flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Apr 13, 2016 18:37:48 GMT
That is how the political game is played. I am not shocked nor surprised. It is cut throat if one wants to be in the White House.....if you think otherwise, you are naive. I've long since come to the conclusion that the kind of person who should be President is the kind of person who would never seek it. The kind of person who should be President would never be able to win. There's so much back room dealing and compromising and scheming. I just don't see how you can keep your principles and character and still win. Call me jaded, but that's how I see it.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Apr 13, 2016 19:08:41 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.
Might want to read this: feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-isis/Well let's first go off the First Bush way back in 1990's with Desert Storm, then came Clinton, Then the next Bush, and now Obama. Since 1990 we as a country have spent around 2.11 trillion dollars on war. Just found this as well because I thought that number was too small. The topline number is this: we have spent $7.6 trillion on the military and homeland security since 9/11. The Pentagon's base budget – which doesn't include the costs of fighting our wars – has increased by 81 percent during that time (43 percent when adjusted for inflation). The costs of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have now reached $1.26 trillion. But that only scratches the surface; it doesn't include the long-term costs of caring for badly wounded soldiers, for example. www.truth-out.org/article/item/1348:five-eyeopening-facts-about-our-bloated-post911-defense-spendingDuring that same time the median income of the US in 1990 was $52,623 and in 2014 $53,657. As all of this is happening and listening to so many people calling people lazy for being on welfare and getting that "free" stuff how many of those corporations you listed are getting help from the government? This report shows that our current system is anything but fair – rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,” the report concluded. The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid. It also includes an estimated $70 million per year in “economic development subsidies” from state and legal governments eager to host Walmart in their cities. From: www.msnbc.com/msnbc/walmart-government-subsidies-study#51652This also stands in stark contrast to the steps that Apple, Google, and other technology companies take to avoid paying taxes. Apple set up a subsidiary in Reno, Nevada, a state without a corporate income or capital gains tax, and channeled a portion of its U.S. sales there, reportedly saving $2.5 billion in taxes. And Apple and Google have both made use of a convoluted tax structure known as the Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich to avoid paying taxes on overseas earnings. Google chairman Eric Schmidt is reportedly “very proud” of this. “It’s called capitalism,” he said last year. From: hbr.org/2013/03/taxpayers-helped-apple-but-appSo we the average citizen are paying for wars, where people are profiting big time off the death of people, and helping these companies making BILLIONS!!! Yes I am tired of it. But hey capitalism and need to fight wars
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Apr 13, 2016 19:46:05 GMT
The cost of war: In 2006 National Security Outlays in Fiscal Year 2006 (billions of dollars) Department of Defense 499.4 Department of Energy (nuclear weapons & environ. cleanup) 16.6 Department of State 25.3 Department of Veterans Affairs 69.8 Department of Homeland Security 69.1 Department of Justice (1/3 of FBI) 1.9 Department of the Treasury (for Military Retirement Fund) 38.5 National Aeronautics & Space Administration (1/2 of total) 7.6 Net interest attributable to past debt-financed defense outlays 206.7 Total 934.9 Source: Author’s classifications and calculations; basic data from U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008 and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 From: www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1941So really in the grand scheme why is it that people complain about our country bettering itself by adding on 4 years of schooling (college or trade school) yet are okay with the amount of money being spent on war. We are not defending our freedom. We are not defending our rights. If you are so worried about the people in the Middle East that we need to protect them then why are you not worried about the people in North Korea? Why are you not worried about the people in Africa that are starving every day? Yet our government from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama have helped create the mess which we are spending TRILLIONS on. Cruz MORE BOMBS, Hillary more war, and the list goes on. We are still paying for wars that we fought back in the 1970's Interesting: Estimates of just how much of our national debt payments are from past military spending vary wildly. In 2007, economist Robert Higgs calculated it like this: I added up all past deficits (minus surpluses) since 1916 (when the debt was nearly zero), prorated according to each year's ratio of narrowly defined national security spending--military, veterans, and international affairs--to total federal spending, expressing everything in dollars of constant purchasing power. This sum is equal to 91.2 percent of the value of the national debt held by the public at the end of 2006. Therefore, I attribute that same percentage of the government's net interest outlays in that year to past debt-financed defense spending. When Higgs did that analysis four years ago, he came up with a figure of $206.7 billion just in interest payments on our past military adventures. GO GO WAR!!!!! Are you okay with this but not okay with educating our society to improve our country? If young adults graduating college do not have huge student loan payments they would have more money in their pockets. More money in their pockets = more money to spend. Yet banks are making the money off people going to college. That isn't helping anyone but the banks.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 13:26:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2016 20:41:53 GMT
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. And your proof is?
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Apr 14, 2016 17:21:43 GMT
This report shows that our current system is anything but fair – rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,” the report concluded. First of all, the Truth-out.org is not even close to an acceptable source for anything. It's a ridiculous far left site that is focused on a narrow agenda. Yes, big numbers, but context is everything. 18% of the Federal budget goes to national defense. That is a 21% drop since 2010. I have news for you, even Bernie says he will fight ISIS. If he is elected, then where will you direct your outrage? I have no objection to kids paying their own way through college. Oh! What a terrible position to take! I also have no objection to corporations paying taxes. I don't think they should be able to wriggle their way out of them completely. I thought Obama was going to do something about this. He's certainly had enough time to direct some of his awesome power towards making the effort. Absolutely, let's close some of those tax loopholes. But if we do that, we better lower the overall tax rate or see our corporations flee to more tax-friendly places. I do have a problem with people like Bernie saying how awful it is that just a few people have all this wealth. So? Just a few people have the opportunity to go crab fishing and make $45,000 in 3 weeks. Just a few people have the opportunity to be astronauts. Just a few people have a chance to climb Mt. Everest. So? You complain of helping these companies make "BILLIONS!!!" Do you shop at Target or Walmart or buy anything from Apple or Microsoft or Samsung or .... ? Then you are supporting them.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Apr 14, 2016 17:44:02 GMT
This report shows that our current system is anything but fair – rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,” the report concluded. First of all, the Truth-out.org is not even close to an acceptable source for anything. It's a ridiculous far left site that is focused on a narrow agenda. Yes, big numbers, but context is everything. 18% of the Federal budget goes to national defense. That is a 21% drop since 2010. I have news for you, even Bernie says he will fight ISIS. If he is elected, then where will you direct your outrage? I have no objection to kids paying their own way through college. Oh! What a terrible position to take! I also have no objection to corporations paying taxes. I don't think they should be able to wriggle their way out of them completely. I thought Obama was going to do something about this. He's certainly had enough time to direct some of his awesome power towards making the effort. Absolutely, let's close some of those tax loopholes. But if we do that, we better lower the overall tax rate or see our corporations flee to more tax-friendly places. I do have a problem with people like Bernie saying how awful it is that just a few people have all this wealth. So? Just a few people have the opportunity to go crab fishing and make $45,000 in 3 weeks. Just a few people have the opportunity to be astronauts. Just a few people have a chance to climb Mt. Everest. So? You complain of helping these companies make "BILLIONS!!!" Do you shop at Target or Walmart or buy anything from Apple or Microsoft or Samsung or .... ? Then you are supporting them. 21% drop since 2010? That means we spent 39% of our budget on National Defense? That is interesting since I can not find anything except around 19-24%. 24% was back in 2007 yet our education percentage is 4%. The education budget has been between 3-4% every year. You are correct Obama should have done something about corporation loopholes and taxes. Just like every other president should have done something about it. Why aren't they? That is the million dollar question. My answer, in my opinion, is that those wonderful people making those laws don't want to cut off the money flow (donations) from those corporations. If people are giving me money I would probably make sure I don't want to make them unhappy so I can keep the money flow coming in. Which is why money from corporations needs to be taken out of politics. GO GO Citizens United! Also money buys votes. Which is why Bernie is speaking about those people with wealth. Who will my elected government official listen to? The worker making $50,000 a year who is living pay check to pay check who can't donate money, or the $1,000,000 person who can donate $10,000? I can write letters all day long but at the end of the day money talks.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 13:26:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 18:07:03 GMT
This report shows that our current system is anything but fair – rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,” the report concluded. First of all, the Truth-out.org is not even close to an acceptable source for anything. It's a ridiculous far left site that is focused on a narrow agenda. I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to point out that roughly 95% of the articles/videos posted by those on the right trying to make "their" point could be labeled as you did Truth-out.org above. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Apr 14, 2016 18:23:45 GMT
I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to point out that roughly 95% of the articles/videos posted by those on the right trying to make "their" point could be labeled as you did Truth-out.org above. That's all. 95%? What is your source on that?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 13:26:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 19:33:04 GMT
I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to point out that roughly 95% of the articles/videos posted by those on the right trying to make "their" point could be labeled as you did Truth-out.org above. That's all. 95%? What is your source on that? Simple. When I read the link I always look for background information on the site and the author of the article. I do read a lot of the links but not all that is why I used 95%.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Apr 14, 2016 19:52:56 GMT
95%? What is your source on that? Simple. When I read the link I always look for background information on the site and the author of the article. I do read a lot of the links but not all that is why I used 95%. Oh for ... it was a joke, Krazy, a joke on asking you to source your 95% figure. Lighten up once in a while.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 13:26:55 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 23:18:10 GMT
Simple. When I read the link I always look for background information on the site and the author of the article. I do read a lot of the links but not all that is why I used 95%. Oh for ... it was a joke, Krazy, a joke on asking you to source your 95% figure. Lighten up once in a while. Got it! I guess today I'm a little slow today! Or more so then usual.
|
|