The Mystery Of Bernie Sanders Crowds.Did Most Of Them Fail Basic Math?

[Arianrhod]

Anybody who suggests spending $18 trillion is in want of math. Since a number like that is beyond comprehension of Democrats, that is 18 thousand billion. Think about it. If Sanders seems to have any chance of winning, the money will flow out of the US faster than Hillary can tell a lie.

Anyone who's still repeating that $18 trillion figure is being calculatedly ignorant, particularly when the accurate figures have been posted right here in this very thread.

It is not a dingbat site;

Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion

It's the original article in the WSJ, which has since been debunked.

 

[Meathead]

Anybody who suggests spending $18 trillion is in want of math. Since a number like that is beyond comprehension of Democrats, that is 18 thousand billion. Think about it. If Sanders seems to have any chance of winning, the money will flow out of the US faster than Hillary can tell a lie.

Anyone who's still repeating that $18 trillion figure is being calculatedly ignorant, particularly when the accurate figures have been posted right here in this very thread.

It is not a dingbat site;

Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion

It's the original article in the WSJ, which has since been debunked.

Sorry. Nothing has been debunked. They are left with fairy tales about how much money this will save Americans over a decade. We simply cannot afford $18 trillion, and if he had a chance, the US would see a mind-boggling capital outflow. Sanders is not a serious candidate. Do the ******* math!

 

[Arianrhod]

Anybody who suggests spending $18 trillion is in want of math. Since a number like that is beyond comprehension of Democrats, that is 18 thousand billion. Think about it. If Sanders seems to have any chance of winning, the money will flow out of the US faster than Hillary can tell a lie.

Anyone who's still repeating that $18 trillion figure is being calculatedly ignorant, particularly when the accurate figures have been posted right here in this very thread.

It is not a dingbat site;

Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion

It's the original article in the WSJ, which has since been debunked.

Sorry. Nothing has been debunked. They are left with fairy tales about how much money this will save Americans over a decade. We simply cannot afford $18 trillion, and if he had a chance, the US would see a mind-boggling capital outflow. Sanders is not a serious candidate. Do the ******* math!

Fairy tales are things like "Saddam has WMD and he's a threat to our nation!" and "I'm gonna build a Great Big Wall across the entire southern border!" You can't provide substantiation for your fairy tale version, so believe what you want.

 

[Meathead]

Anybody who suggests spending $18 trillion is in want of math. Since a number like that is beyond comprehension of Democrats, that is 18 thousand billion. Think about it. If Sanders seems to have any chance of winning, the money will flow out of the US faster than Hillary can tell a lie.

Anyone who's still repeating that $18 trillion figure is being calculatedly ignorant, particularly when the accurate figures have been posted right here in this very thread.

It is not a dingbat site;

Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion

It's the original article in the WSJ, which has since been debunked.

Sorry. Nothing has been debunked. They are left with fairy tales about how much money this will save Americans over a decade. We simply cannot afford $18 trillion, and if he had a chance, the US would see a mind-boggling capital outflow. Sanders is not a serious candidate. Do the ******* math!

Fairy tales are things like "Saddam has WMD and he's a threat to our nation!" and "I'm gonna build a Great Big Wall across the entire southern border!" You can't provide substantiation for your fairy tale version, so believe what you want.

I can see the tail between your legs as you scurry off.

That was almost too easy.

 

[Arianrhod]

Anyone who's still repeating that $18 trillion figure is being calculatedly ignorant, particularly when the accurate figures have been posted right here in this very thread.

It is not a dingbat site;

Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion

It's the original article in the WSJ, which has since been debunked.

Sorry. Nothing has been debunked. They are left with fairy tales about how much money this will save Americans over a decade. We simply cannot afford $18 trillion, and if he had a chance, the US would see a mind-boggling capital outflow. Sanders is not a serious candidate. Do the ******* math!

Fairy tales are things like "Saddam has WMD and he's a threat to our nation!" and "I'm gonna build a Great Big Wall across the entire southern border!" You can't provide substantiation for your fairy tale version, so believe what you want.

I can see the tail between your legs as you scurry off.

That was almost too easy.

I'm still here, but I don't waste my time with the indoctrinated. I've posted my evidence upthread. All you've got is fairy tales.

 

[Conservative65]

View attachment 52690

Wow, you can post Photoshops! Would you like a sticker?

All I need to understand is that socialist like Clinton and Sanders want the rich to be required to fund anything they can use to pander to a voter.

But I bet you're swooning over that Great Big Wall that's gonna keep the immigrants out, huh?

I don't necessarily support a wall. I support putting armed guards at the border spots where people sneak in and doing what I would do to someone trying to sneak into my house uninvited. It's cheaper and it keeps them from doing it again after being sent back.

So you spend your tax dollars on that. The rest of us will be making sure our kids are educated so they can compete in a global economy.

Educated at what? Medieval Studies?
Global economy? Where do your kids think that exists?
Not in the USA pal.
Unless your kid has a PHD from Harvard in chemistry and computer science and is willing move to Mumbai and be paid 30K a year working/competing against the brightest 'kids' on the planet your 'kids are pretty much fucked.
Today I can drive to my local Starbucks and watch twenty 'kids' with Masters and PHDs making ******* coffee for all the people going off to work at Walmart.....many of whom have Masters and PHDs in fields completely useless in today's global economy. Wise up pal and tell your kids' to wise up to. If they are seriously interested in being able to earn a living wage tell them to enroll in a trade school.

Trade schools would also be an option. Currently a degree from a trade school averages 33K (about the cost of one year for an academic degree), which is out of reach for a lot of people.

I think you'd also find that when state colleges (those under discussion - no one's going to Harvard or Yale for free, so you need to inform yourself on that point) no longer have to scramble for funding or offer niche degrees they'll be able to provide more courses in subjects that are relevant to the global economy.

Whatever type of school it may be, one group being forced to fund it for the kids of another group isn't acceptable. My child attends a private university where the costs is just under $35,000/year. Almost $30,000 of that was funded by EARNED academic scholarships. For the rest, I write a check and am glad to do so for her. The degree she will earn provides the opportunity to make a sizable income. Well worth that investment for her. However, when it comes to another person's kid, not my responsibility to do any portion that higher taxes would fund.

Not knowing what career path my daughter would take, my wife and I started when she was young saving for college. Because she received that much in scholarships, the amount we saved far exceeds what it will cost. Same for the younger child who, academically, is a better student and all indications shows she'll get scholarships.

 

[Arianrhod]

Whatever type of school it may be, one group being forced to fund it for the kids of another group isn't acceptable. My child attends a private university where the costs is just under $35,000/year. Almost $30,000 of that was funded by EARNED academic scholarships. For the rest, I write a check and am glad to do so for her. The degree she will earn provides the opportunity to make a sizable income. Well worth that investment for her. However, when it comes to another person's kid, not my responsibility to do any portion that higher taxes would fund.

Not knowing what career path my daughter would take, my wife and I started when she was young saving for college. Because she received that much in scholarships, the amount we saved far exceeds what it will cost. Same for the younger child who, academically, is a better student and all indications shows she'll get scholarships.

Are you a hedge-fund manager?

 

[EverCurious]

50% tax on the wealthy, that's real fair ~snort~ Ya'll are going to be fucked when we get sick of you Robin Hood failures and start playing hard ball. A lot of us try to do our part for the country and tough it out, but we're getting a bit tired of carrying it /all/ and ya'll saying it's still not enough. 70% isn't enough, now you want 100% + more. Ya'll best keep in mind that we can move, we're free to leave this country - tax havens are nice and there's a shit ton of countries that would /love/ to take in our 30% in taxes. Of course, ya'll can't see that, all you see is "well there's wealthy folks to steal from!" heh

Most of my wealthy friends already left the country, the only ones who stayed are military because of their pensions and most of them are leveraging their good pensions in the market so they can get the **** out before the socialists destroy their retirement. Keep pushing for more and enjoy it while you can...

 

[Arianrhod]

50% tax on the wealthy, that's real fair ~snort~

Eisenhower presided over the biggest boom time in recent history, and he taxed the wealthy at 91% and corporations at 50%.

 

[EverCurious]

You planning to have another World War, because that's the only reason the wealthy put up with that high a rate. The Berlin Crisis, the onset of the Cold War, and the Space Race, were endearing to the wealthy. Unfortunately the current "free college, free rent, free food for all on the backs of the wealthy" call isn't really resonating so well as a "good cause" worth paying for. Maybe you can get Korea or Russia to threaten us with nukes or something, that /might/ make us want to pay most of our income into taxes, though given the socialist/communist direction the country is headed, I'm doubting it...


Also: Why we can't go back to sky-high, 1950s tax rates - AEI

Congress re-adopted the income tax in 1916, levying a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000, with a 6% surtax on incomes above $500,000. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000) to finance World War I. The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925, and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased.

During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments. In pursuit of equality (rather than revenue) President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000.[30][31] When Congress did not enact that proposal, Roosevelt issued an executive order attempting to achieve a similar result through a salary cap on certain salaries in connection with contracts between the private sector and the federal government.[32][33][34] For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% for tax years 1954 through 1963.

For the 1964 tax year, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was lowered to 77%, and then to 70% for tax years 1965 through 1981.

Reagan undid 40% of his 1981 tax cut, in 1983 he hiked gas and payroll taxes, and in 1984 he raised tax revenue by closing loopholes for businesses.[38] According to historian and domestic policy adviser Bruce Bartlett, Reagan's 12 tax increases over the course of his presidency took back half of the 1981 tax cut.[39]

For tax year 1987, the highest marginal tax rate was 38.5% for individuals.[40] It was lowered to 28% in revenue neutral fashion, eliminating many loopholes and shelters, along with in corporate taxes, (with a 33% "bubble rate") for tax years 1988 through 1990.[41][42] Ultimately, the combination of base broadening and rate reduction raised revenue equal to about 4% of existing tax revenue[43]

For the 1991 and 1992 tax years, the top marginal rate was increased to 31% in a budget deal President George H. W. Bush made with the Congress.[44] In 1993 the Clinton administration proposed and the Congress accepted (with no Republican support) an increase in the top marginal rate to 39.6% for the 1993 tax year, where it remained through tax year 2000.[45]

In 2001, President George W. Bush proposed and the Congress accepted an eventual lowering of the top marginal rate to 35%. However, this was done in stages: with a highest marginal rate of 39.1% for 2001, then 38.6% for 2002 and finally 35% for years 2003 through 2010.[46] This measure had a sunset provision and was scheduled to expire for the 2011 tax year, when rates would have returned to those adopted during the Clinton years unless Congress changed the law;[47] Congress did so by passing the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010, signed by President Barack Obama on December 17, 2010.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You have to wonder, right? They cheer on all of the "Free-Stuff Bullchit" as if Obama has a surplus of 20 trillion dollars. Maybe we need to get some reporters to attend the rallies and ask some of his uninformed fans where Bernie is going to get the money for free college and health-care when we already owe 18 trillion dollars.
Then we may get answers like "Huh? what?, uh,,,,whats a trillion dollars? is that like a few million?"
Or someone might say, "Uhhh, what? what's a national debt?"

Bernie tells them where he is going to get the money... "We'll pay for it by taxing the rich!"

 

[thanatos144]

[emoji14]oop:You have to wonder, right? They cheer on all of the "Free-Stuff Bullchit" as if Obama has a surplus of 20 trillion dollars. Maybe we need to get some reporters to attend the rallies and ask some of his uninformed fans where Bernie is going to get the money for free college and health-care when we already owe 18 trillion dollars.
Then we may get answers like "Huh? what?, uh,,,,whats a trillion dollars? is that like a few million?"
Or someone might say, "Uhhh, what? what's a national debt?"[emoji14]oke:

Bernie tells them where he is going to get the money... "We'll pay for it by taxing the rich!"

Don't forget cut defense.... nothing says good leader like heaping debt upon debt AND making your country far less safe.... progressives are ******* idiots

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[EverCurious]

Yea, idk if we can survive another 4-8 years without some military research funding. We're going to fall behind and be in deep shit >.<

 

[thanatos144]

Yea, idk if we can survive another 4-8 years without some military research funding. We're going to fall behind and be in deep shit >.<

18% of government budget go to defense. ..... that is less then social security. Defense is constitutional the other is not

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Arianrhod]

Yea, idk if we can survive another 4-8 years without some military research funding. We're going to fall behind and be in deep shit >.<

18% of government budget go to defense. ..... that is less then social security. Defense is constitutional the other is not

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[EverCurious]

^^ most of that is wages/housing. (I think that chart also includes the cost of military health care as well though I'm not positive and I don't feel like vetting the source heh.)

The pension thing was just a bad move financially, not so much that we're supporting our troop's retirements, but that we poorly designed the system not to fund itself. We need to update that; I hate to get rid of it, but I also don't believe that the government is/will be/would remain over a long term capable of properly investing it either. (Same goes for fed workers.) It's going to be nigh impossible to keep on top of if we don't. We've the same problem for military housing as well. I'm not sure how we can get it under control because we absolutely cannot default on the stuff already "on the books," but we can't afford the programs we have. It's a mess...

A bit outdated and doesn't include the pensions or retirements, haven't seen the new numbers but I'm sure they're lower. 2010 we were spending like $63billion on "research and development" - aka mostly development of shit that we "invented" like 10-30 years ago, across all branches. ~ Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you scroll down, the biggest chunk goes to the joint F35 which is basically an upgrade; which I'll add is over budget and behind schedule (this is what happens when you try to rely on other countries.) The only "new" thing we have on there is drones. Everything else is basically upgrades on existing equipment - not that upgrades are bad, it's just that we're basically treading water. We've been able to do that for a while because we were so far ahead of everyone else (most of the world powers were devastated by having their cities and economies destroyed after all,) but that's not going to continue to hold true - especially not with the huge jump in tech over the past decade alone. The bottom line is we're no longer "ahead" of the "competition," they're catching up fast/have caught up. This would be fine if we don't get into another war, which we may or may not have a choice on, but if we do end up in a war and we're not prepared we're fucked; it'll be like the opening of Vietnam when we didn't have close ground support aircraft.

 

[Arianrhod]

^I posted that in response to thanatos' silly belief that military spending was only 18%.

 

[thanatos144]

Yea, idk if we can survive another 4-8 years without some military research funding. We're going to fall behind and be in deep shit >.<

18% of government budget go to defense. ..... that is less then social security. Defense is constitutional the other is not

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Why don't you get something not created by a anti American progressive movement?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Arianrhod]

[Why don't you get something not created by a anti American progressive movement?

Anyone who believes the OMB is "a [sic.] anti [sic.] American progressive movement" is beyond redemption.

 

[EverCurious]

Arianrhod, ah gotcha.

Still my point is that gutting the military is not something we should consider doing. We need to fix the run away retirement program, then maybe after those on the old system pass away we might be able to get the military budget under better control. Gutting it doesn't actually do any good if we keep the 'problem program' in place, all it does is pass the fall out to the next guy.