Bernie Sanders (I): "Break 'em up"

[MikeK]

you ever watch Max Keiser's Financial Report Frank? Tell me he didn't take a swipe at my hero Krugman!!! :shock

How banksters scapegoat granny after stealing your money - YouTube

I watch Max Keiser (and Stacey Herbert) almost every day but apparently I missed the one you refer to. Can you post the context in which he criticized Krugman?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

you ever watch Max Keiser's Financial Report Frank? Tell me he didn't take a swipe at my hero Krugman!!! :shock

How banksters scapegoat granny after stealing your money - YouTube

Didnt watch it but swipe at Krugman gets a nod from me

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bernie Sanders can go fuck himself

 

[MikeK]

Bernie Sanders can go fuck himself

Thank you for your, as always, intelligent observation and analysis.

 

[Dot Com]

you ever watch Max Keiser's Financial Report Frank? Tell me he didn't take a swipe at my hero Krugman!!! :shock

How banksters scapegoat granny after stealing your money - YouTube

I watch Max Keiser (and Stacey Herbert) almost every day but apparently I missed the one you refer to. Can you post the context in which he criticized Krugman?

normally his show is 30 mins long- the 1st 15 mins he & Stacey talk, & the last 15- he talks to a guest. The clip above is ony 2:33 long. Did you not see it?

I'll watch it again and post the time he does it.

***edit- he mentions Krugman at 1:38 He said my hero's methodology is flawed because Krugman fails to factor in the Banksters outright theft which is true. I still like Max though

 

[MikeK]

you ever watch Max Keiser's Financial Report Frank? Tell me he didn't take a swipe at my hero Krugman!!! :shock

How banksters scapegoat granny after stealing your money - YouTube

I watch Max Keiser (and Stacey Herbert) almost every day but apparently I missed the one you refer to. Can you post the context in which he criticized Krugman?

normally his show is 30 mins long- the 1st 15 mins he & Stacey talk, & the last 15- he talks to a guest. The clip above is ony 2:33 long. Did you not see it?

I'll watch it again and post the time he does it.

***edit- he mentions Krugman at 1:38 He said my hero's methodology is flawed because Krugman fails to factor in the Banksters outright theft which is true. I still like Max though

Thanks, Dot Com.

I didn't watch the video at first because I'm having a problem with the computer I responded to you on. All I saw was a big X and thought it was a photo.

I'm on my laptop now and I just watched the video. I must disagree with Max this time because his reference to bank confiscations is hardly an immediately viable threat. And if it should occur here it undoubtedly would be focused on nine-figure accounts -- which I am fully in favor of and I believe our hero Krugman is, too.

Max is good and I enjoy his show, but he sometimes reaches out too far for melodramatic effect and I think this is one of those times. Bottom line is, while I don't know about your bank balance, mine is not big enough to be of interest to a federal confiscation panel.

These are the bastards they will be looking at: Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says - Forbes

 

[Dot Com]

I watch Max Keiser (and Stacey Herbert) almost every day but apparently I missed the one you refer to. Can you post the context in which he criticized Krugman?

normally his show is 30 mins long- the 1st 15 mins he & Stacey talk, & the last 15- he talks to a guest. The clip above is ony 2:33 long. Did you not see it?

I'll watch it again and post the time he does it.

***edit- he mentions Krugman at 1:38 He said my hero's methodology is flawed because Krugman fails to factor in the Banksters outright theft which is true. I still like Max though

Thanks, Dot Com.

I didn't watch the video at first because I'm having a problem with the computer I responded to you on. All I saw was a big X and thought it was a photo.

I'm on my laptop now and I just watched the video. I must disagree with Max this time because his reference to bank confiscations is hardly an immediately viable threat. And if it should occur here it undoubtedly would be focused on nine-figure accounts -- which I am fully in favor of and I believe our hero Krugman is, too.

Max is good and I enjoy his show, but he sometimes reaches out too far for melodramatic effect and I think this is one of those times. Bottom line is, while I don't know about your bank balance, mine is not big enough to be of interest to a federal confiscation panel.

These are the bastards they will be looking at: Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says - Forbes

I moved my money to a credit union years ago. Not letting those Banksters gamble it way. I moved it because of Arriana Arianna Huffington: Move Your Money: A New Year's Resolution

 

[Publius1787]

don't answer a question w/ a question

Heres one small reason they shouldn't be paying sub sustenance-level wages:

Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

See, Liberals love subsidies. They only hate the ones that go to business and people unfriendly to them. I hate all subsidies.

Liberals love subsidies, liberals are beta , conservatives are alpha. Man you sure think you got people pegged. Ever take any psychology or sociology classes in a local college? You might have some fun arguing your world view with a professor with a phd. in either of those fields.
You know both sides get subsidies but for whatever reasons repubs or conservatives only focus on the poor. The Walmart heirs can get along just fine without subsidies. Not so for the needy and yes there is a certain amount of abuse and fraud but it's really minimal. Being a business owner in minority and low income neighborhoods on and off for decades I can tell you that there are many people that couldn't make it without some subsidies. Can't make it like they would have to live in cars or under bridges, some with children.

I only took introductory sociology and psychology classes in college. Why do you ask? Having graduated from a highly selective and ultra leftist liberal arts college with a BA in History, I had to hold my own against well published professors quite often so as to graduate with high honors (3.9 GPA). Indeed, I wrote many a paper and defended many a presentation against an overwhelmingly leftist college where both the students and professors weren't shy about praising the merits of socialism, social justice, and multiculturalism.

People who can't afford to feed their children should stop breeding. End of story. Yes, there are people who become poor after children but they are certainly in the minority. The lower your income the more likely you start crapping out children that you expect everyone else to pay for.

I was both raised in a black neighborhood and I went to a black school. Having parents that avoided welfare I had the cheapest cloths in the school while everyone else had $120 shoes, jackets, and jewelry. In this school 99% had free or reduced lunch. I was not among them. I was constantly ridiculed by poorer children for not having Jordan's or new cloths. Don't give me the stupid plight of the inner-city child argument. I've been there and I know its all a sham. The only people starving are the crack heads. The fraud and abuse is amazing! People who pretend to be preachers so they can put their cars and properties under the churches name for tax write-offs, people who don't get married or don't report the fathers of their children so as to get a larger welfare check, friends using daycare subsidies so as to watch children while claiming welfare and giving a percentage back to the parent, half the market is underground, food stamp fraud at the gas station, and the list goes on. I grew up in a neighborhood where the cars were nice, people had expensive cloths, and their houses looked like a train wreck. In a neighborhood where nearly everyone was on welfare, my family , having never accepted or qualified for welfare, looked poorest of all. We lived within our means!

 

[jasonnfree]

See, Liberals love subsidies. They only hate the ones that go to business and people unfriendly to them. I hate all subsidies.

Liberals love subsidies, liberals are beta , conservatives are alpha. Man you sure think you got people pegged. Ever take any psychology or sociology classes in a local college? You might have some fun arguing your world view with a professor with a phd. in either of those fields.
You know both sides get subsidies but for whatever reasons repubs or conservatives only focus on the poor. The Walmart heirs can get along just fine without subsidies. Not so for the needy and yes there is a certain amount of abuse and fraud but it's really minimal. Being a business owner in minority and low income neighborhoods on and off for decades I can tell you that there are many people that couldn't make it without some subsidies. Can't make it like they would have to live in cars or under bridges, some with children.

I only took introductory sociology and psychology classes in college. Why do you ask? Having graduated from a highly selective and ultra leftist liberal arts college with a BA in History, I had to hold my own against well published professors quite often so as to graduate with high honors (3.9 GPA). Indeed, I wrote many a paper and defended many a presentation against an overwhelmingly leftist college where both the students and professors weren't shy about praising the merits of socialism, social justice, and multiculturalism.

People who can't afford to feed their children should stop breeding. End of story. Yes, there are people who become poor after children but they are certainly in the minority. The lower your income the more likely you start crapping out children that you expect everyone else to pay for.

I was both raised in a black neighborhood and I went to a black school. Having parents that avoided welfare I had the cheapest cloths in the school while everyone else had $120 shoes, jackets, and jewelry. In this school 99% had free or reduced lunch. I was not among them. I was constantly ridiculed by poorer children for not having Jordan's or new cloths. Don't give me the stupid plight of the inner-city child argument. I've been there and I know its all a sham. The only people starving are the crack heads. The fraud and abuse is amazing! People who pretend to be preachers so they can put their cars and properties under the churches name for tax write-offs, people who don't get married or don't report the fathers of their children so as to get a larger welfare check, friends using daycare subsidies so as to watch children while claiming welfare and giving a percentage back to the parent, half the market is underground, food stamp fraud at the gas station, and the list goes on. I grew up in a neighborhood where the cars were nice, people had expensive cloths, and their houses looked like a train wreck. In a neighborhood where nearly everyone was on welfare, my family , having never accepted or qualified for welfare, looked poorest of all. We lived within our means!

Funny, the church scam goes on with whites also, only on a much grander scale. His and her mansions in different parts of the country, corporate jets such as TBN , used to know people that worked for them.
I once owned a day care center in a mixed neighborhood (licensed for 75 kids) and there weren't scams available like you mentioned. Maybe it is a black neighborhood thing or really poor neighborhood thing. I once had rentals. (I've alway moved from one type of business to another in addition to being a wage earner in between). In rentals the wealthy have what I call legal scams where you had accelerated depreciation. Buy an apartment, depreciate it to lower your taxes for five or seven years , instead of the normal thirty years. Huge write off for large income people. After five years, the building has zero value for tax purposes. Sell (exchange) the building for sometimes 2x what you paid for it especially in hot markets (even though it has zero value ) and exchange or roll over to a greater value building. Keep exchanging "up" for fifteen or twenty years, greatly compounding your wealth. A good way to get filthy rich and then become a coupon clipper at 15% taxation. These scams like acc. depreciation don't help the little guy of average income. Bought off politicians seek ways to make the rich richer. Another reason why we have such an imbalance of wealth distribution favoring the wealthy.
All levels of people have their scams, legal or otherwise. However, your side seems to hone in only on the poor. Why?

 

[Publius1787]

Liberals love subsidies, liberals are beta , conservatives are alpha. Man you sure think you got people pegged. Ever take any psychology or sociology classes in a local college? You might have some fun arguing your world view with a professor with a phd. in either of those fields.
You know both sides get subsidies but for whatever reasons repubs or conservatives only focus on the poor. The Walmart heirs can get along just fine without subsidies. Not so for the needy and yes there is a certain amount of abuse and fraud but it's really minimal. Being a business owner in minority and low income neighborhoods on and off for decades I can tell you that there are many people that couldn't make it without some subsidies. Can't make it like they would have to live in cars or under bridges, some with children.

I only took introductory sociology and psychology classes in college. Why do you ask? Having graduated from a highly selective and ultra leftist liberal arts college with a BA in History, I had to hold my own against well published professors quite often so as to graduate with high honors (3.9 GPA). Indeed, I wrote many a paper and defended many a presentation against an overwhelmingly leftist college where both the students and professors weren't shy about praising the merits of socialism, social justice, and multiculturalism.

People who can't afford to feed their children should stop breeding. End of story. Yes, there are people who become poor after children but they are certainly in the minority. The lower your income the more likely you start crapping out children that you expect everyone else to pay for.

I was both raised in a black neighborhood and I went to a black school. Having parents that avoided welfare I had the cheapest cloths in the school while everyone else had $120 shoes, jackets, and jewelry. In this school 99% had free or reduced lunch. I was not among them. I was constantly ridiculed by poorer children for not having Jordan's or new cloths. Don't give me the stupid plight of the inner-city child argument. I've been there and I know its all a sham. The only people starving are the crack heads. The fraud and abuse is amazing! People who pretend to be preachers so they can put their cars and properties under the churches name for tax write-offs, people who don't get married or don't report the fathers of their children so as to get a larger welfare check, friends using daycare subsidies so as to watch children while claiming welfare and giving a percentage back to the parent, half the market is underground, food stamp fraud at the gas station, and the list goes on. I grew up in a neighborhood where the cars were nice, people had expensive cloths, and their houses looked like a train wreck. In a neighborhood where nearly everyone was on welfare, my family , having never accepted or qualified for welfare, looked poorest of all. We lived within our means!

Funny, the church scam goes on with whites also, only on a much grander scale. His and her mansions in different parts of the country, corporate jets such as TBN , used to know people that worked for them.
I once owned a day care center in a mixed neighborhood (licensed for 75 kids) and there weren't scams available like you mentioned. Maybe it is a black neighborhood thing or really poor neighborhood thing. I once had rentals. (I've alway moved from one type of business to another in addition to being a wage earner in between). In rentals the wealthy have what I call legal scams where you had accelerated depreciation. Buy an apartment, depreciate it to lower your taxes for five or seven years , instead of the normal thirty years. Huge write off for large income people. After five years, the building has zero value for tax purposes. Sell (exchange) the building for sometimes 2x what you paid for it especially in hot markets (even though it has zero value ) and exchange or roll over to a greater value building. Keep exchanging "up" for fifteen or twenty years, greatly compounding your wealth. A good way to get filthy rich and then become a coupon clipper at 15% taxation. These scams like acc. depreciation don't help the little guy of average income. Bought off politicians seek ways to make the rich richer. Another reason why we have such an imbalance of wealth distribution favoring the wealthy.
All levels of people have their scams, legal or otherwise. However, your side seems to hone in only on the poor. Why?

I've said it once and I'll say it again. I'm against all subsidies and unreasonable tax write-offs (business expenses = reasonable) no matter who they go to. Nevertheless, none of what you said addressed any of what I wrote. There is the church scams, but then again you're talking about a larger population (70%>12%). As I said before there is no one starving in the poor black community and if you let them, they will rob the taxpayer blind. See below for a very good example.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7cmmCYJ4eo]Walmart shelves in Springhill, Louisiana cleared in EBT glitch - YouTube[/ame]