Bernie Sanders. Really?

[champions77]

I see where the self described socialist candidate Bernie Sanders is drawing some big crowds in Wisconsin. Give him credit for being honest with his identity. You won't see Hillary showing such veracity.

But ole Bernie, with his tired old message that just tax the wealthy at 90% and the middle class will benefit. Really? Wouldn't it have the effect of creating massive layoffs, a great majority of which would severely damage the middle class? I mean the wealthy in this country hire most of the workers right? Don't see poor people doing much hiring. The socialist party (you know who I'm referring to) spends a great deal of time and energy attacking the successful in this country in their class warfare campaigns, and passing legislation that attempts to accomplish just that., whether it be with the EPA, tax policy, onerous regulations, affirmative action hiring requirements etc. And then wonders why businesses struggle, which means few businesses hire, which results in the middle class struggling? Is this all supposed to be difficult to figure out?

I suspect that 90% of the folks supporting Bernie are Democrats. So we have a President that appointed several socialists to his cabinet and even a communist or two like Van Jones. Now we see Bernie Sanders doing pretty well. And some want to paint the GOP and the Tea Party as radicals? There is one Party in this Country that has moved radically in one direction, far from the ideas and principles of our Framers, and their initials are not GOP.

[REDREX]

Ed Schultz has a man crush on Bernie

[Tear Down This Wall]

I see where the self described socialist candidate Bernie Sanders is drawing some big crowds in Wisconsin. Give him credit for being honest with his identity. You won't see Hillary showing such veracity.

But ole Bernie, with his tired old message that just tax the wealthy at 90% and the middle class will benefit. Really? Wouldn't it have the effect of creating massive layoffs, a great majority of which would severely damage the middle class? I mean the wealthy in this country hire most of the workers right? Don't see poor people doing much hiring. The socialist party (you know who I'm referring to) spends a great deal of time and energy attacking the successful in this country in their class warfare campaigns, and passing legislation that attempts to accomplish just that., whether it be with the EPA, tax policy, onerous regulations, affirmative action hiring requirements etc. And then wonders why businesses struggle, which means few businesses hire, which results in the middle class struggling? Is this all supposed to be difficult to figure out?

I suspect that 90% of the folks supporting Bernie are Democrats. So we have a President that appointed several socialists to his cabinet and even a communist or two like Van Jones. Now we see Bernie Sanders doing pretty well. And some want to paint the GOP and the Tea Party as radicals? There is one Party in this Country that has moved radically in one direction, far from the ideas and principles of our Framers, and their initials are not GOP.

It doesn't matter what any of them say or do. Ohio and Florida both have enough minorities now to ensure whichever Democrat is nominated will be the president. That's the beauty of the electoral college mixed with a growing minority population. It is rapidly feeding the idiocracy that twice made Barak Obama the president.

I predicted years ago that our country would become like Mexico it's just happening 20-30 years before I thought it would. We'll get the same type of weak leaders Mexico gets from here until it crumbles.

And, even after it crumbles, the poor are still fooled into living under or supporting those who rail against the rich. SEE Cuba, Mexico, and Venezuela. You can't fix stupid.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Watch Idiocracy!

[Serenity Now]

I see where the self described socialist candidate Bernie Sanders is drawing some big crowds in Wisconsin. Give him credit for being honest with his identity. You won't see Hillary showing such veracity.

But ole Bernie, with his tired old message that just tax the wealthy at 90% and the middle class will benefit. Really? Wouldn't it have the effect of creating massive layoffs, a great majority of which would severely damage the middle class? I mean the wealthy in this country hire most of the workers right? Don't see poor people doing much hiring. The socialist party (you know who I'm referring to) spends a great deal of time and energy attacking the successful in this country in their class warfare campaigns, and passing legislation that attempts to accomplish just that., whether it be with the EPA, tax policy, onerous regulations, affirmative action hiring requirements etc. And then wonders why businesses struggle, which means few businesses hire, which results in the middle class struggling? Is this all supposed to be difficult to figure out?

I suspect that 90% of the folks supporting Bernie are Democrats. So we have a President that appointed several socialists to his cabinet and even a communist or two like Van Jones. Now we see Bernie Sanders doing pretty well. And some want to paint the GOP and the Tea Party as radicals? There is one Party in this Country that has moved radically in one direction, far from the ideas and principles of our Framers, and their initials are not GOP.

From what I've read his tax rates would be lower than those under Dwight D. Eisenhower.

[REDREX]

From what I've read his tax rates would be lower than those under Dwight D. Eisenhower.

---Very poor argument---Go look at what people were making back then--

[TAFBSooner]

---Very poor argument---Go look at what people were making back then--

They were making cars, iron and steel, appliances, clothing, those new-fangled televisions, and pretty much everything we needed, and exporting quite a bit too. :-)

Seriously, explain how the wages and cost of living in the 1950's vs. now affect arguments about marginal tax rates.

[REDREX]

---

They were making cars, iron and steel, appliances, clothing, those new-fangled televisions, and pretty much everything we needed, and exporting quite a bit too. :-)

Seriously, explain how the wages and cost of living in the 1950's vs. now affect arguments about marginal tax rates.

---Yep and most of the rest of the world was recovering from WW2----That's why the economy did so well---- http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...verlay&first=1

[Serenity Now]

---Very poor argument---Go look at what people were making back then--

Does it matter how much one is making? How was relative income vs. expenditures then any different than it is now?

[Serenity Now]

---

---Yep and most of the rest of the world was recovering from WW2----That's why the economy did so well---- http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...verlay&first=1

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...=1&adlt=strict

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...=1&adlt=strict


From your link.

[TAFBSooner]

---

---Yep and most of the rest of the world was recovering from WW2----That's why the economy did so well---- http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...verlay&first=1

So to you, it was all about there being "no competition" in the post-war period? It had nothing to do with factory owners reinvesting revenues (thereby building up their ability to produce and compete) to keep them away from the tax man?

I would still like to hear how the wages and cost of living in the 1950's vs. now affect arguments about marginal tax rates.

[REDREX]

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...=1&adlt=strict

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...=1&adlt=strict


From your link.

----How many people were paying at the top marginal rate in the 1950's----not many

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I see where the self described socialist candidate Bernie Sanders is drawing some big crowds in Wisconsin. Give him credit for being honest with his identity. You won't see Hillary showing such veracity.

But ole Bernie, with his tired old message that just tax the wealthy at 90% and the middle class will benefit. Really? Wouldn't it have the effect of creating massive layoffs, a great majority of which would severely damage the middle class? I mean the wealthy in this country hire most of the workers right? Don't see poor people doing much hiring. The socialist party (you know who I'm referring to) spends a great deal of time and energy attacking the successful in this country in their class warfare campaigns, and passing legislation that attempts to accomplish just that., whether it be with the EPA, tax policy, onerous regulations, affirmative action hiring requirements etc. And then wonders why businesses struggle, which means few businesses hire, which results in the middle class struggling? Is this all supposed to be difficult to figure out?

I suspect that 90% of the folks supporting Bernie are Democrats. So we have a President that appointed several socialists to his cabinet and even a communist or two like Van Jones. Now we see Bernie Sanders doing pretty well. And some want to paint the GOP and the Tea Party as radicals? There is one Party in this Country that has moved radically in one direction, far from the ideas and principles of our Framers, and their initials are not GOP.

The problem is that while the bottom 90% eat it up, the reality is that rich people are hard as crap to tax.

Unlike someone who makes $10 an hour, rich people have the means to

1. pack up and leave to a place that is friendlier from a tax perspective.
2. shut down income streams (go all muni or something) and rely on existing assets until the tax is changed
3. use high tax times to take advantage of losses to balance out income

So outside of declaring stock holdings as property and available for local property tax, this plan will see a huge reduction in tax revenue.

[Serenity Now]

----How many people were paying at the top marginal rate in the 1950's----not many

Do you not see the irony in your assessment? The TAFB guy has a point. When things get reinvested, it's a good thing. Supply side economics, or "Voodoo" economics (ref. Ferris Bueller's Day Off) have proven to actually NOT work. The "job creators" create jobs in 3rd World Countries and buy bigger yachts, bigger vacation homes and bigger golden parachutes. https://www.google.com/search?q=ceo+...c9bjc-n7sTE%3D

[champions77]

From what I've read his tax rates would be lower than those under Dwight D. Eisenhower.

So you are ok with 90% tax brackets for the super wealthy? I guess super wealthy to a dem is anyone making 500K a year.

So what happened to those 90% tax brackets? JFK faced rising unemployment, a falling stock market and slumping profits as he took office. He faced this coming crisis by reducing tax rates. Gosh sounds like some trickle down to me.

[REDREX]

Do you not see the irony in your assessment? The TAFB guy has a point. When things get reinvested, it's a good thing. Supply side economics, or "Voodoo" economics (ref. Ferris Bueller's Day Off) have proven to actually NOT work. The "job creators" create jobs in 3rd World Countries and buy bigger yachts, bigger vacation homes and bigger golden parachutes. https://www.google.com/search?q=ceo+...c9bjc-n7sTE%3D

--Free Enterprise built this country and made it rich-----Socialism will destroy any country including this one over time---Glad you have your CEO talking points down

[Serenity Now]

So you are ok with 90% tax brackets for the super wealthy? I guess super wealthy to a dem is anyone making 500K a year.

So what happened to those 90% tax brackets? JFK faced rising unemployment, a falling stock market and slumping profits as he took office. He faced this coming crisis by reducing tax rates. Gosh sounds like some trickle down to me.

No. I don't find 90% tax brackets when I look it up. My thought was that it was hyperbole on your part.

JFK is the only president to make supply side economics work. Maybe that's what got him kilt as he was de-escalating big war.

[Serenity Now]

--Free Enterprise built this country and made it rich-----Socialism will destroy any country including this one over time---Glad you have your CEO talking points down

Sweden, Norway, etc. don't seem to be doing so bad. We have elements of socialism and have for years. Medicare, schools, etc.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

--Free Enterprise built this country and made it rich-----Socialism will destroy any country including this one over time---Glad you have your CEO talking points down

Technically speaking it was actually limiting "free enterprise" that made the country rich. The Sherman/Clayton/FTC acts were instrumental in keeping us from turning into Mexico (where 100 families own 99.3% of the wealth) and GDP growth is abysmal. They allowed the wealth (and more importantly access to capital) to be spread out and allowed the explosive GDP growth that we saw from 1936 on...

[REDREX]

Sweden, Norway, etc. don't seem to be doing so bad. We have elements of socialism and have for years. Medicare, schools, etc.

---Norway has 5M people Sweden about 10M and not nearly the percentage of slugs we have here-----Norway receives huge royalty payments that fund many programs------ Hard to compare to the USA----Show me a large country where Socialism is working well------And a better question ,Why would you want more Socialism in this country?