Bernie Sanders: We Will Raise Taxes On Anyone Making Over $29,000 To Fund Government Health Care

[Thinker101]

How about this for a fairy tale:

View attachment 292075

None of them are on the companies health plan if they even have one.

And you know that how? Many construction trades are unionized. They get benefits for their workers.

Because to be on a health plan you have to have a S.S. number and it's a total lie that you can just steal one.

No, usually they are bought from the drug cartels or identity thieves either here or in Mexico. When was the last time an employer sponsored insurance company asked for proof of citizenship or SS number?

Anytime you sign up. You can not just use someone else's S.S. that is a total made up fabrication. Someone might be able to for very short term gain but it gets caught in short order.

Cmon, what shithole country do you really live in?
Illegal immigrants cited in theft of 39 million Social Security numbers

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

So in other words, everyone but illegals will be paying for Medicare for illegals.

You have this backwards.
Illegals pay higher taxes than most people because they can't file and get a refund.
And they also can not get Medicare for all if it passes.

Illegals pay higher taxes than most people because they can't file and get a refund.

Why would they get a refund?

 

[Andylusion]

Dem policies are so awesome and popular they have to punish people with taxes and threaten them with laws to force people to OBEY!

Jesus ****,. God forbid we have laws & God forbid we pay for what we spend.

No wonder you love these skyrocketing deficits. Is this why you voted for Trump?

Which Democrat is calling for reducing the deficit?
I’ll wait.

All of them. When they talk abut rolling back Trump's gift to the wealthy and well off corporations.

Why are you supporting a President who is skyrocketing the deficit

Um.... Bernie wants Medicare for all. Warren wants reparations. AOC wants to fart-less cows, and ban gas, while spending billions on the mythical eco-friendly power.

Yeah, it's true I support reducing government spending, and Trump isn't doing that.

True.

Do tell sir..... which one of your candidates wants to cut government spending? Forget that even...... which of your candidates is NOT supporting drastically increasing government spending?

And the answer is.... None.

You complain we're supporting a guy who has deficit spending, while providing no viable alternative, and quite frankly half the people on your side, would openly bankrupt the entire country given a chance. AOC actually said she was going to "spend" a tax break on public schools.

When you have that level of incompetence leading your party.... its really amusing to hear you cry that trump is engaged in deficit spending.

 

[BluesLegend]

Um.... Bernie wants Medicare for all.

Is Bernie willing to sell one of his 3 houses to help pay for it?

 

[edward37]

Um.... Bernie wants Medicare for all.

Is Bernie willing to sell one of his 3 houses to help pay for it?

Don't worry Blues the tax won't affect you

 

[HenryBHough]

It wouldn't matter. Nobody would need to have any earned income to be taxed.

With Nutty Old Uncle Bernie as President nobody would need money; everything would be FREE!

 

[LeftofLeft]

The Left must always “trickle down” its definition of “wealthy” to pay for their programs.

At least there is a plan to actually pay for the programs.

Bullshit. The Left lies to the Middle Class by telling them it is the “wealthy” that will be taxed yet somehow someone making $29k per year is now “wealthy”? That’s your plan? How come plans from your side rarely, if ever, include “cut spending?”

 

[edward37]

The Left must always “trickle down” its definition of “wealthy” to pay for their programs.

At least there is a plan to actually pay for the programs.

Bullshit. The Left lies to the Middle Class by telling them it is the “wealthy” that will be taxed yet somehow someone making $29k per year is now “wealthy”? That’s your plan? How come plans from your side rarely, if ever, include “cut spending?”

How's that cutting spending thing working for you?? Get your piece of trumps trillion dollar tax break for the 1% ??

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Um.... Bernie wants Medicare for all.

Is Bernie willing to sell one of his 3 houses to help pay for it?

He would have to have 3,000 houses for it to make a dent in a spending bill like this one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Left must always “trickle down” its definition of “wealthy” to pay for their programs.

At least there is a plan to actually pay for the programs.

Correct. Last time they were in charge, they put us 10 trillion dollars in more debt for their programs. Some plan.

 

[dblack]

Dem policies are so awesome and popular they have to punish people with taxes and threaten them with laws to force people to OBEY!

Jesus ****,. God forbid we have laws & God forbid we pay for what we spend.

No wonder you love these skyrocketing deficits. Is this why you voted for Trump?

Which Democrat is calling for reducing the deficit?
I’ll wait.

All of them. When they talk abut rolling back Trump's gift to the wealthy and well off corporations.

Why are you supporting a President who is skyrocketing the deficit

Um.... Bernie wants Medicare for all. Warren wants reparations. AOC wants to fart-less cows, and ban gas, while spending billions on the mythical eco-friendly power.

Yeah, it's true I support reducing government spending, and Trump isn't doing that.

True.

Do tell sir..... which one of your candidates wants to cut government spending? Forget that even...... which of your candidates is NOT supporting drastically increasing government spending?

And the answer is.... None.

You complain we're supporting a guy who has deficit spending, while providing no viable alternative, and quite frankly half the people on your side, would openly bankrupt the entire country given a chance. AOC actually said she was going to "spend" a tax break on public schools.

When you have that level of incompetence leading your party.... its really amusing to hear you cry that trump is engaged in deficit spending.

I fail to see the humor in it.

 

[Andylusion]

That's kind of our point. No amount of regulations, is going to solve anything. In fact, regulations generally make the problem worse, which you pointed out.

Regulations inherently make the companies they are created to supposedly reign in... larger and more out of control.

Allow me to explain....

Regulations are very expensive, and at the same time, they reduce the ability of the companies to create new products.

So I'm a big mega-bank. You are a smaller bank. Between the two of us, which one has the money to spend in order to meet the regulations? I do. I have hundreds of billions. You are a small bank chain, and likely don't have billions to spend meeting regulations.

Additionally, between the two of us, which one needs to create diverse new products to attract customers? You do. I do not. I'm a mega bank. Customers will come to me on name brand alone. You are the one who has to attract customers with new products.

The regulations will both harm your ability to create new products, and will cost you tons of money you don't have in order to be compliant.

So you facing these huge costs and challenges, may just determine to sell out to me. You sell off to me, and I become larger and more profitable, because now there is less competition.

And you can see this throughout the entire economy. In states that have the tightest regulations, you often see the fewest insurance companies, for example.

When they passed the net neutrality regulations, the first thing that happened was a wave of mergers across the country. Comcast today is vastly larger than they were before those regulations passed.

Indeed, every time there is a wave of regulations, what follows is a decline in public choices as companies sell out and merge. Go look at the auto industry before the regulations of the 1970s. There were many separate companies. By the 1990s, it was just GM, Ford and Chrysler.

The solution to having these massive banks, is actually to deregulate, and allow more free competition. Competitors will rise up where the large banks fail, and the market will end up more diverse.

Bull. Without regulations and oversite Trump would still be stealing from his charity.

A competitor can't rise up to compete with Goldman Sachs. Impossible.

Right now it's impossible.... because all the regulations make it impossible.

No, regulations does not prevent stealing from a charity. AOC was using campaign money, funneled through a front company, to her boyfriend. Why didn't the regulations prevent that?

Franklin Raines was cooking the books at Fannie Mae, and fabricated a profit where there was none, so that they could trigger executive bonuses.

Enron, Bernie Madoff... the list of examples where people engaged in fraud and money laundering while under heavy regulation is endless.

Nothing can somehow "prevent" crime. What you can do is have laws against fraud.... and then punish people caught engaging in fraud.

I'm all in favor of more law enforcement. 100% support more law enforcement.

However, regulations do not prevent crime. All they do, is allow the rich to hold down the poor. That's it. No regulation anywhere has ever stopped a crime.

No regulations do not stop corruption. There wi always be people who think they can get by with it.

Regulations allow the oversite that catches the corruption.

I disagree with that too. If the oversight worked..... again.... Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Enron, AOC, Madoff.

You know who caught Madoff? Outside investors who kept looking at the returns, and saying it isn't possible. Enron, you know who caught Enron? No one, they went bankrupt.

In fact, from what I've read elsewhere, Enron was particularly damning, because Enron used the regulations to their benefit, to conceal the fraud. When the executives met with bond holders, who said to Jeff Skilling that it appeared Enron was hiding something, Skillings reply was that they had filed with the SEC and followed all the regulations. As a result the fraud was concealed, and the bond holders accepted that.

So I see little evidence that oversight does anything. When evidence of fraud comes up, they investigate, just like they would investigate any fraud, without any regulations, or any oversight.

I'm not against oversight so much..... I just think law enforcement does a better job of oversight, than the supposed oversight agencies.

But regardless, I still see the regulations do far more harm than good. I see little that they stop any crime from happening, and a ton that it holds the poor down, so the rich and stay above.

Yes, regulators were tipped off and ignored all warnings. I don't disagree with that. There should have been a mass firing. They did not do their job.

I argue all the time that laws and regulations not enforced really are worthless. About like our current laws concerning the hiring of illegals.

It's not something we should accept. To note though, without them Maddoff is a free man.

Bull. I disagree. Bernie Madoff was engaged in fraud. Fraud is illegal. Fraud is not a regulation. Fraud is a violation of law. You can not tell people that you are going to use their money to purchase assets on their behalf, and then use it to pay previous investor, not buying any assets. You cannot tell people you are paying them dividends from their investments, when there are no investments, and you are paying them from new investors.

You would not need a single regulation anywhere on the planet, to determine Bernie was engaged in Fraud, and prosecute him on that Fraud, and toss his con-man butt in jail for life.

Yes, regulators were tipped off and ignored all warnings.

Which leads to another problem. You touched on a completely different issue, and extremely valid.

I would still suggest that whether regulations are enforced or not, they only have negative consequences. Regulations are used by the big companies, to shut out the little companies. Additionally, regulations are used by the wealthy, to oppress the poor.

The rich have the ability to pay the cost of regulations. Small competitors do not. Regulations shut out the small companies, to enrich the large ones.

Regulations make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

The rich also have the ability to influence government regulations, where the poor do not. Whether they rent the Lincoln bedroom from Bill Clinton, or they pay $32,000 for a private dinner with Obama, or any of the millions of other ways... they can easily slip in specific regulations or exemptions that benefit them.

Do you have any idea just how much regulations we have on banks?

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Bank Regulations
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Banking Regulations
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Banking Regulations
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Banking Regulations
Federal Reserve Board (FRB) Banking Regulations
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Banking Regulations
National Credit Union Administration Banking Regulations
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) Banking Regulations
Department of Justice (DOJ) Banking Regulations
US Department of the Treasury Banking Regulations

Those are JUST the Federal level regulatory agencies.

Lawriter - ORC - Title [11] XI FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
This is the Ohio code regarding banks.
You'll notice the last one is:
DIVISION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Which is part of the Ohio Department of Commerce, which has their own regulations on banks.

Let us even simplify this.... Let us look at just one single bank law. Dodd-Frank.

This bill was over 850 pages long. This bill also amended the following existing acts:
Commodity Exchange Act
Consumer Credit Protection Act
Federal Deposit Insurance Act
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991
Federal Reserve Act
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989
International Banking Act of 1978
Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act
Revised Statutes of the United States
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Truth in Lending Act

The "summery" page of this act, is 40 pages long. This bill went through 9 different committees, each I'm sure with their own lobbying efforts.

House Agriculture 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Financial Services 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Energy and Commerce 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 12/03/2009 Referred to
House Judiciary 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Rules 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Budget 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Oversight and Government Reform 12/02/2009 Referred to
House Ways and Means 12/02/2009 Referred to
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Look at all the committees, one banking law had to go through, each adding their own special interest regulations.

And what is in all those thousands of pages? Exemptions. What did you think was in all those regulations?

Takes you five seconds to do a search for the word "exempt", and find hundreds of examples throughout the legislation.

Exemptions.--If the Board of Governors determines that
an exemption from the requirement under paragraph (1) is
appropriate, the Board of Governors may exempt a company, or any
transaction or transactions engaged in by such company, from the
requirements of paragraph (1).

Hmmm.... board of governors can just issue an exemption at will? And who do you think carries enough influence to make that happen? The small startup bank, or the massive mega bank, that just spent $32,000 to have dinner with Obama?

You tell me.

That is one of thousands of exemptions. THOUSANDS. And don't play this game, that this is just Dodd-Frank.... I can pull up any banking regulation you want, and find exemptions all over the place, as each bill goes through a half dozen committees.

And let's talk about the regulators themselves.



In this video, at 3:21, Rep Shays points out that most of the people in the very hearing on oversight, were all getting paid by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now we're not even talking about private banks somewhere.... we're talking about banks directly run and operated by the government. The CEO of Frannie Mae was Franklin Raines, who was appointed by Clinton as Director of the Office of Budget and Management.

And let's talk more generally about oversight.... All oversight is going to be manipulated by the people they have oversight over. That's normal. That's natural. And I would say that is unavoidable.

You might, ask, why would it be unavoidable? It's real simple.

Do you really know how banking works? No. I don't either. I know the fundamentals, but I couldn't run a bank. What do you think a bunch of appointed bureaucrats in Washington know about running a bank? Nothing. Take Franklin Raines. He was appointed to everything. The man never held a job in his life, that wasn't either in an Ivory tower, or in a tax payer funded position. It's not a surprise that Fannie Mae failed completely after his guidance.

Most people in government, couldn't operate a lemonade stand. So when you see Shays saying at 4:35 in the video above, that Fannie Mae had been manipulating OFHEO for years, my response is of course. These are politicians. They don't know anything. Even Franklin Raines says later in that video that these house mortgages are "risk-less", just a few years before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the two most expensive bailouts of the entire sub-prime crash.

So when these know-nothing bureaucrats in charge of oversight, realize they have no idea what they are doing, who do you think they are going to go to for advice?...... the very people they are in charge of oversight over. After Deepwater Horizon, who did they talk to about what new 'safety regulations' they should create? Oil companies. When they were trying to come up with insurance regulations for ObamaCare, who did they talk to? Insurance companies. After the 2008 crash, who did they consult about Dodd-Frank? Banks.

And if you doubt that, then I have a challenge for you. Name one oversight agency that does not have people either on the committee from the companies they oversight, or does not have people now working in those companies, originally from the oversight agency.

You can't.

This is natural. This is normal. This is unavoidable. There will never be a time, where any oversight agency, is not influenced by the people they have oversight over.

Let me put it another way... If your wage in life, was controlled by a guy down the street who is on city counsel.... You would make it a point to meet that guy, and talk with him over lunch. We all would. I would, absolutely. That guy determines if I ever earn more money for the rest of my life? Yeah, I'm going to meet up with him.

The regulators have the ability to control millions, and billions of dollars that companies can earn. They are GOING to find a way to influence those regulators. And it doesn't matter what system you have. Socialist system, capitalist system, whatever system you have, if you have a group of people that control a hundred billion dollar industry, they are going to find a way to influence that group of people. Again, Fannie Mae was a government run company, influencing a government run oversight. Don't sit there and pretend that if only we were less Capitalist, things would be different. Not true.

My point again.... regulations solve nothing. Never have. Never will.

 

[Andylusion]

Um.... Bernie wants Medicare for all.

Is Bernie willing to sell one of his 3 houses to help pay for it?

Of course not. All left-wingers are never interested in paying for anything themselves. The entire ideology of the left, is built on the mythology that "Other people will pay for it".

No one on the left, is suggesting that they raise taxes on themselves. They want to raise taxes on 'rich people', which no matter what definition they use, somehow excludes them.

 

[Andylusion]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

What do families making $29K pay in taxes now?

More Republican bullshit in action.

What do families making $29k a year pay in premiums, co-pays, coinsurance & deductibles today?

A family of four with a wage earner working full time might get 75% of his premiums covered by his employer. Say that policy cost $1200 a month, $2,000 deductible, with office visits , precriptions, etc typical.

That family will pay $3600.00 a year its share of the premiums, could be $1000 in deductables and 400 hundred in copays. That is $5000. As as any tax increase is less that $5K, they are ahead with medicare for all.

In reality their tax increase would be far less.

This is what you lying assfucks don't get.

Plus, no more sweating out this time of year to see what kind of policy you will get next year, no more worrying what the new premium cost will be, worrying if your doctor is in the network.

The idea you Trumpettes keep whiling is proof you are dumber than shit & just bitching because it is a Democrat idea.

You'd rather pay more out of pocket & fight with the insurance companies

But het, you voted for Trump & I guess that makes you that ******* stupid.

Shameful the way you Leftists hate the poor and are always making life more difficult for them.

The poor don't pay income taxes & still would not.

Social Security and Medicare, are just income taxes.

 

[Andylusion]

Dem policies are so awesome and popular they have to punish people with taxes and threaten them with laws to force people to OBEY!

Jesus ****,. God forbid we have laws & God forbid we pay for what we spend.

No wonder you love these skyrocketing deficits. Is this why you voted for Trump?

Ok.... spend less. Thanks.

So you are not a Trump supporter.

You pay for what you spend.

No.

Not how that works.

You spend, based on what you make. Not try and make what you spend.

You don't go buy a Mercedes, and then go to work and say "Well.... now you gotta pay me $100,000 a year, because I bought a Mercedes".

Not how fiscal responsibility works.

What you do, is you look at how much money you have... and then you spend according to what you have. That means if you have only $3.3 Trillion in revenue... then you need to cut your spending DOWN to less than $3.3 Trillion. That means if you don't have the money for welfare programs like Social Security, then you cut Social Security. IF you don't have the money for Medicare, then you need to cut Medicare.

That's how life works. Michael Jackson tried it your way. He kept spending and spending, and tried to make enough money to match his spending. Didn't work. Even though he made by most estimates a billion dollars in his life, when he died, he was on the verge of bankruptcy.

No country has ever taxed their way into prosperity, and ours won't either.

 

[WEATHER53]

Bernie rewards government dependence by demonizing those who don’t need it while trying to get their money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Left must always “trickle down” its definition of “wealthy” to pay for their programs.

At least there is a plan to actually pay for the programs.

Bullshit. The Left lies to the Middle Class by telling them it is the “wealthy” that will be taxed yet somehow someone making $29k per year is now “wealthy”? That’s your plan? How come plans from your side rarely, if ever, include “cut spending?”

How's that cutting spending thing working for you?? Get your piece of trumps trillion dollar tax break for the 1% ??

Get your piece of trumps trillion dollar tax break for the 1% ??

I did. You didn't?

 

[pknopp]

None of them are on the companies health plan if they even have one.

And you know that how? Many construction trades are unionized. They get benefits for their workers.

Because to be on a health plan you have to have a S.S. number and it's a total lie that you can just steal one.

No, usually they are bought from the drug cartels or identity thieves either here or in Mexico. When was the last time an employer sponsored insurance company asked for proof of citizenship or SS number?

Anytime you sign up. You can not just use someone else's S.S. that is a total made up fabrication. Someone might be able to for very short term gain but it gets caught in short order.

Undocumented immigrants quietly pay billions into Social Security and receive no benefits - Marketplace

From your article.

Since undocumented immigrants don’t have Social Security numbers and are not authorized to work legally in the U.S., they are not eligible for any Social Security benefits, whether they’ve paid into the system or not.

Do you not see a problem with that statement?

People who claim these things talk out of both sides of their mouths and people who read it and buy into it don't use even a little common sense when reading it.

If someone uses a fake ID people would be getting their taxes rejected left and right because they are not claiming all their income. What you are arguing is some huge conspiracy where the government ignores any income that might seem like it came from an illegal. You are arguing that the government isn't going to question how it is that the 89 year old woman in Pennsylvania is butchering hogs in Iowa.

Now if you want to argue this, go ahead and I will simply ask you why it is that Trump continues to allow this to happen? He is the one that controls enforcement. I'll ask how it is that when he claimed he was going to arrest a million illegals he wasn't able to arrest hardly any? He knows exactly where they are because of the bogus use of S.S. numbers.

And then.............

Many undocumented sole proprietors, from gardeners to tech startup founders, pay self-employment taxes through an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, legally issued by the IRS.

Now anyone that would consider this for even one second would start to ask themselves questions. First off, how "many" illegals are going to send info to the government where their business is located? Unless it is well known that as long as you pay in the government is absolutely fine with you being here and working as long as you pay in.

Which in that case is the case. The government has no real desire to go after illegals. On a rare occasion you will get an arrest to pretend they are doing something. What happened at the last one? Once processed the illegals were returned to where they were picked up. Nothing at all happened to the employers and there hasn't been another even though if Trump was serious he would be doing this on a daily basis.

No, you are being lied to and gullible enough to believe and repeat it.

 

[pknopp]

None of them are on the companies health plan if they even have one.

And you know that how? Many construction trades are unionized. They get benefits for their workers.

Because to be on a health plan you have to have a S.S. number and it's a total lie that you can just steal one.

No, usually they are bought from the drug cartels or identity thieves either here or in Mexico. When was the last time an employer sponsored insurance company asked for proof of citizenship or SS number?

Anytime you sign up. You can not just use someone else's S.S. that is a total made up fabrication. Someone might be able to for very short term gain but it gets caught in short order.

Cmon, what shithole country do you really live in?
Illegal immigrants cited in theft of 39 million Social Security numbers

See my statement above and address the questions. There are things one can do with stolen S.S. numbers but working isn't one of them. At least not more than very short term. And then you need to address why Trump would allow that to happen.

 

[pknopp]

The Left must always “trickle down” its definition of “wealthy” to pay for their programs.

At least there is a plan to actually pay for the programs.

Bullshit. The Left lies to the Middle Class by telling them it is the “wealthy” that will be taxed yet somehow someone making $29k per year is now “wealthy”? That’s your plan? How come plans from your side rarely, if ever, include “cut spending?”

"The left". We are not discussing anyone other than Sanders. Sanders has always had a plan to pay for everything he proposes. Not that you have any room to talk considering the furthering of the debt under Trump.