A wealth question for the Sanders supporters

[DeluxAuto]

There are plenty of "working poor", people who work at Walmart who are on food stamps. According to one report Walmart alone is costing American's taxpayers $6.2 billion dollars.

Giving these people more money would allow them to afford not only food but housing and healthcare as well.

Also, this is a point that's often missed most people who receive government assistance are the elderly and children. So unless you want to start employing more people over 65 or want to advocate for child labor you're going to have a hard time following your "earned it" logic to it's end point.



That's just a blatant lie. It took my about 5 seconds to find two studies that show Head Start has a lasting impact on academic performance.



Not only did I refute it I proved you to be a liar. Furthermore, if you look at countries that spend a significant amount of money on early education you'll see that their students do better than US students (Denmark is a good example).

Why is all of this a good idea? First it would take money away from racist Nazi assholes like bot and, maybe, he'd give up and stop posting on here.

Aside from that obvious perk having a society with less economic inequality would benefit all levels of society. Again, look at Denmark and Sweden they have much less economic inequality than the US and those two countries are both happier (Denmark #2, Sweden #7, and the US #19, pg. 24-25) and more free (as rated by the conservative CATO Institute's Human Freedom Index Denmark #6, Sweden #11, and US #15, pg. 8-9).

It's simple really if you don't have to worry about seeing a doctor, paying for a good education, or worrying about how you'll get your next meal you can do a lot of other shit.

Even bot might find something better to do than be an internet Nazi but that's doubtful.

Well done.

 

[bellisarius]

Exactly. By the third grade it's as if head start never existed. Which begs the question, "Why does it continue to exist?"

There is a notion that seems to be held by politicians of all stripes that if you throw enough money at a problem you'll solve it. Obviously that is NOT working with education. Further, if you look at education spending per child per state vs. state SAT scores you find very little correlation between spending and results.

Nationally the various teachers union are always lobbying/agitating for higher pay. Fine, but why should I as a taxpayer agree to reward sub-standard results? The unions refuse to allow any sort result based pay system. Their argument is that they are given sub-standard students out of households where the parents don't care. And while there is some truth to that argument I fail to see where throwing more money at the teachers is going to solve that problem.

The establishment of a federal Dept. of Education and allowing public employees to unionize were both really bad ideas.

 

[Conager]

All the information I've seen about the classroom advantages of Head Start is it's gone by the third or fourth grade.

..and not even close to the advantage of a child growing up in a two-parent household with literate parents that read to the child.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

People make money. Some people make a lot. So what? Bernie's a simplistic blowhard.

I watched my first debate last night and my hunch was right. Great entertainment value.
But I wanted to follow up on a point made by Bernie Sanders in hopes of getting some clarification from a supporter or at least someone who harbors ill feelings toward someone with lots of money.
Bernie pointed out that the newest candidate, Mike Bloomberg, was worth about $60 billion. I don't recall the exact wording or the net worth, but Sanders said Bloomberg had as much money as the poorest 125 million (or maybe it was 150 million) Americans combined.
Sanders said this was bad. I believe the word he used was unconscionable.

My question: If Bloomberg only had $10 million, how much more money would the poorest 125 million Americans have?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Dan_C000 returns from sabbatical and immediately scores a rare quadruple "tard trigger" amongst the bottom dwellers of Wingnut Swamp.

Nicely done, Daniel.

At least he's not being a total coward anymore.

A habit you've taken up after getting thrashed around the GB every time you engage.

 

[BotanyBoy]

People make money. Some people make a lot. So what? Bernie's a simplistic blowhard.

He's also represents a large number of democrats perspective.

Anyone with more money than you has obviously done something bad and wronged you in order to have it.

Justifying your voting to send the government guns in to take their shit and give it not just to the less fortunate of our society, but illegal migrants...yea...good luck selling flyover country on that.

 

[OldJourno]

I see what you're saying but I think you're missing the point of Sanders critique of Bloomberg's wealth. It isn't only about money but the things Bloomberg's money could buy.

.

Good point, Dan.
But rather than throw $65 billion of Bloomberg's money at the Department of Education, which has a miserable record of accomplishment, what if Bloomberg used a mere $500 million to buy a factory business that was shut down in Milwaukee 20 years ago and relocated to China.
Bloomberg could pack up the whole thing and move it back to Milwaukee, offer training to the unemployed and then provide them with a fair starting wage when the factory reopens.
Bloomberg could have done that instead of blowing a similar amount of money on advertising and bribing the DNC into allowing him onto the stage at the debate Wednesday, all so he could be emasculated on national TV by Elizabeth Warren.
And if you think Bloomberg is going to do something to piss off the Chinese, like closing a factory, dream on. Bloomberg is already sucking Chinese dick on the campaign trail, in a subtle way.

 

[Conager]

At least he's not being a total coward anymore.

A habit you've taken up after getting thrashed around the GB every time you engage.

Face is everything to Rob.

You can always tell when he has self-diagnosed a mortal wound, he throws sock-puppets into the fray and refers to you in third person. If he were any kind of man (admittedly a small, petty one), he would address you directly with his petty insults.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

What?

Yap Queen is still salty about Venezuelans being able to sell and eat arepas, their country's signature dish, from street vendors.

Or as Queen puts it, "venders." Rhymes with "Wim Wenders."

https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I actually agree with you on this point that that is the essence of Bernie's message and a big reason for his appeal. Same sort of appeal that Trump makes to his supporters only it's illegal immigrants he blames.

All the Dems are against the Trump Tax Giveaway but Bernie is the one who rants about "billionaires" as if that's the one answer to everything. He's a simplistic blowhard.

Anyone with more money than you has obviously done something bad and wronged you in order to have it.

>>Blah blah blah to the rest of this crap>>>

Justifying your voting to send the government guns in to take their shit and give it not just to the less fortunate of our society, but illegal migrants...yea...good luck selling flyover country on that.

 

[Rightguide]

I actually agree with you on this point that that is the essence of Bernie's message and a big reason for his appeal. Same sort of appeal that Trump makes to his supporters only it's illegal immigrants he blames.

All the Dems are against the Trump Tax Giveaway but Bernie is the one who rants about "billionaires" as if that's the one answer to everything. He's a simplistic blowhard.



>>Blah blah blah to the rest of this crap>>>

It was "millionaires and billionaires" until he became a millionaire himself. He's a friggin' fraud, an "authentic" fraud.

 

[Kantarii]

It was "millionaires and billionaires" until he became a millionaire himself. He's a friggin' fraud, ad "authentic" fraud.

Just wait until you see socialist hypocrite talk about climate change, then get in his jet and fly to the next debate

 

[Conager]

Why do Democrats have such a hard time understanding the basic concept of the confiscatory nature of taxes? Money is earned by individuals. It is theirs. Government *takes* a portion of it away. Taking less is not any kind of giveaway.

A giveaway is a tax credit given to individuals that pay no effective taxes at all and receive more than they pay.

There are nominal tax rates versus effective tax rates. The normal tax rate is the percentage that you are stating you are attempting to collect. The effective tax rate is what you actually get. What people actually pay Is going to be largely voluntary. It is not possible to physically confiscate some arbitrary portion of the GDP that you think you need to fund your bloated government programs. You're never going to collect more money than people are willing to reasonably pay. If you make the tax rate too high, wealthy people will either structure their income or businesses in a way that lowers their effective tax rate, simply refuse to get out there and earn or will park their assets elsewhere. Apple stock may trade in the US, but they are headquartered in Ireland specifically to lower their tax burden.

Lowering the nominal tax rate increased, not decreased, the amount of money remitted to the Treasury. As it always does. It worked for Kennedy, it worked for Reagan, and it is working for Trump. Spending even more than the new bounty of taxes is the problem, not the lowered nominal tax rates.

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Democrats, who are joined in the orgy of spending by Republicans, only care about the revenue side of deficit spending, never the spending side, which is what actually causes the deficit.

 

[SpeareChucker]

I watched my first debate last night and my hunch was right. Great entertainment value.
But I wanted to follow up on a point made by Bernie Sanders in hopes of getting some clarification from a supporter or at least someone who harbors ill feelings toward someone with lots of money.
Bernie pointed out that the newest candidate, Mike Bloomberg, was worth about $60 billion. I don't recall the exact wording or the net worth, but Sanders said Bloomberg had as much money as the poorest 125 million (or maybe it was 150 million) Americans combined.
Sanders said this was bad. I believe the word he used was unconscionable.

My question: If Bloomberg only had $10 million, how much more money would the poorest 125 million Americans have?

My question is, with as rich as Sanders has become, why is it that he only wants to redistribute the wealth of those above his station in life...

 

[Conager]

Envy has no ceiling.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Why do Democrats have such a hard time understanding the basic concept of the confiscatory nature of taxes? Money is earned by individuals. It is theirs. Government *takes* a portion of it away. Taking less is not any kind of giveaway.

A giveaway is a tax credit given to individuals that pay no effective taxes at all and receive more than they pay.

There are nominal tax rates versus effective tax rates. The normal tax rate is the percentage that you are stating you are attempting to collect. The effective tax rate is what you actually get. What people actually pay Is going to be largely voluntary. It is not possible to physically confiscate some arbitrary portion of the GDP that you think you need to fund your bloated government programs. You're never going to collect more money than people are willing to reasonably pay. If you make the tax rate too high, wealthy people will either structure their income or businesses in a way that lowers their effective tax rate, simply refuse to get out there and earn or will park their assets elsewhere. Apple stock may trade in the US, but they are headquartered in Ireland specifically to lower their tax burden.

Lowering the nominal tax rate increased, not decreased, the amount of money remitted to the Treasury. As it always does. It worked for Kennedy, it worked for Reagan, and it is working for Trump. Spending even more than the new bounty of taxes is the problem, not the lowered nominal tax rates.

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Democrats, who are joined in the orgy of spending by Republicans, only care about the revenue side of deficit spending, never the spending side, which is what actually causes the deficit.

A lot of the Progressive Left believes that because the government controls the money supply, i.e., they print it and distribute it which means they get to decide how much of their money you get to have at any given time...

I'd wager that Comrade Bernie is in that camp.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Envy has no ceiling.

That is why I have always considered it the greatest sin
that can drive any individual.
Kill Igor's goat...

 

[BotanyBoy]

Face is everything to Rob.

You can always tell when he has self-diagnosed a mortal wound, he throws sock-puppets into the fray and refers to you in third person. If he were any kind of man (admittedly a small, petty one), he would address you directly with his petty insults.

Rob isn't into being direct, must be the low T levels.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I actually agree with you on this point that that is the essence of Bernie's message and a big reason for his appeal.

Cool.

Same sort of appeal that Trump makes to his supporters only it's illegal immigrants he blames.

Difference being illegal migrants, according to numerous studies, historical records and most economic theories do drive down lower end wages for unskilled labor.

Want to see 20/hr minimums happen naturally like magic? Reduce the unskilled labor supply.

All the Dems are against the Trump Tax Giveaway but Bernie is the one who rants about "billionaires" as if that's the one answer to everything. He's a simplistic blowhard.

Tax giveaway???

IF I don't take your money is that a giveaway to you??? No....no different when the government doesn't take your shit, it's not a giveaway, it's not redistribution from the poor to the rich.

Your suggestion that it is? As insane as me saying I gifted you your car, because I didn't car jack you.

>>Blah blah blah to the rest of this crap>>>

Couldn't refute it could you

We know why.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Rob isn't into being direct, must be the low T levels.

Ah the absolute irony of one of the board's biggest incels yammering about my testosterone level.

Projection at it's finest.
*nods*

 

[SpeareChucker]

JFK Democrats: A rising tide lifts all boats!
Modern Democrats: A rising tide only lifts yachts!

 

[tubby424]

JFK Democrats: A rising tide lifts all boats!
Modern Democrats: A rising tide only lifts yachts!

Great analogy spear !! That is certainly one of the big differences from the past.
Question for the Sander supporters: Have you ever asked a poor guy for a job ?? and what was the result??

 

[BotanyBoy]

Ah the absolute irony of one of the board's biggest incels yammering about my testosterone level.

https://i.imgflip.com/37av0s.jpg

Projection at it's finest.
*nods*

It's not irony when it's based on your fantasies or an outright lie...like us being incels.

If you weren't projecting like the little soy boy we all know you are, you wouldn't run like a little bitch with your tail tucked between your legs every time you had your anti-American politics challenged. And here is where I cuck you for the umpteenth time this week alone.

Ever decide if you support Customs (ICE) or not??

[*]I support the mission of the United States Customs Service and their 200+ years of service to America.

[*]I do not in any way shape or form support "ICE" (the American Gestapo).

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=91926028&postcount=24


Or are you going to ignore this and stay crying in the corner??

 

[SpeareChucker]

Great analogy spear !! That is certainly one of the big differences from the past.
Question for the Sander supporters: Have you ever asked a poor guy for a job ?? and what was the result??

Thank you.

 

[bellisarius]

Government action and wealth.

It has been sold to the people that you can't survive in today's society without broadband internet so the government is going to subsidize the lower income folks so they have access. Fine, but exactly who are they subsidizing? The internet providers of course. So the government takes my money and hands it over to Comcast, Facebook, Twitter, etc. And then you wonder why so many "woke" industries lobby the government to "help" the poor?