1. Polls this far out don't mean a thing, lol. I know it, you know it.
2. Know what is really happening? GOP WANTS Bernie to stay in the race, and hopefully beat Hillary, so won't attack his economic nonsense until it helps them, and not Hillary.
3. Hillary can't attack him on economics to much, without blowing her own cover, so she is in a catch 22.
Bernie is full of economic nonsense, hoping he wins the nomination would be a dream come true, and taking his economic ideas apart will be easier than taking candy from a baby. To bad Hillary can't do it, she might win the nomination instead of him, lololol!
1) Yes, these numbers could easily change, but that doesn't mean they mean nothing. It shows that Bernie does a have a shot in winning a general election even if it is too early to know for sure. It also a shows how virtually everyone underestimated him. Of course, I'm guessing you would be singing a very different tune about these polls had they shown that the repubs were beating Hillary and Bernie at this point. Just admit it
2) Could your assumption be any dumber? You honestly think that's the reason these polls in his favor? You're full of shit and you know it. you of course conveniently ignore him having the highest favorability rating and having more money raised in donations than any GOP candidate.
His economic ideas torn apart huh? Are those supposed to better than Trump's, Rubio's, and Cruz's tax plans cutting revenue by trillions over 10 years? Trump would add to the debt by 19 trillion. Cruz would at 8 trillion over 10 years.
1. Wrong. Numbers can change, and for the general, I don't care if it says the GOP is ahead by 25, it means nothing. Hell, Carter was ahead of Regan by 10 with 6 weeks to go. Anything can happen.
2. I agree, his favorability rating is high. That is because nobody is saying much bad about him. Only Hillary tried a little, and who believes a liar? Should tell you how much people trust what she says-) Remember, NOBODY is attacking him very much.
3. Now there you go again! You turn from Sanders plans to everybody else's. When someone tells everyone their taxes are going to rise significantly to put in new stuff, now people are going to listen, don't you think? Let us count, ready-------> How many recipients GET stuff............how many peoples taxes have to go up to pay for it?
Now then, I ask you as a thinking person......................if he says he is going to pay for it by taxing corporations; how many corporations are going to publicly say, long before the election "we are blowing this popstand!" Now guess who works at those corporations-) That is correct......VOTERS-) How many of those VOTERS are going to vote themselves out of a job?
Good luck with that one!
1) Again, just because the numbers are subject to change, does not mean they mean nothing. It does give us pause about his chances going forward. They show that the American people do like Bernie.
Lets pretend these numbers showed that Bernie was losing to the GOP candidates. Would your first thought be "well that could easily change. Bernie could beat them all." No of course not.
2) Hillary is already railing against Bernie's voting record. He's still been more consistent in his political career than any other candidate in this race. Everyone already knows he describes himself as a socialist. I doubt there is anything new repubs could come up with that would stick.
3) I'll admit his Medicare for all plan is not feasible, but everything else he has put forward is obtainable and is coupled with tax plans to pay for them. If you actually looked up his platform, you would know this. Compare that to repub's plans of cutting taxes and racking up the deficit AND plans to go to full scale war with ISIS. In comparison, Bernie's plans look decent.
My good man Bill, I am not going to insult your intelligence by calling you names, or any such nonsense. I personally believe it is counter productive.
1. Never, ever said people didn't like Bernie. I have consistently stated that people do not like or trust Hillary. This is why the Bernie train is running so hot. It is not that Bernie is a political monolith, but rather Hillary is a political pariah.
2. Look at 1, then add massive attacks on his spending and economic plan that most economists say are awful. And when I say most, I am not adding or subtracting Democrat or Republican talking heads, what they say is always tainted with political activism.
3. Your point 3 is answered by a question----->when did America do well with the tax rates Bernie is suggesting? I know when it was, I just want to make sure you do, and then I will explain why it was then, along with why it can't happen now.
Also, your corporation logic is not correct, as you will see when/if we discuss the tax rates.
As far as corporations having to much influence, with that I agree. Our political systems way of financing candidates for any office needs to be overhauled. On that issue, your stance is exactly thew same as most conservative/libertarian Republicans. It is how we believe that the establishment of both party's. have ridden roughshod over regular Americans like you and I, so score one of your points for all of us!
1) I am just making the point that those numbers do not mean nothing even if they are subject to change. Him currently beating ALL of the repub candidates means a lot.
2) Only his Medicare for all plan isn't considered feasible. Of course I'm sure there would be more scrutiny for republican plans if they had more, you know, actual policy ideas? Instead all we can go on is them gutting revenue and racking up the deficit.
3) America has done well with tax rates higher than Bernie is suggesting. The tax rate on the wealthy in the 50s was 90% yet that was a time of great economic growth. It forced the wealthy to invest in the economy. Nowadays they hardly invest. Contrary to what repubs and Fox News will tell you, high taxes on the top earners do not harm the economy. The economy only does well when the middle class is thriving. Consumer spending is what drives the economy - not a strong wealthy class. Consider the Bush adminstration for a moment. Bush passed those massive tax cuts on the wealthy yet job growth under him was pathetic and the Great Recession happened anyway. How do you explain that? Today the wealthy are wealthier than ever before yet look at our economy. Wages are low and full time jobs are scarce.
Oh and the EFFECTIVE tax rates on corporations is 12%. That is the rate that matters.
Bill, I have been waiting for a Bernie supporter to drop your number 3 on me. When I read threads, I see the "90% tax rate during Eisenhower" used all the time, and almost always from the Republicans on here, crickets! And then sometimes I hear all about the hoarding of money by the wealthy......and since we all are bombarded by "income inequality" by the left, and far left; I decided to go talk to a couple of economists (pretty non partisan ones since I wanted an accurate answer.....you will have to take my word for non-partisan) to find out if these 2 statements had legs, since in my part time line of work, I need some of these answers.
And so, both said almost the same thing, which kind of shocked me. Here you go, condensed------>
1. Was the economy pretty good during Eisenhower with very high tax rates? Yes!
Case closed, left wins? Yes, if they can duplicate the factors! What are those factors?
Just recently came out of WWII. Japan and Europes industrial base were bombed into non existence. We were implementing the Marshall plan, and we were the only game in town with any industrial capacity. If it had to be built for any part of the world, more than likely, it had to be built here. Add to that we were still lagging on goods that were "rationed away" during the war, industry was lit up with feeding America things that it had desired for years, upon years.
And as these workers fed the world with industrialized goods to rebuild? Well, their wealth grew......because they were not in the 90% tax rate at all, and needed housing, washing machines, refrigerators, and everything else to go along with it. In essence, it wasn't BECAUSE of the high tax rates it happened, it was in SPITE of them as we were the only game in town, we had a captive audience at our feet.
As Europe came back online, look what happened! Kennedy came in and had to start dumping tax rates to reignite the economy. And the rest is history. So yes, if you could duplicate the same conditions, those tax rates would be fine. You can't, and so the brutal truth is, it will not work.
RICH HOARDING MONEY. ANSWER--------> This is a little wonky, so stay with me, lol.
It depends upon what you mean by hoarding....do you mean they have it and won't release it to the economy (invest it) causing it to keep tanking? I assume that is one of your points, so I shall address it since you also seem upset with banks.
Where do they have this "hoarded" money, in a mattress? Do we know anyone who has a "billion or two" in a mattress, or buried out in their back yard? No, I do not think so! If their money is not there, then where is it?
Well, if much of their money is in stocks and bonds, then the whole notion that they are "hoarding" and not investing becomes null and void, blowing Bernie's whole "schtick" out of the water since owning stocks and bonds IS investing.
But, what if they have it in banks? Oh, those evil rich, that is what they are doing, hoarding all that money in big banks, starving the economy for investment money, lol.
Now Bill, lets get logical here for a second.........if YOU Bill were a bank, and I Whosure deposited 1 billion dollars in your bank that you had to pay me interest on in CDs, passbook, or whatever, how long would it take you to start LOSING money if you didn't lend it to people to MAKE money back, and just paid me my interest? Multiply that times thousands, and that is why banks "hoarding" money is just ridiculous. Banks, just like every other corporate entity, are in business to MAKE money, not LOSE money. They aren't a public service to create a spot for you to park your money, they are their to offer security so you don't have to keep it in a mattress, then for that security they MAKE money by taking YOUR money and lending it out, while giving you some sort of return.
And what about offshore money? Oh, we here about that alot, don't we! Want to know why that is, what it is I betcha, don't you!
Here is the truth----------> if YOU Mr Bill, sell a Bill car in China, or most every other country in the world, they tax you whatever their rate is. I don't care what their rate is, you pay it. So let us pretend their tax rate is 40%. You sell one Bill car, and your total PROFIT before taxes is 1000.00 dollars. And so, your tax bill is 400.00 bucks, leaving you 600.00 left.
So now, being a good American, you decide to bring that 600.00 bucks back here to buy a car wash, because you are selling Bill cars in the United States too! But wait, your government says, "forget about it," you have to pay our tax to bring the money back here. Say WHAT? Oh yes you Mr evil Bill, just because you didn't make it here, or sell it here, you are an American corporation, so pay baby, pay! Hey, betcha Mr Bill would leave his money outside the country too. Double taxation, wtf is up with that!
But let us REVERSE the scenario. What if it was built and/or sold here, and the company that did it was based in most any other country in the world? Why, they pay American tax to our government, and then the country they are based in, lets the money re-enter for ECONOMIC purposes, UNTAXED! WTF! Hmmmm, think that has anything to do why we are hearing all about corporate inversions; a wonderful political football for the left, but they NEVER want to tell you why, now do they!
And so now for the final nail-------> your assertion of what the actual REAL corporate tax rate is could be correct, I doubt it, but we will work with it for the sake of argument. Mr Bill decides to stay in America because..........well.....he is an American, is patriotic, and wants to build Mr Bill cars here. Yay team! Mr Bill better have a HUGE corporate cashflow/profit if he wants to keep his tax rate where you say it actually is. Why? Because with our convoluted tax codes and industrial over regulation, YOU.........Mr Bill car company............has to hire millions or billions of dollars worth of accountants and lawyers to MANIPULATE the 75,000 pages of tax code to get your tax rate down to what you say it is on this board. Add to that, you have to have billions of extra dollars invested to comply with ever changing regulation to produce Bill cars. So you have to make far more profit then a "yabba-dabba-doo cars" anywhere else in the world to stay competitive in other markets. They can undercut your price, and STILL make a profit, leaving you losing money. Ummmmmm, not good!
So now we go full circle back to........"why Bernie's economic ideas are Kabookie theatre," created for the express purpose of deceiving young people. Because this isn't 1950 factors for economic expansion tactics, the world is re-industrialized, and with the way our government is doing things now, corporations are fleeing. Bernie would make them flee faster, much faster, and that is the brutal truth!
