Will Bernie back down again???

[bambino]

He did in 2016. Hillary gave him a private jet to fly his Commie ass around in. What a hypocrite. But now, it’s Bloomberg who is going to save the Democrats from Bernie. Will the old Commie fight back? I doubt it. He’ll take the money.

[Jackie S]

He will retire to his “Dacha on the Volga”.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

He will retire to his “Dacha on the Volga”.

Well, he has a HUGE lead in California. Dems a lot of delegates!!!!!!!



https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/02/...bloomberg/amp/

[The_Waco_Kid]

Trump's going to lend him his private jet.



NBC News/WSJ poll: Sanders opens up double-digit lead nationally

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nbc-news-...220000327.html


BAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA

[Lucas McCain]

What's wrong with Bernie Sanders? LOL I just assumed every hard working American would love to see their taxes skyrocket to a ridiculous amount.

I bet Trump would want nothing more than to have Sanders as his opponent. Anybody who actually cares about their money and is paying taxes is not voting for Sanders. He'll get some millennial votes, but any millennial with half a brain paying taxes and making decent money is not voting for Sanders.

Love or hate Trump, few can deny that at the very least, he lets you keep most of the money you earn. I could say a lot of bad things about the guy, but at this stage in my life with my earning capacity at its highest, that's all I really care about with a president. And I realize that sounds extremely shallow, but I have a family to feed so I want to simply keep most of the money I bust my ass off to earn and not have a guy like Sanders take a lot from me for welfare. I certainly believe in welfare to an extent, but definitely not to the extent that Sanders does. There is no need to make this country a welfare state like Sweden. Just my opinion

[aircave]

I really don't get why people hate on Bernie so much.

Do people hate a *progressive* tax increase that much? It won't hardly affect most people... Those that it will affect are not going to lose a meal over it.

What are the arguments against M4A? I was curious so I went to bernietax.com and yeah It would affect my taxes. In return however, I won't have to worry about losing that insurance if I changed careers, need emergency surgery etc. No deductibles/copays... One less thing to worry about in early retirement. I already pay for medicare every paycheck but I can't use it. I also pay a secondary *private tax* to my health insurance. For most people, M4A will be a tax cut.

The Trump tax cuts which aren't that great are set to expire. His corporate tax cuts do not expire. Seems like throwing a few dollars to the average person while they empty the bank out the back.

[Chung Tran]

there's an assumption that taxes will skyrocket if Bernie gets in.. they will go up sharply, for the very wealthy, but that's all.

these faux-deficit worriers don't seem to realize that Trump's deficit has exploded. but like Republicans historically, it's ok if military spending receives a huge increase, while social programs are slashed.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

there's an assumption that taxes will skyrocket if Bernie gets in.. they will go up sharply, for the very wealthy, but that's all.

these faux-deficit worriers don't seem to realize that Trump's deficit has exploded. but like Republicans historically, it's ok if military spending receives a huge increase, while social programs are slashed.

Two fallacies in that argument in the end.

1. Bernie is supposedly an avowed socialist and his end result is a socialist United States. Why would anyone want someone with that bent as their POTUS.

2. And while Trump's deficit has exploded to a degree, its' far less than the damage that will happen with an avowed socialist at the wheel.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

there's an assumption that taxes will skyrocket if Bernie gets in.. they will go up sharply, for the very wealthy, but that's all.

these faux-deficit worriers don't seem to realize that Trump's deficit has exploded. but like Republicans historically, it's ok if military spending receives a huge increase, while social programs are slashed.

if you think taxes won't skyrocket across the board if a commie faggot like Bernie gets elected then yous is either stupid or a commie.


and prove the debt is exploding under Trump. the numbers don't say that. this of course from someone who says the debt is not an issue to the economy. you contradict yourself every time you post your nonsense.

[aircave]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Two fallacies in that argument in the end.

1. Bernie is supposedly an avowed socialist and his end result is a socialist United States. Why would anyone want someone with that bent as their POTUS.

2. And while Trump's deficit has exploded to a degree, its' far less than the damage that will happen with an avowed socialist at the wheel.

By definition, a socialist must want common ownership of the means of production. Is that part of Bernie's policy or has he stated that explicitly? Not that I am aware of. He seems to be more for the evenly weighted "mixed" economy... Part capitalism, part socialism. A "new dealer" as Chomsky says...

Noam Chomsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btJfkPBLULg


Currently, the economy seems to be capitalism heavy. The working class is clearly lagging behind. We already depend on many "social" programs already... Is it that "radical" to suggest adding a few more?



Historically, the Republican party always seems to raise our Deficit followed by the Dems who come in and level it back down. I'm still not seeing what horribly things people think are going to happen. People give too much credit to what changes a POTUS will make. I would like to see someone backup their fears by actually stating what horrible things Bernie has done in his long history in politics. Has he been waiting all this time to make his move.



It's fine for the POTUS to play with the deficit if it helps the economy but I would argue not when all we get is temporary tax cuts. They have cut taxes and increased spending. Ok... Now they are are considering cutting spending and I wonder what they will cut? My guess is social programs that people depend on.


Tracking the deficit... Currently projected to hit 1 trillion for 2020 :
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by aircave

By definition, a socialist must want common ownership of the means of production. Is that part of Bernie's policy or has he stated that explicitly? Not that I am aware of. He seems to be more for the evenly weighted "mixed" economy... Part capitalism, part socialism. A "new dealer" as Chomsky says...

Noam Chomsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btJfkPBLULg

you should delete your post before ecky9.5k sees it or he'll want to "hook up" with you.


Noam Chomsky is a socialist asshole.



Currently, the economy seems to be capitalism heavy. The working class is clearly lagging behind. We already depend on many "social" programs already... Is it that "radical" to suggest adding a few more?



Historically, the Republican party always seems to raise our Deficit followed by the Dems who come in and level it back down. I'm still not seeing what horribly things people think are going to happen. People give too much credit to what changes a POTUS will make. I would like to see someone backup their fears by actually stating what horrible things Bernie has done in his long history in politics. Has he been waiting all this time to make his move.

bullshit! the Democrats have always been the "tax and overspend" party. the Republicans gave up their fiscal conservatism because the Democrats pushed forward massive social programs when they had the majority so the Republicans decided to take advantage of fiat currency and as long as they got their programs they allowed the Democrats to get theirs. the single biggest mistake the Republicans ever made and the Nation is worse off for it. they should have dug in and fought tooth and nail against it.


It's fine for the POTUS to play with the deficit if it helps the economy but I would argue not when all we get is temporary tax cuts. They have cut taxes and increased spending. Ok... Now they are are considering cutting spending and I wonder what they will cut? My guess is social programs that people depend on.


Tracking the deficit... Currently projected to hit 1 trillion for 2020 :
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/

two questions for you.

what party did the person who sponsored the balanced budget act of 1997 belong to?


John R. Kaisch, Republican.


what party did the president who oversaw the greatest single increase in debt in US history as president belong to?


Barack H. Obama, Democrat.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanc...et_Act_of_1997


https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-b...ercent-3306296


Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion, a 74% increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

• FY 2017 - $671 billion
• FY 2016 - $1.423 trillion
• FY 2015 - $327 billion
• FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion
• FY 2013 - $672 billion
• FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion
• FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion
• FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion
• FY 2009 - $253 billion. Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009.9
  
  
   This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.

[Budman]

Bernie's long history of politics has accomplished nothing. He is a fucking bum that got rich playing politics.

[Lucas McCain]

I am not going to bash Chung Tran, but I believe you are being extremely naïve if you really think that only the "very wealthy" will be taxed heavily if Sanders is POTUS.

I had to write a long paper in undergrad for an econ class. It was about welfare states. Anyway, to get right to the point, I focused on Sweden as being one of them. I believe in racial equality, but I do not believe in wealth distribution equality. I don't want to pay for people who didn't bust their ass like I did to make a nice living so yeah, fuck Bernie Sanders because his views are the complete opposite of mine when it comes to welfare. I don't want some jackass like Sanders to make me pay more in taxes to help someone who didn't put in the work like I did.

Shit, go get 3 jobs if you have to because I shouldn't be taxed more for you to eat. I already pay enough for my family to eat. I don't care to pay even more in taxes for complete strangers to eat as well.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

I am not going to bash Chung Tran, but I believe you are being extremely naïve if you really think that only the "very wealthy" will be taxed heavily if Sanders is POTUS.

I had to write a long paper in undergrad for an econ class. It was about welfare states. Anyway, to get right to the point, I focused on Sweden as being one of them. I believe in racial equality, but I do not believe in wealth distribution equality. I don't want to pay for people who didn't bust their ass like I did to make a nice living so yeah, fuck Bernie Sanders because his views are the complete opposite of mine when it comes to welfare.

exactly. Sweden is not a fully socialist nation yet they are held up by the left as some paragon of socialism. in fact they they have a multiparty parliament. never mind the Monarchy part, Gustaf is as much a figurehead as Queen Elizabeth is in the UK. Bernie advocates nationalizing many prime industries which is the hallmark of true socialist control. if Sweden wants to have large scale social programs and they can afford it via taxation then fine.



Bernie and Warren are lying their asses off when they say they can afford all this "free shit for everyone" stuff without increasing taxes on the middle class, the very group they pander to. not only will their massive socialist agenda double at least the debt it will increase the tax burden of the middle class. they simply cannot jack up the upper classes alone to afford it.



as a meager 90% earner i'm with the rifleman and don't want my taxes jacked up to support a large class of welfare bums riding on the back of my hard work!

[aircave]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

two questions for you.

what party did the person who sponsored the balanced budget act of 1997 belong to?

John R. Kaisch, Republican.

That's great and all but one person is not proof of the overall party's picture. I actually like Kaisch and seriously considered voting for him.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

what party did the president who oversaw the greatest single increase in debt in US history as president belong to?

Barack H. Obama, Democrat.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanc...et_Act_of_1997


https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-b...ercent-3306296


Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion, a 74% increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.
.....

• FY 2009 - $253 billion. Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009.9
  
   This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.

Well I really have to disagree with you on that last sentence. The first year of a presidents office should absolutely not be placed on them.



Here is some data from the Congressional Budget Office:




https://jclark017.github.io/d3_devel...ralbudget.html