposals were tall orders, I was referring to the stonewall of congress. With congressional approval, his ideas are quite feasible. The difference with Trump, is that even with congressional approval, there is no way in hell that we could possibly deport all the illegals. It would be a logistical nightmare that would take a couple of decades to pull off and would cost trillions. Has Trump explained how he would pay for it? No of course not. He hasn't explained how he would pay for any of his proposals.

For one, nobody paid 90% in federal taxes in the 50's. Two, there were few places to move to back then. Traveling was more dangerous, we didn't have the communications we have today, and there was not nearly the wage difference between us and other countries.

Today is an entirely different story. We need to keep those evil wealthy people in this country. They can easily leave anytime they desire. They no longer have to fly in big-wigs to have important meetings, they can do it over the internet for free. A business owner does not have to be in a foreign country to run it. And if he did, he could still monitor his investments from his cell phone while sitting on the toilet.

Do you honestly believe the tax havens and loopholes we have today existed back then? Of course not. Look I agree that 90% would be too high nowadays, but our EFFECTIVE tax rate on corporations and top earners is laughably low. Can you imagine how much more revenue we would have in this country if those people actually paid the official rate?

This goes back to the theory of action/reaction. When you take a negative action against a group of people, it's going to have a negative reaction.

That's besides the fact that every time a spending issue is discussed, those on the left yell Tax The Rich. Well....... we can't keep taxing the rich for everything. We can't tax the rich for free college. We can't keep taxing the rich for environmental causes. We can't keep taxing the rich for your concerns such as NASA and infrastructure. We can't tax the rich to keep up with our healthcare spending or to provide everybody with it.

Why people believe that the rich have so much money that it's almost endless is beyond me. They just don't have the resources to support the entire country.

The tax burden isn't just on them for one. However, they should pay the most because it is what's realistic for paying for any government spending. Like it or not, the Bush tax cuts that were later extended by Obama have greatly contributed to our national debt. We would have saved trillions had they not passed.

The wealthy are wealthier than ever before. Of course they can be taxed more.

You can't go into debt by not bringing in enough money. You do go into debt by spending too much.

That first sentence is complete bullshit and you know it.

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

I think most of Sanders' proposals rely on the assumption that by taxing the rich, the government will have enough money to cover his plans.

Like most Americans, your understanding of Sanders is rudimentary and superficial. What ultimately drives Sanders is his perceptions about economic inequality. At the heart of it, Sanders doesn't want government programs or increased taxes, per se. But he wants to utilize these things as a means to an end. Sanders is less concerned with tax increases paying for programs than he is with the combination of tax increases and programs increasing the health of the economy by managing the rampant inequality we have today. Sanders believes (not unreasonably) that by leveling the playing field a bit the economy will end up faring better. And with the subsequent economic prosperity the long term revenues/expenditures balance of government spending will improve.

The motive of his proposals does not alter the fact that his plans rely on the assumption I mentioned. There is nothing "superficial" in pointing out that assumption. No matter what his theory or goal is, heavy taxation on the rich and redistribution of wealth through bureaucracy is inevitable in his proposals. Of course, you may argue that his perception in economic inequality and his proposals of "leveling the field" are legitimate. Nevertheless, ultimately, the argument (for or against his ideas) will rest on a series of "axioms" or "beliefs" that cannot be proven through theoretical analysis. At that point, we would have to rely on practical results to conclude the argument. Once the argument reaches the level of "beliefs", there is almost no way for us to convince each other, and my hunch is that our discussion will get there pretty soon. The point of having such discussion, however, is to understand and (hopefully) respect each other. Eventually, the democratic process will decide the winners and losers, and the practical results will distinguish truths from illusions.
That being said, I'd be happy to learn more about your theories in why Sanders' plans are beneficial, and I value "rudimentary" as well as "sophisticated" ideas from you guys!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

For one, nobody paid 90% in federal taxes in the 50's. Two, there were few places to move to back then. Traveling was more dangerous, we didn't have the communications we have today, and there was not nearly the wage difference between us and other countries.

Today is an entirely different story. We need to keep those evil wealthy people in this country. They can easily leave anytime they desire. They no longer have to fly in big-wigs to have important meetings, they can do it over the internet for free. A business owner does not have to be in a foreign country to run it. And if he did, he could still monitor his investments from his cell phone while sitting on the toilet.

Do you honestly believe the tax havens and loopholes we have today existed back then? Of course not. Look I agree that 90% would be too high nowadays, but our EFFECTIVE tax rate on corporations and top earners is laughably low. Can you imagine how much more revenue we would have in this country if those people actually paid the official rate?

This goes back to the theory of action/reaction. When you take a negative action against a group of people, it's going to have a negative reaction.

That's besides the fact that every time a spending issue is discussed, those on the left yell Tax The Rich. Well....... we can't keep taxing the rich for everything. We can't tax the rich for free college. We can't keep taxing the rich for environmental causes. We can't keep taxing the rich for your concerns such as NASA and infrastructure. We can't tax the rich to keep up with our healthcare spending or to provide everybody with it.

Why people believe that the rich have so much money that it's almost endless is beyond me. They just don't have the resources to support the entire country.

The tax burden isn't just on them for one. However, they should pay the most because it is what's realistic for paying for any government spending. Like it or not, the Bush tax cuts that were later extended by Obama have greatly contributed to our national debt. We would have saved trillions had they not passed.

The wealthy are wealthier than ever before. Of course they can be taxed more.

You can't go into debt by not bringing in enough money. You do go into debt by spending too much.

That first sentence is complete bullshit and you know it.

Why is that?

If you lived in the woods with no amenities, no electricity, no natural gas, you used your own firewood for heat and cooking like the Amish do, no cell phone and no car, what would you spend your money on? Your entire net paycheck would go into the bank or under the mattress. You couldn't go into debt even if you lost your job and had to take a much lower paying job because you would have no bills to pay.

You do go into debt by having a family, having utilities, having a nice car or a large home. That's how you go into debt.

Our country works the exact same way as your household be it in the woods or in a new development.

New IRS Data: Wealthy Paid 55 Percent of Income Taxes in 2014

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

Do you honestly believe the tax havens and loopholes we have today existed back then? Of course not. Look I agree that 90% would be too high nowadays, but our EFFECTIVE tax rate on corporations and top earners is laughably low. Can you imagine how much more revenue we would have in this country if those people actually paid the official rate?

This goes back to the theory of action/reaction. When you take a negative action against a group of people, it's going to have a negative reaction.

That's besides the fact that every time a spending issue is discussed, those on the left yell Tax The Rich. Well....... we can't keep taxing the rich for everything. We can't tax the rich for free college. We can't keep taxing the rich for environmental causes. We can't keep taxing the rich for your concerns such as NASA and infrastructure. We can't tax the rich to keep up with our healthcare spending or to provide everybody with it.

Why people believe that the rich have so much money that it's almost endless is beyond me. They just don't have the resources to support the entire country.

The tax burden isn't just on them for one. However, they should pay the most because it is what's realistic for paying for any government spending. Like it or not, the Bush tax cuts that were later extended by Obama have greatly contributed to our national debt. We would have saved trillions had they not passed.

The wealthy are wealthier than ever before. Of course they can be taxed more.

You can't go into debt by not bringing in enough money. You do go into debt by spending too much.

That first sentence is complete bullshit and you know it.

Why is that?

If you lived in the woods with no amenities, no electricity, no natural gas, you used your own firewood for heat and cooking like the Amish do, no cell phone and no car, what would you spend your money on? Your entire net paycheck would go into the bank or under the mattress. You couldn't go into debt even if you lost your job and had to take a much lower paying job because you would have no bills to pay.

You do go into debt by having a family, having utilities, having a nice car or a large home. That's how you go into debt.

Our country works the exact same way as your household be it in the woods or in a new development.

New IRS Data: Wealthy Paid 55 Percent of Income Taxes in 2014

The progressives believe that government can and should solve our problems, therefore they propose expanding the government with new programs. These programs cost money, so they raise taxes.
The conservatives believe that government should have limited functions, therefore they propose cutting government programs. They need less money, so they lower taxes.
Ultimately, it's on a single principle: what role should the government play, and why? So?