'Murica! (91 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fake Melo
- Start date
- Tags afl_italia's cousins forza trump smocking gun
Another example from today. Claiming a vaccine would be ready in a few months, or at the outside a year, and after being directly contradicted by the head of the national institute for infectious diseases, argues with him repeatedly and tries to get industry execs to support his rubbish.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/02/politics/donald-trump-coronavirus-vaccine-push-back/index.html
Sanders' "plan", if it actually came into fruition, would cost anywhere from 20-30% of GDP. If he doesn't tax everyone into oblivion with rates upwards of 50% to pay for it, he would need to have the Fed print money by the trillions to the fund the same increase in debt. If you have investors fleeing the market because some whack job makes it impossible to make any gains while the central bank is printing money to fund 20-30% of GDP, you end up with a hyper-inflationary depression. Millions of people lose their jobs, but even if they had money, it would end up being worthless.
But yeah! Umm, that Trump guy is soooo much more dangerous!...
But yeah! Umm, that Trump guy is soooo much more dangerous!...
It just again makes it seem like there's a concentrated effort for the "establishment" (the demon these days, remember) to push through their candidate, which may not work out well with everyone and I fear would have a similar effect to 2016, but to a slightly lesser degree because Hillary was the most unlikable candidate probably ever put forth by the Democrats.
They actually poll a lot more similarly than I though.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/National.html
Here are for some individual states:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/
With a more moderate candidate you gain older voters, but lose out on the growing progressive, younger wing. At this point, I'm not sure which is larger. Biden has had PLENTY of moments where he seems insane though.
This is true. Perhaps I'm overestimating the amount of progressive, first time, and fringe voters that would come out for him, but I'm not so sure about that going by polls I see.
They actually poll a lot more similarly than I though.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/National.html
Here are for some individual states:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/
With a more moderate candidate you gain older voters, but lose out on the growing progressive, younger wing. At this point, I'm not sure which is larger. Biden has had PLENTY of moments where he seems insane though.
This is true. Perhaps I'm overestimating the amount of progressive, first time, and fringe voters that would come out for him, but I'm not so sure about that going by polls I see.
Oh perfect, I just came across this from the Economist. There's a section on who voters are considering.
https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/
Sanders is higher in consideration from every candidate voter EXCEPT Bloomberg voters.
https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/
Sanders is higher in consideration from every candidate voter EXCEPT Bloomberg voters.
Dude, you voted for Trump based on a bunch of lies about small government and balanced budgets, and the like. And he has done the exact opposite. Exploding the deficit again while in economic boom times, by giving massive tax cuts and still massively increasing spending on the military, etc. Trump in a recession would be an absolute nightmare.
But here you are peddling the worst case doom and gloom scenario about a Sanders presidency, while you ridiculed anyone who expected the worst case scenario from Trump.
Something has to be absolutely be done about income inequality in America, regardless of your obsession with being anti-big government, anti-taxes, anti-regulation, etc. Or you will eventually either end up with a massive swing to the more socialist democrats, with nightmare candidates like AOC in the future, or end up living under a right wing autocracy. The ballooning income inequality begun during the Reagan presidency is out of control regardless of your personal 401k or those of the people you know. This isn’t a dig at republicans alone, it’s a criticism of American politics of the last 40 years that has slowly transferred the vast majority of the wealth of the nation to the richest 1% and appeased the further and further impoverished masses with little crumbs here. Eventually a breaking point is reached and we’re starting to see it. A Bernie type isn’t a viable candidate for the past 40 years until now. Nor was a Trump who would just govern with overt corruption, blatant disregard for truth, facts, and science, and handouts to his wealthy cronies.
There is of course a balance somewhere to be found, but not by portraying the opposing side as harbingers of the apocalypse like you do with Bernie and others of his ilk, and the overly progressive muppets do about Trump, etc.
But here you are peddling the worst case doom and gloom scenario about a Sanders presidency, while you ridiculed anyone who expected the worst case scenario from Trump.
Something has to be absolutely be done about income inequality in America, regardless of your obsession with being anti-big government, anti-taxes, anti-regulation, etc. Or you will eventually either end up with a massive swing to the more socialist democrats, with nightmare candidates like AOC in the future, or end up living under a right wing autocracy. The ballooning income inequality begun during the Reagan presidency is out of control regardless of your personal 401k or those of the people you know. This isn’t a dig at republicans alone, it’s a criticism of American politics of the last 40 years that has slowly transferred the vast majority of the wealth of the nation to the richest 1% and appeased the further and further impoverished masses with little crumbs here. Eventually a breaking point is reached and we’re starting to see it. A Bernie type isn’t a viable candidate for the past 40 years until now. Nor was a Trump who would just govern with overt corruption, blatant disregard for truth, facts, and science, and handouts to his wealthy cronies.
There is of course a balance somewhere to be found, but not by portraying the opposing side as harbingers of the apocalypse like you do with Bernie and others of his ilk, and the overly progressive muppets do about Trump, etc.
Last edited:
I'm just taking his plan at face value. It's simple math. Sanders would have to monetize the debt based on the numbers projected. Money in circulation is roughly 8% of GDP. Treasury debt is something like 90% of GDP. If his plan is 25% of GDP, and current government spending is roughly 35% of GDP, then that is a 70% increase in debt to GDP ratio. Unless Sanders' drastically cuts all other areas of government while increasing taxes, the only other option is printing money (monetizing the debt). There's not a chance in hell that he will cut other programs to the degree needed to fund this, so the only options is more taxes and debt monetization. Either way, everyone loses in the end in this scenario for multiple reasons.
By the way, the Fed has probably already monetized the debt or currently is to some degree, especially after the last recession debacle. But something like this would create chaos. You or others may not like my posts regarding this, which is fine, but it's a major concern of mine and other Americans who own businesses, have investments, et cetera. It's all fun and fearmongering until it actually happens like in other now destitute nations.
By the way, the Fed has probably already monetized the debt or currently is to some degree, especially after the last recession debacle. But something like this would create chaos. You or others may not like my posts regarding this, which is fine, but it's a major concern of mine and other Americans who own businesses, have investments, et cetera. It's all fun and fearmongering until it actually happens like in other now destitute nations.
No. Not everyone loses with more taxation. Taxes are higher in much of the first world. Taxes were also higher on the richest Americans and corporations for much of American history. And the 1980s onwards when they have significantly dropped and been shifted to more “everybody pays” style taxes, has coincided with huge income inequality and wealth disparity. You can conveniently ignore this, and ignore Trump slashing taxes, and social programs while at the same time ballooning government deficits back up over a trillion dollars, but that doesn’t change the alienation and disenfranchisement that this breeds and the backlash that eventually is going to come against this massive wealth transfer from 95% of Americans to 5% of Americans that Trump and Reagan both have presided over and to a lesser degree all the intervening presidents too.
Add to this that if Sanders becomes president with a republican senate, which is the very likely case were he to win, given the republican advantage there thanks to lack of proportional representation, you have a massive check on what he can do, and compromise and working together shall have to happen. It’s pretty obvious that everything Bernie campaigns on won’t happen, and that there will be compromise regardless of your doom and gloom scenarios.
Add to this that if Sanders becomes president with a republican senate, which is the very likely case were he to win, given the republican advantage there thanks to lack of proportional representation, you have a massive check on what he can do, and compromise and working together shall have to happen. It’s pretty obvious that everything Bernie campaigns on won’t happen, and that there will be compromise regardless of your doom and gloom scenarios.
Just because it might not happen doesn't mean we should just shove the math under the rug. Trump is scrutinized for everything he says and does, so don't get upset when someone challenges Bernie on his number one campaign issue.
As for the rest, you make it seem like taxation equals wealth equality. Sure, if you're going to tax folks, then corporations should be taxed as well. But just because you tax billionaires at a higher rate than others doesn't mean you're going to do anything other than slightly adjust the income disparity based on numbers alone. To actually make a meaningful dent into this gap, people need jobs and good paying jobs, along with the capability to invest and save. You aren't going to solve that by creating additional social programs, which there already are many. And poor individuals aren't going to be able to invest and save when inflation offsets their earnings year over year. So there's no easy answer to this, and inferring it's simply a taxation issue is too simplistic. There isn't even a guarantee the government will spend the increased revenue on anything other than wars or whatever nonsense they feel like doing at the time.
The banks should have been allowed to fail in 2009 instead of receiving a taxpayer bailout by means of the TARP Program. That would have wiped out some billionaires and reset some expectations, but instead they got their "socialism for the rich." Absolutely terrible.
As for the rest, you make it seem like taxation equals wealth equality. Sure, if you're going to tax folks, then corporations should be taxed as well. But just because you tax billionaires at a higher rate than others doesn't mean you're going to do anything other than slightly adjust the income disparity based on numbers alone. To actually make a meaningful dent into this gap, people need jobs and good paying jobs, along with the capability to invest and save. You aren't going to solve that by creating additional social programs, which there already are many. And poor individuals aren't going to be able to invest and save when inflation offsets their earnings year over year. So there's no easy answer to this, and inferring it's simply a taxation issue is too simplistic. There isn't even a guarantee the government will spend the increased revenue on anything other than wars or whatever nonsense they feel like doing at the time.
The banks should have been allowed to fail in 2009 instead of receiving a taxpayer bailout by means of the TARP Program. That would have wiped out some billionaires and reset some expectations, but instead they got their "socialism for the rich." Absolutely terrible.
No one is saying it’s exclusively a taxation issue, or that creating “more social programs” is the answer. You’re just assuming this.
More effective taxation, more efficient government spending, improvement of the social programs we already have (and a better informed public about these programs and their uses), better make-work projects and infrastructure spending, and better wages for low skill jobs... these are all things that need to occur alongside taxation.
What I am saying is the further tax cuts for the wealthy right now are absurd. And basically coming across as a wealth grab. While new job numbers have been decent, income gains have not occurred and corporations are not reinvesting these tax cut savings into making more good paying jobs, nor are the rich suddenly spending more of their higher after tax incomes.
Anyways, it’s a combination of things, obviously. That doesn’t change the reality that if America continues on its current pathway a lot more civil unrest is coming.
More effective taxation, more efficient government spending, improvement of the social programs we already have (and a better informed public about these programs and their uses), better make-work projects and infrastructure spending, and better wages for low skill jobs... these are all things that need to occur alongside taxation.
What I am saying is the further tax cuts for the wealthy right now are absurd. And basically coming across as a wealth grab. While new job numbers have been decent, income gains have not occurred and corporations are not reinvesting these tax cut savings into making more good paying jobs, nor are the rich suddenly spending more of their higher after tax incomes.
Anyways, it’s a combination of things, obviously. That doesn’t change the reality that if America continues on its current pathway a lot more civil unrest is coming.
Took him to a whataburger 
- - - Updated - - -
I think we're past the time of endorsements. Very few will change their votes because of some guy they used to like publicly supported someone else.
- - - Updated - - -
I disagree. The real danger of Bernie, IMO, is a total inaction in Congress.
- - - Updated - - -
I think we're past the time of endorsements. Very few will change their votes because of some guy they used to like publicly supported someone else.
- - - Updated - - -
I disagree. The real danger of Bernie, IMO, is a total inaction in Congress.
Last edited:
