|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 9, 2016 0:57:42 GMT
Historically running a Presidential campaign as an Independent has been the kiss of death for the candidate and only splits the democratic vote so the republican candidate wins by default. Ross Perot. Bill Clinton won.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Apr 9, 2016 1:04:29 GMT
Another interesting distinction between the two: The Vatican? Do people really care about that? Let's see, they are against contraception and against gay marriage. Wow. Go Bernie.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 9, 2016 1:13:21 GMT
Another interesting distinction between the two: The Vatican? Do people really care about that? Let's see, they are against contraception and against gay marriage. Wow. Go Bernie. Yes, mollycoddle, a great many people care about that. If you knew anything about the current Pope, you probably wouldn't have said what you did.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Apr 9, 2016 1:19:36 GMT
The Vatican? Do people really care about that? Let's see, they are against contraception and against gay marriage. Wow. Go Bernie. Yes, mollycoddle, a great many people care about that. If you knew anything about the current Pope, you probably wouldn't have said what you did. I'm not religious and don't pretend to be. And I do know something about him-(the Pope)- he just came out against gay marriage.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 16:44:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 1:29:24 GMT
The Vatican? Do people really care about that? Let's see, they are against contraception and against gay marriage. Wow. Go Bernie. Yes, mollycoddle, a great many people care about that. If you knew anything about the current Pope, you probably wouldn't have said what you did. Except it wasn't The Pope that said " Hey let's invite that Bernie guy from the US". It was some outside firm associated with the event. Kind of like that clerk from KY that went to jail for not processing same sex marriages. She met with the Pope and tried to spin it that he invited her when in fact the Pope didn't even know she was going to be there. At least that is what I heard and I believe there is some truth in it as a leader like The Pope would not want to be seen as interfering with a US Presidential election.
|
|
|
Post by peasapie on Apr 9, 2016 1:30:17 GMT
Historically running a Presidential campaign as an Independent has been the kiss of death for the candidate and only splits the democratic vote so the republican candidate wins by default. It's far better for the people to pick Hillary or Bernie now in the primaries than in the final election. That's why he really switched to have a fair chance. Being a democrat does not require lifelong card holding membership, just that you lean left which he does. And he can have lots of outlandish ideas but doesn't mean Congress will actually pass his bills to implement them so no need to be scared of him being "socialist" as if that's some dirty word. That's pretty much true of all politicians, all the way back to high school when someone promised, "If I am elected class president, I'll make sure we get free ice cream every day at lunch!"
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Apr 9, 2016 2:44:30 GMT
So I guess everything that the Democrats have done before this has been fine with you, which is why you are only just now objecting. Either that, or you don't read much about politics. Becky, I really don't think that is fair. I'm questioning if Hillary is the type of person we want representing the Democratic Party and you're attacking the idea that I can question that, even questioning my intelligence by suggesting that I "don't read much about politics." I expect better from you and actually, this breakdown in discourse really saddens me. I have a right to question any of the candidates ethics/morals/qualifications same as you do, whether or not I've been a life-long Democrat. MizIndependent, I'm sorry, this post was too brief to convey what I meant and I did not mean to impugn your intelligence or hurt your feelings. Let me expand:
2008 was the first election where I had cable TV, so I followed it exceedingly closely on almost all the channels. I also work from home, which meant I could devote more time to watching it than most. My observation was that May 31, 2008 was a turning point in the election. That was the day the DNC had that televised meeting to decide how to handle the two states that had held early primaries without the approval of the DNC. Here is the C-Span coverage if you want to refresh your memory: www.c-span.org/video/?205768-1/democratic-rules-bylaws-committee-meeting The candidates had no say in when states held their primaries, but my recollection is that Hillary got the brunt of the "punishment." It seemed to me that after that point I suddenly started hearing normally friendly commentary start to turn negative towards Hillary. Tim Russert was the first one I noticed, followed quickly by all the others. On all the channels, save one. Fox News kept on with their usual coverage. To the point that Hillary and Lanny Davis actually came out and said that Fox was the only channel that was being fair to her, so clearly I wasn't the only one who noticed a difference.
I realized it was on that date (or possibly shortly before) that the DNC had decided they wanted Obama to be the guy and the press became an annex to the Obama election headquarters. They fawned over Obama and it was rare to hear anything negative, or if there was, it was minor. Hard questions? Nope. They certainly didn't want their guy to falter at all. Attending a church for 18 years that had a clear systemic racist bent? No problem, excuse after excuse for that one. It was all orchestrated. Dance, puppets, dance. Remember Joe the Plumber? Obama went to his block and was open to questions. Joe asked one - something that was fairly innocuous, but it pointed out a big problem when Obama went unscripted. He said "I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody." Back in 2008 they didn't want Obama's socialist tendencies up for discussion. So, the press went after the person who had asked the question and ripped him limb from limb. I guess the press figured it would help distract from Obama's answer with their "look! a shiny object!" coverage and divert attention away from the actual answer. It was chilling. Joe's licensing and background had nothing to do with the legitimacy of his question, neither did anything else, but they dug into Joe's background a lot harder than they ever dug into Obama's. What was really chilling was when Obama supporters who worked for the state went looking for dirt on Joe in closed databases. I don't believe Obama ever went before the cameras without his teleprompters after that, but I could be misremembering.
Was Obama ever asked specifics as to how he was going to fulfill any of his promises? Exhibit A is closing Guantanamo. He didn't have a clue. Witness his proud moment of signing the executive order to close it shortly after he was elected. You can see in his reaction when he was asked how he was going to make it happen that he thought some minions would go off and make his order happen. He didn't have a clue as to the laws that dictate just what his power is - and more importantly is not - when it came to Guantanamo. So they are now asking specifics from Bernie - and tripping him up.
I figured one of the back room deals in 2008 was that Hillary would have to wait and the next time it would be her turn. Notice how few candidates there were for the democrats this year? I kind of figure that Bernie was probably hand picked as a guy who would be so far left he wouldn't pose a risk to her candidacy. They miscalculated that one.
Notice the backlash Bernie is getting when he questioned her qualifications in the past day or so? We are suddenly hearing from some pretty big party bigwigs and they are not happy. He's being told in no uncertain terms to back off. So, yeah, I'm saying that the DNC and the press are doing their best to get Hillary elected; they are operating as usual.
So in my original question to you I'm saying that what you are witnessing being done to Bernie is the same thing that was done to Hillary in 2008 in favor of Obama. So my question was, did you object then? Hillary isn't operating in a vacuum, she has the whole DNC behind her, just like Obama did in 2008.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 9, 2016 3:33:17 GMT
BeckyTech ...thank you. I don't have time to read all of this right now (out on a date ) but I had to come back and thank you. I'll be reading every word when I get home later tonight. ETA: So in my original question to you I'm saying that what you are witnessing being done to Bernie is the same thing that was done to Hillary in 2008 in favor of Obama. So my question was, did you object then? Hillary isn't operating in a vacuum, she has the whole DNC behind her, just like Obama did in 2008. Thank you, BeckyTech for your explanation and the thoughtful, detailed reply. It was very insightful. I actually followed more of the Republican side of things back in '08 so your observations of that contest were really illuminating for me to read. I do remember quite a bit about Joe the Plumber and the controversy that seemed to surround him, but having had little understanding of how the DNC functions, I didn't really understand the ramifications of their actions at that time. I did know about the teleprompter debacle, that was both hilarious and sad and it followed him into office. Seemed he couldn't go off-script with anything - it's been a running joke of his presidency.I agree with you, btw. The DNC is going to continue to push Clinton down our throats (same as they did with Obama) as it has been doing long since before she announced her candidacy. Again, part of the "Obama now, you'll have your turn in '16" backroom deal that was likely offered in order to get her to endorse Obama. I do remember the media turning on Hillary and I also agree, this is the same strategy the media has been using with Sanders. I didn't notice it as much in '08 but I do remember thinking, "wow, that's awfully blatant" in the sudden switch from Clinton to Obama. It seemed to become a "first African-American president" vs "first female president" kind of thing. So, in retrospect, you're absolutely right - it's business as usual. Sanders though, as you noted, just isn't playing the DNC's or the Media's game. And a big difference I see between the two current potential nominees is that while Clinton obviously thinks it's her turn to be president, Sanders seems more interested in getting people talking about the issues that makes up his platform and that is, in my opinion, the reason why he resonates so deeply with so many. We're just sick of the Establishment and Sanders is certainly not Establishment. You see this on the Republican's side as well - that's why Trump continues to succeed, he isn't Establishment. Salon did a good article about why Sanders wins even if he loses the nomination. It's because the issues that he has been talking about for literally decades are finally being talked about by everyone. Even Clinton herself. From the article: He has more than accomplished this goal, but I think even he is surprised with his campaign's success. He legitimately has a shot now. We'll see what happens after New York. If he wins there, it will be very interesting to see what the Super Delegates will do and how the DNC reacts. In specific answer to your question, it didn't bother me as much in '08 because I didn't have as much visibility to it then. It definitely wasn't right then though. Every candidate should have fair coverage, that's what the people want - but then, there's no such thing as unbiased media and that's the real shame of US elections. I think Clinton would have fared FAR better than Obama if she'd been treated equally then instead of being shoved to the side by both the DNC and the media.
|
|
|
Post by deputydog on Apr 9, 2016 4:19:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Apr 9, 2016 9:35:58 GMT
The Vatican? Do people really care about that? Let's see, they are against contraception and against gay marriage. Wow. Go Bernie. Yes, mollycoddle, a great many people care about that. If you knew anything about the current Pope, you probably wouldn't have said what you did. And why do they care that Bernie is speaking at the Vatican? It seems like a strange place for a democratic candidate to speak, given typical Democratic views on contraception and gay marriage.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 9, 2016 17:17:42 GMT
Did you see this? You'll really enjoy this. LOVED her response. She took Carol Costello effing apart and showed the disingenuous fact-picking CNN is famous for. First Costello asks "how's he going to do it?", Nomiki answers her in depth and the Costello back tracks with a pathetic "well, I will say there's something about offering a simpler explanation, like just give me your plan of how you're going to do it and leave it there." I mean, for real? She asks for details and then says 'don't explain it to me, just tell me how.' ETA, FYI - not necessarily related, I just like watching news pundits get owned:
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 9, 2016 17:36:18 GMT
Yes, mollycoddle , a great many people care about that. If you knew anything about the current Pope, you probably wouldn't have said what you did. And why do they care that Bernie is speaking at the Vatican? It seems like a strange place for a democratic candidate to speak, given typical Democratic views on contraception and gay marriage. He isn't going there to push his position on contraception or gay marriage. Pope Francis is very outspoken with his views on wealth inequality and the immorality in today's governments that allow that disparity in it's citizenry. Sanders has similar views as part of his platform. ( ABC News: 10 Times Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis Sounded Alike) To be clear, the invitation wasn't from the Pope ( there's a huge controversy about this), it was from Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo to speak at a conference being hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (located at the Vatican), a scholarly association in Vatican City that was established by Pope John Paul II in 1994. Sanders may not even meet the Pope, though he has stated he hopes to. Pope Francis does what he always does and is distancing himself from this whole thing, which I feel is certainly appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Apr 9, 2016 18:16:26 GMT
And why do they care that Bernie is speaking at the Vatican? It seems like a strange place for a democratic candidate to speak, given typical Democratic views on contraception and gay marriage. He isn't going there to push his position on contraception or gay marriage. Pope Francis is very outspoken with his views on wealth inequality and the immorality in today's governments that allow that disparity in it's citizenry. Sanders has similar views as part of his platform. ( ABC News: 10 Times Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis Sounded Alike) To be clear, the invitation wasn't from the Pope ( there's a huge controversy about this), it was from Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo to speak at a conference being hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (located at the Vatican), a scholarly association in Vatican City that was established by Pope John Paul II in 1994. Sanders may not even meet the Pope, though he has stated he hopes to. Pope Francis does what he always does and is distancing himself from this whole thing, which I feel is certainly appropriate. Ok, well, I'll be interested to see if this nets him extra new voters.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Apr 9, 2016 21:02:21 GMT
Did you see this? You'll really enjoy this. D her response. She took Carol Costello effing apart and showed the disingenuous fact-picking CNN is famous for. First Costello asks "how's he going to do it?", Nomiki answers her in depth and the Costello back tracks with a pathetic "well, I will say there's something about offering a simpler explanation, like just give me your plan of how you're going to do it and leave it there." I mean, for real? She asks for details and then says 'don't explain it to me, just tell me how.' ETA, FYI - not necessarily related, I just like watching news pundits get owned: Well,the problem with her answer , I think, is that it would never get through the House. Actually, that's an interesting question. Who would be involved in a breakup of big banks? I do not know the answer, I'll admit.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Apr 9, 2016 21:30:19 GMT
MizIndependent, you got it exactly.
However, Bernie's message just falls flat and doesn't stand up under scrutiny. Let's say that you and I each make $30,000/yr. And let's say that krazyscrapper makes $100,000/yr. How is taxing Krazyscrapper to the point where she is now taking home $30,000 year going to help you and I in the long run? Because what I would do if I were her would be to either a) move to a country that didn't tax me so much; or b) stop working so hard. There's no point in working and trying to be successful if you are just going to lose it all to taxation.
Your tax base will actually get smaller, there won't be the same economic growth that there could have been and we will all end up much worse off than we were, because now Krazy isn't providing the tax base that she used to and you and I end up losing out because we will pay even more in taxes to try to cover the shortfall from that we lost by trying to tax Krazy and her friends to the point where it just wasn't worth it to them anymore. Consider the recent lesson that France learned:
I find Bernie's message is actually "Success" is a 4-letter word to be punished by Robin Hood taxation.
The real problem is not income inequality, it is a failed economy. When there is economic growth and a successful economy, everyone does well. You can't tax your way into economic growth.
Personally, I find Bernie's message to be unutterably negative and depressing. I just envision him growing up in a house with hundreds of samplers on the wall, all of which read "money is the root of all evil."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 16:44:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 22:49:33 GMT
MizIndependent , you got it exactly.
However, Bernie's message just falls flat and doesn't stand up under scrutiny. Let's say that you and I each make $30,000/yr. And let's say that krazyscrapper makes $100,000/yr. How is taxing Krazyscrapper to the point where she is now taking home $30,000 year going to help you and I in the long run? Because what I would do if I were her would be to either a) move to a country that didn't tax me so much; or b) stop working so hard. There's no point in working and trying to be successful if you are just going to lose it all to taxation.
Your tax base will actually get smaller, there won't be the same economic growth that there could have been and we will all end up much worse off than we were, because now Krazy isn't providing the tax base that she used to and you and I end up losing out because we will pay even more in taxes to try to cover the shortfall from that we lost by trying to tax Krazy and her friends to the point where it just wasn't worth it to them anymore. Consider the recent lesson that France learned: I find Bernie's message is actually "Success" is a 4-letter word to be punished by Robin Hood taxation.
The real problem is not income inequality, it is a failed economy. When there is economic growth and a successful economy, everyone does well. You can't tax your way into economic growth.
Personally, I find Bernie's message to be unutterably negative and depressing. I just envision him growing up in a house with hundreds of samplers on the wall, all of which read "money is the root of all evil." I'm not a fan of Bernie's grand plan. But neither am I a fan of the Republican's mantra of cut taxes and the jobs will come. They won't. Nor do I agree with your statement this a "failed" economy. Are there problems that need to be addressed? Yes and there is always going to be problems that need to be addressed regardless what shape an economy is in.
|
|
|
Post by deputydog on Apr 10, 2016 15:37:11 GMT
WTH? Taxing people who make $300,000/yr until the only take home money they have is $30,000? Could you be any more nonsensical?
Tax rates were 50% and even higher under Reagan and I almost never hear anyone complaining about that time in our economic history.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 16:44:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 16:27:59 GMT
WTH? Taxing people who make $300,000/yr until the only take home money they have is $30,000? Could you be any more nonsensical? Tax rates were 50% and even higher under Reagan and I almost never hear anyone complaining about that time in our economic history. Because nobody complained about paying 50% in taxes during Reagan's time doesn't make it right now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 16:44:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 16:59:03 GMT
MizIndependent , you got it exactly.
However, Bernie's message just falls flat and doesn't stand up under scrutiny. Let's say that you and I each make $30,000/yr. And let's say that krazyscrapper makes $100,000/yr. How is taxing Krazyscrapper to the point where she is now taking home $30,000 year going to help you and I in the long run? Because what I would do if I were her would be to either a) move to a country that didn't tax me so much; or b) stop working so hard. There's no point in working and trying to be successful if you are just going to lose it all to taxation.
Your tax base will actually get smaller, there won't be the same economic growth that there could have been and we will all end up much worse off than we were, because now Krazy isn't providing the tax base that she used to and you and I end up losing out because we will pay even more in taxes to try to cover the shortfall from that we lost by trying to tax Krazy and her friends to the point where it just wasn't worth it to them anymore. Consider the recent lesson that France learned:
If you're going to use France as an example Becky you need to get the figures right. The 75% that was originally passed a couple of years ago (which has now been abolished ) was on any remaining taxable income that would be over 1 million Euros,not on all a person's income as you are suggesting in the example between you and Krazy above. The top rate of income tax in France at the present time is 45% and it only affects 1% of the population and is paid on any remaining taxable income that is over 151,000 Euros. So it isn't quite as drastic as you make it sound.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Apr 11, 2016 15:05:49 GMT
The 75% that was originally passed a couple of years ago (which has now been abolished ) It was drastic enough, though, wasn't it? I remember reading at the time that the top richest in the country were seriously looking to move to more tax-friendly countries. Or put another way, countries with a less punishing tax system. I copied and pasted the entire article from a tax policy website, including the publication date, so clearly it was written before they abolished the 75% tax. The fact that they abolished the tax/let it expire, is a clear indicator that it did not work. But, in fact, it left some long term damage: www.reuters.com/article/us-france-supertax-idUSKBN0K11CC20141223 I used it as a current example of how over-taxing doesn't bring in the planned revenues; you can't tax your way to wealth equity. Just a little dose of reality to the Sanders fans who think that taxing everyone and everything (example: financial transactions) is a great way to pay for all the "free" stuff. It is, in fact, going to stifle growth and the economy.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Apr 11, 2016 15:53:59 GMT
But neither am I a fan of the Republican's mantra of cut taxes and the jobs will come. They won't. There is a lot more to economic policies than taxes. You know that. We could cut taxes all day long, but that won't help the people who have been left behind due to the many problems of this administration's failed economic policies. I've been affected, evidently you haven't been. Good for you. But I'm one of millions. Just one example, in another thread I mentioned the fact that Obama's open border policies have hurt black people the most, but it has also hurt blue-collar workers across the board. Here is some more light reading for you: Blacks Mainly Backslide Under President ObamaThere are more policies to come that, if enacted, will be especially punishing to the fixed/low income crowd. Policies matter.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Apr 11, 2016 15:56:18 GMT
WTH? Taxing people who make $300,000/yr until the only take home money they have is $30,000? Could you be any more nonsensical? WTH, can't you read? I said $100,000/yr, not $300,000. It was an example, you know, using nice round numbers.
ETA: It doesn't all have to be income tax rate. He's talking about imposing other taxes that can also affect the effective tax rate that someone pays.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 11, 2016 16:46:26 GMT
I don't pretend to fully understand Trickle Down Economics, I defer to those working in the field who better understand the nitty-gritty details. I get the premise, promote businesses by allowing lower taxes so that savings trickles down to higher wages and a stronger middle class. However, this is not what we're seeing. Instead, we're seeing the wealthy get even more wealthy while the middle class has all but vanished. The 'trickle down theory' is dead wrong, Unwavering Fealty to a Failed TheoryIs trickle-down economics to blame for inequality? The 2 minute quick and dirty: A word from our 22nd Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich (1993-97) Bernie Sanders has quite a lot to say on the topic if you have the time to listen: And Sanders brings up a very pertinent point: He's always asked by the media how he will pay for his programs (tuition free college, single payer insurance, etc)...how come no one is asking how president will pay for their wars?
|
|
|
Post by whopea on Apr 11, 2016 16:52:01 GMT
The Vatican? Do people really care about that? Let's see, they are against contraception and against gay marriage. Wow. Go Bernie. Yes, mollycoddle , a great many people care about that. If you knew anything about the current Pope, you probably wouldn't have said what you did. I saw on TV this weekend that it's really not true anyways. The invite was from the Academy of Social Sciences and not the Pope or the Vatican.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 16:44:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2016 17:01:38 GMT
Sanders is advocating free tuition for college. I wonder how many Republicans, on principal, would turn up their noses to free college tuition if offered? My guess not to many if any at all. There is "free stuff" and then there is "free stuff". There is no question higher education is more important today then it has ever been. The incredible debt kids incur to obtain a higher education is crippling to the individuals specifically and to the economy in general. I support the idea of free college tuition because I can see the positive benefit of this "free stuff" to country. I just think Sander's plan is flawed.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Apr 11, 2016 17:57:48 GMT
I love this "free stuff" comment. I guess the roads are free that you use, police and fire stations are free, the public library is free, Medicare is free, and so forth.
Why isn't anyone asking who will keep paying for all of these bombs they all wan to drop? Carpet bomb them all, build a wall, and who knows what else was mentioned yet who will pay for all of it? Or is it free as well?
I guess college is bad but war is okay to spend money on?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 16:44:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2016 18:06:25 GMT
But neither am I a fan of the Republican's mantra of cut taxes and the jobs will come. They won't. There is a lot more to economic policies than taxes. You know that. We could cut taxes all day long, but that won't help the people who have been left behind due to the many problems of this administration's failed economic policies. I've been affected, evidently you haven't been. Good for you. But I'm one of millions. Just one example, in another thread I mentioned the fact that Obama's open border policies have hurt black people the most, but it has also hurt blue-collar workers across the board. Here is some more light reading for you: Blacks Mainly Backslide Under President ObamaThere are more policies to come that, if enacted, will be especially punishing to the fixed/low income crowd. Policies matter. You keep talking about the failed economic policies. Could you be more specific? What I'm seeing is those "failed economic policies" kept this country out of a depression. That 7+ years after the Great Recession we have an unemployment rate of 5% that ticked up because more people are joining the job search because they feel now they can find jobs. Wages are finally starting to go up because folks feel comfortable enough to leave one job for another which causes wages to rise. Yes people are being left behind but then there has always been folks who have been left behind. When 5% is considered full employment that alone tells you not everyone is going to find a job. Yes there is a problem with "good" jobs disappearing. From pass discussions we disagree on why. Republicans want you to believe they can "fix" what is wrong with the economy. However they are vague about what is wrong and how it can be fixed other then cutting taxes. As to your article blaming President Obama for African Americans being displaced by undocumented workers that is a piece of propaganda. I live in the No. CA wine country and I have seen the impact of undocumented workers on individuals and the community in general for over 25 years. Long before Obama became president. The immigration reform billed signed into law in 1986 would have worked except neither the Democrats or Republicans had much interest in enforcing the law for their own misguided reasons.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Apr 12, 2016 15:14:04 GMT
You keep talking about the failed economic policies. Could you be more specific? I've been very specific. I've provided links to credible articles and studies. In this and other threads. As to your article blaming President Obama for African Americans being displaced by undocumented workers that is a piece of propaganda. So you are saying that the U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner, Peter Kirsanow, testimony before the Senate was propaganda? Alrighty then.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Apr 12, 2016 19:09:30 GMT
I don't pretend to fully understand Trickle Down Economics, I defer to those working in the field who better understand the nitty-gritty details. I get the premise, promote businesses by allowing lower taxes so that savings trickles down to higher wages and a stronger middle class. However, this is not what we're seeing. Instead, we're seeing the wealthy get even more wealthy while the middle class has all but vanished. The 'trickle down theory' is dead wrong, Unwavering Fealty to a Failed TheoryIs trickle-down economics to blame for inequality? The 2 minute quick and dirty: A word from our 22nd Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich (1993-97) And Sanders brings up a very pertinent point: He's always asked by the media how he will pay for his programs (tuition free college, single payer insurance, etc)...how come no one is asking how president will pay for their wars? MizIndependent, you are talking about middle-out economics. There is just a little teeny detail that is missing. I'm all for tax cuts to the middle class and all that, but do you notice that Robert Reich says "the middle class are the real job creators whose spending induces businesses to create jobs." Um ... so it is really the businesses who ultimately create the jobs, isn't it? Because ultimately the money flows back to them, right? So in essence, he is really advocating a healthy economy where we all have the disposable income to spend more money. I don't care what type of economics you are advocating, I still haven't seen anyone who says we can tax our way to a healthy economy.
As to taxes. I don't think the rich are going to object to another percentage or two in higher taxes. It's when you get into the punishing Robin-Hood class of more than 50% or so that could be their effective tax rate that problems arise. But let's talk about the middle class tax cuts. Because Bernie has said that by necessity, the middle class would be taxed more under his plans. So that's not helpful. We've already seen our disposable income drop, we don't need to be taxed more. That is completely counter to the middle-out philosophy all your links are talking about. Under Bernie, both the middle class and upper class would see tax hikes.
And this business of the government creating the free market. Just ... really? The government helps regulate the free market, but since "free market" is that whole supply and demand thing, they sure as hell don't create it. SMH over that one.
And the government ... I sure don't see any concrete suggestions on just how it is he thinks you are going to make sure it works for "the many" and not "the few." I thought government agencies like the VA were supposed to work for the many. And yet, it still doesn't. They are falsifying records yet again so that vets can't use the Choice Act provisions to see other doctors when the wait is too long. That's not money, those are petty individuals trying to save their jobs, they don't want vets going elsewhere. It is, once again, happening all over the U.S. A congressman in Colorado has this on his website:
2/4/2016: Today, the VA Inspector General released a report illustrating that 64% of the cases they review at the Colorado Springs VA Clinic are experiencing wait times in excess of 30 days and that the VA staff are falsifying records to make this appear to not be the case.
“This Inspector General report makes me furious. At every chance they get, VA officials obstruct and hide their failures to care for our veterans. No matter what oversight steps we take in Congress, the VA continues to try and prevent the full implementation of the Choice Act designed to provide timely care to veterans. Congress has met every funding request from the VA. We have given them tools to fire incompetent employees. I am sick and tired of not getting the outcome that we are paying for. We will hold hearings on this matter and I will personally bring this to the attention of the House and Senate VA Committee Chairmen and the VA Secretary.
It is morally imperative that President Obama reins in his out-of-control VA Department, they are failing too many of our veterans. Caring for veterans is vitally important to me. It’s why I have four veterans on my staff and why the overwhelming majority of my casework and my constituent outreach activities involve assisting and communicating with veterans. I will not relent until our veterans are receiving the care they have earned from the VA.” As to this: how come no one is asking how president will pay for their wars?
Well, why doesn't anyone ask Obama? He says he failed to plan for the aftermath of his policies in Libya, so why don't you go ask him how he plans to pay for the war on terror under his watch? Or maybe you would rather not fight ISIS anymore, just let them go wherever they want and kill innocent children and men and women at will? Or maybe you are advocating getting rid of our military altogether? Maybe the U.S. shouldn't protect its citizens or help protect other countries? Is that Bernie's plan? If not, what exactly is his plan? Has anyone asked Bernie that? How much defense spending is okay with Bernie, if any? Should the U.S. help countries defend against the likes of ISIS or should we just leave them to make their own way and say "good luck to you?" I don't believe I know what Bernie's stance is when it comes to defense, maybe you can tell us.
I did not have time to watch Bernie lecture about the evils of Walmart. But I do have a question since you have probably watched it all. Does he ever mention the philanthropic efforts of these large companies? The innovations they help contribute to? I know they love to hate corporations, but they also contribute to innovation as well as charities. (See Cornell University, etc., etc.) I'm sure you've heard of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Amazon, Apple. But back to the point: How much is too much profit in Bernie's world? Has he set a cap on it? A corporation can only make a 3% profit? Maybe 5%? What is it exactly? I've never gotten past his lecture on how evil and unequal everything is to get to the point where he has specific numbers by which he will consider things taxed enough or "equal" enough that he is satisfied. I'd really like to know what his numbers are.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Apr 13, 2016 18:00:01 GMT
There is a lot more to economic policies than taxes. You know that. We could cut taxes all day long, but that won't help the people who have been left behind due to the many problems of this administration's failed economic policies. I've been affected, evidently you haven't been. Good for you. But I'm one of millions. Just one example, in another thread I mentioned the fact that Obama's open border policies have hurt black people the most, but it has also hurt blue-collar workers across the board. Here is some more light reading for you: Blacks Mainly Backslide Under President ObamaThere are more policies to come that, if enacted, will be especially punishing to the fixed/low income crowd. Policies matter. You keep talking about the failed economic policies. Could you be more specific? What I'm seeing is those "failed economic policies" kept this country out of a depression. That 7+ years after the Great Recession we have an unemployment rate of 5% that ticked up because more people are joining the job search because they feel now they can find jobs. Wages are finally starting to go up because folks feel comfortable enough to leave one job for another which causes wages to rise. Yes people are being left behind but then there has always been folks who have been left behind. When 5% is considered full employment that alone tells you not everyone is going to find a job. Yes there is a problem with "good" jobs disappearing. From pass discussions we disagree on why. Republicans want you to believe they can "fix" what is wrong with the economy. However they are vague about what is wrong and how it can be fixed other then cutting taxes. As to your article blaming President Obama for African Americans being displaced by undocumented workers that is a piece of propaganda. I live in the No. CA wine country and I have seen the impact of undocumented workers on individuals and the community in general for over 25 years. Long before Obama became president. The immigration reform billed signed into law in 1986 would have worked except neither the Democrats or Republicans had much interest in enforcing the law for their own misguided reasons. Unemployment/underemployment rate is around 13-14%. And Obama has the worst economic record of any President. Including Roosevelt who had to deal with the Great Depression. Obama is a failure.
|
|