Daniel1611
New member
I predict Sanders is clearing the way for Hillary and trump is clearing the way for jeb and they are doing it by design
Naming Names! I Predict Bernie Sanders Will Die Mysteriously Before The Election.
- Thread starter PureX
- Start date
MarcATL
New member
They tried to ignore him, but they can't. Not when his campaign appearances are literally DWARFING every other candidate's...COMBINED.
The American people are paying attention and they LOVE Bernie Sanders.
Sanders' campaign is beginning to look strangely reminiscent of Barrack Obama in 2008
All kidding aside, just how far would the less than 400 major political donors, who bankroll the campaigns of the Republican Party, be willing to go to prevent a self-proclaimed "socialist" from being elected to the White House?
All kidding aside, just how far would the less than 400 major political donors, who bankroll the campaigns of the Republican Party, be willing to go to prevent a self-proclaimed "socialist" from being elected to the White House?
PureX
Well-known member
They bankroll the democrats, too, make no mistake. They make sure they own the winner no matter who he/she is. They're bankrolling Hillary, just as they did Bill. They'll try to buy off Sanders, first. I'm sure they already are trying. But so far, he's doing OK with small contributions from regular people, and from contributions from the unions. But you're right, Obama started out the same way, and they bought him off in the end.
PureX
Well-known member
What do you all think of the crimes he attached to those names? … Billions of dollars worth of tax revenues lost to tax loopholes for wealthy corporations, and hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate tax "refunds" on taxes they never paid: basically, corporate welfare. All the while they keep up the drumbeat that it's the lazy, good-for-nothing poor who are causing America's debt, and who should pay the consequences.
How do you all feel about that?
How do you all feel about that?
GFR7
New member
Who ever has power, motive, means, opportunity? :think:
This goes back to what Peter Dale Scott refers to as "deep politics"--an establishment, clique, call it what you will, that's interested purely in maintaining their own power. Occasionally they have internal disputes (the out-of-print Yankee and Cowboy War is a great study of this) but ultimately they all play at the same table and detest outsiders or attempts to level the playing field.
I'm not convinced that these guys will feel threatened by this. If he really wants to cause a backlash against these CEOs/companies he should say they have confederate flags strewn about their homes and support a ban against gay marriage. :idea:
nikolai_42
Well-known member
That list is a great argument for gutting the IRS and instituting a flat 20% (or thereabouts) tax - no exceptions or loopholes. Government would be "laffing" all the way to the bank and everyone's taxes would decrease.
EDIT : Everyone's, that is, except those not paying any now.
PureX
Well-known member
Well, it may be true that these are the only things that the ignoramuses among us (on both sides) care about. But I think anyone else will be shocked by the amount of money these people are stealing from the American people. And how much damage they are doing to the country as a result (loss of freedom, loss of jobs, loss of homes, loss of health care, loss and education and opportunity, loss of trust and hope ...). Especially when they're also trying to blame the damage on the rest of us, and make the rest of us sacrifice even more to pay for it.
Racism and sexism are just conveniently divisive issues these people throw at us through their control of the media to keep us all at each other's throats while they continue robbing us all blind.
PureX
Well-known member
The IRS did not create all those loopholes, and is not responsible for them. A flat tax is not a fair tax unless it's progressive. But if a progressive flat tax were instituted, with no "loopholes" for political cronies to use to escape paying their share, nearly everyone's taxes would drop significantly. And we could still fund all the social programs that other modern civilized nations provide for their people.
Well, I guess if you really believe that corruption is that inevitable, then you may as well become corrupt, yourself. Or become a revolutionary.
Which are you?
The Clintons love to "bump people off" and he is running against Hillary so.... ya never know.
Eh, they might have (oh hell: probably) back in Arkansas, but I don't think it's necessary in Sanders's case. Granted, we're overdue for a good ole fashion assassination, but it's not really the way things work anymore. Better to dig up or invent a scandal and just turn a guy toxic. Outright killing him stirs up too many questions.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
They are, however, responsible for navigating them and determining when someone has taken an unwarranted turn on (or rather, off) one of the countless highways, byways, sideroads and hidden paths that constitute the nearly 74,000 pages of tax code (as of 2013 per CCH). The analysis portion of that job is astoundingly expensive. Cut it down to a small book and things get a lot more straightforward on the government end. Even on the taxpayer end it wouldn't be any more complex (and likely less so).
So, in a sense, the IRS is responsible for them - as the tax code guardian, protector and enforcer.
By definition, "fair" implies equal burden. And while it is unfair to burden the poor with the same absolute load as the wealthy, it is the very picture of fairness to have the percentage equal across the board.
On the contrary, a progressive tax system doubles down on the burden on the wealthy and, in fact, reduces incentive to increase one's income (economic productivity) which, in turn, reduces tax revenues.
..."...their share..." becomes arbitrary when you decide that those making more money ought to bear a higher percentage of the tax burden as opposed to a higher number in absolute terms (but in direct and equal proportion to their income). If everyone pays the same flat percentage, it is definitionally fair. If some pay a higher percentage because of their higher income, the tax law has then become partial and bases "their share" on its own desires rather than on a blind flat, across-the-board rate. At that point, the government has begun to define its own class system with its own (perhaps implicit) values. The tax code begins to take on a life of its own. It becomes self aware...
Except those of the wealthy. By definition a progressive tax increases the rate the wealthy pay while reducing the rate paid by those less wealthy.
Not sure I follow. If instituting the laffer curve as the primary driver behind tax rates is revolutionary, then I guess I'm guilty.
If, however, the goal is to have government fund myriad social programs, that is historically un-American and against the limited role government is supposed to play in one's life. Government is no better at starting and rationing social programs (read "charities") than privately run organizations - and the bureaucratic mindset virtually ensures that government is at best less efficient, and at worst more overbearing.
PureX
Well-known member
I agree with gutting the tax CODE.
Actually, it's not. For several reasons. One is that the percentage of income being used for essentials diminishes as income increases, and another is that the opportunity afforded by wealth (education, entrepreneurial possibilities, and investment) diminish as income diminishes. Neither of which is fair, nor good for society and the economy.
That's just a lie that wealthy people keep repeating, hoping that the rest of us idiots will believe it.
For one thing, even if taxing wealth did make people not want to be wealthy (which is absurd) the truth is that we don't need or want wealth piling up in anyone's hands. We want it flowing all through the economy, and through lots of people's hands. Because that keeps the economy robust, and it affords greater opportunity for everyone. And greater opportunity across the board means greater achievement overall. Just a quick look at history will show us that wealth piling up in the hands of the few leads to social and economic stagnation.
It's not arbitrary. There's all kinds of factors involved. But the main factors would be based on how much value society gains by allowing "X" amount of wealth to accumulate in the hands of an individual. It's not rocket science.
I've already explained why it isn't.
It's based on the "desire" to maintain a healthy and fair society and economy. And it could be kept simple enough. Let's say we determine that a person needs 20K a year income just to live in our society. And let's say we determine that no person in our society is so important or productive that he's worth more than a 30 million income per year. So we start taxing people at 20k, and at a very low percentage, and we increase that percentage until their income reaches 30m (after 30 million, it's all taken as taxes). That would be much more fair, as well as being much more sensible. Allowing individual people to acquire billions of dollars is insane. No human being contributes that much to society. Especially not those who think they deserve that much.
Exactly as it should be.
Those are more lies that the oligarchs hoped we'd be stupid enough to buy into. Business isn't innately any more efficient than government, and they aren't any less susceptible to corruption, either. In many cases they are far worse, because they don't have to answer to the public unless the government make them.
The whole purpose of people coming together and forming governments is so that they can achieve together what they cannot achieve individually. That's the very definition of a "social program". And when THIS government was formed, the founders explained very clearly what their goals were: to establish and protect every citizen's right to life, liberty, and opportunity; equally. And that's exactly what those social programs that you seem to hate, do. Health care is part of our right to life. Gay marriage is part of our right to pursue our own happiness. Social security benefits, unemployment insurance, disability benefits, basic education; these are all goals that we as a society wanted to active, and did achieve, through government. Until people like you started buy into the oligarch's lies. And began thinking, insanely, that the more we eliminate government oversight of business, the more those businesses will somehow, magically, begin to care about our best interests, instead of their own power and profits.
I have never been a fan of purex
but
this post is the most disgusting, the most despicable one he has ever posted
What makes you say that?
Very few conservatives I know personally and have read about DO NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT "Crony Capitalism."
That's the root cause of our problems, just as the original 13 colonies had with the East India Tea Company, the closest thing to a global corporation in its day. The nonviolent protest of the Boston Tea Party in 1773 was a good start for our revolution in 1776.
We should pay more attention to history. Folks like Sanders are the ones who plant the seeds--or at least send them aloft and away like dandelions do in a strong breeze.