Bernie Sanders Calls For Federal Investigation Of Exxon Mobile for Lying about Climate Change - Polidicks

[QUOTE=paindoc;48959458]A small tax on Wall Street speculation will pay for the free college and then some. It's been well covered. His idea of Healthcare will be cheaper than what we have now, and won't serve as a way to hand the American people on a platter to insurance companies[/QUOTE] What do you even mean by "on wall street?" Is that another way of saying capital gains tax? "Wall street" isn't exactly a taxable category. If you do mean capital gains tax, then that's just as much on retiree's 401k savings as "wall street."

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48958943] Cops in SWAT gear shot an unarmed man dead in his own front yard for the crime of running an illegal gambling ring - aka friendly $5 poker games with his buddies. That is what demilitarization of the police forces is about. Nobody's taking away their guns, but they can't be bringing Humvees full of cops in riot gear just to investigate a domestic disturbance.[/QUOTE] Because if they didn't have the gear, that wouldn't have happened to the man running a poker game, right? If a police officer is shooting, they have a reason, whether they're carrying a handgun or an assault rifle. People need to stop freaking the fuck out when someone unarmed is shot by the police. Two stories of raids gone wrong, compared to how many are carried out on a daily basis around the country? These teams carry the gear for their own protection, [I]they don't always know what they're dealing with.[/I] It's an incredibly dangerous job in the sense that people are very unpredictable, not to mention they have access to their own damn weapons. Why on earth would you want to take these things away from law enforcement?

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;48958920]I'm really not liking him as of late. He's offering free college and single payer healthcare with no way to pay for it. [editline]22nd October 2015[/editline] I'm also against free college in general. More people getting degrees lowers their value. Why do we want an economy that relies on people spending 20 years in education? Why not reform high schools to make them worth something again?[/QUOTE] Actually he's detailed how this would be paid for. Increase taxes on the wealthiest and also include a speculation tax for wall st traders

[QUOTE=cody8295;48959702]Actually he's detailed how this would be paid for. Increase taxes on the wealthiest and also include a speculation tax for wall st traders[/QUOTE] Can you link where he actually goes through the numbers? I've yet to see him say anything beyond vague insinuations. I've seen numbers showing how his plan won't work financially, but no response from his side.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48959720]Can you link where he actually goes through the numbers? I've yet to see him say anything beyond vague insinuations. I've seen numbers showing how his plan won't work financially, but no response from his side.[/QUOTE] How wouldn't it work financially?

[QUOTE=sgman91;48959576]What do you even mean by "on wall street?" Is that another way of saying capital gains tax? "Wall street" isn't exactly a taxable category. If you do mean capital gains tax, then that's just as much on retiree's 401k savings as "wall street."[/QUOTE] Blargh, autocorrect snipped it somehow. Wall Street Speculation

[QUOTE=sgman91;48959720]Can you link where he actually goes through the numbers? I've yet to see him say anything beyond vague insinuations. I've seen numbers showing how his plan won't work financially, but no response from his side.[/QUOTE] He's yet to release his tax plan yet, but once he does I hope all these republican fear-mongers stop going 'hur dur 90% tax socialism scary'

[QUOTE=ghghop;48959871]How wouldn't it work financially?[/QUOTE] It's hard to show that something won't work when we don't yet know how it's supposed to work. I know some have gone to that trouble, but I have no reason to until he's provided a positive argument first.

Another thing that could pay for free tuition is if we stop giving out tax-breaks and tax refunds to corportations (some of which avoid paying taxes altogether but still collect billion dollar refunds)

To be clear what kind of numbers we're talking about: Sanders' aid, Mr. Gunnels, said that they agreed with the $15 trillion estimate over 10 years made from a similar proposal in congress for just the single payer healthcare (that doesn't include any of his other new spending). A few billion isn't going to do anything to help pay for that. Clearly no amount of taxation can go any real distance in paying for that. Remember that Sanders' state, Vermont, came very close to being the first example of single payer healthcare, or "medicare for all." The only problem was that they couldn't pay for it. So it was tabled.

[QUOTE=Kentz;48959109]if anything requires investigation its the federal government and its heap of lies[/QUOTE] Only if we investigate the heap of lies Corporate America does as well. [editline]22nd October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;48959969]To be clear what kind of numbers we're talking about: Sanders' aid, Mr. Gunnels, said that they agreed with the $15 trillion estimate over 10 years made from a similar proposal in congress for just the single payer healthcare (that doesn't include any of his other new spending). A few billion isn't going to do anything to help pay for that. Clearly no amount of taxation can go any real distance in paying for that.[/QUOTE] I get really sick and tired of people who think debt is bad and don't understand the fullest extent of what national debt is. Also, the only reason that its that expensive is because of current prices being jacked up by Corporations and privately run hospitals.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48959969]To be clear what kind of numbers we're talking about: Sanders' aid, Mr. Gunnels, said that they agreed with the $15 trillion estimate over 10 years made from a similar proposal in congress for just the single payer healthcare (that doesn't include any of his other new spending). A few billion isn't going to do anything to help pay for that. Clearly no amount of taxation can go any real distance in paying for that.[/QUOTE] there are other ways of saving money besides taxing, for example, we could cut out trillion dollar defense budget a little. We could close corporate loopholes that account for hundreds of billions of dollars, etc

Okay now that I'm no longer on mobile The tax is a tax of 1 base (0.01%) on financial transactions, particularly trades of bonds, derivatives, and other securities/speculation type investments and such. The Tax Policy Center released a [URL="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000287-Financial-Transaction-Taxes-in-Theory-and-Practice.pdf"]paper[/URL] on this, but it would raise up to $185 billion over 10 years and hopefully stop the amount of excessive risk-taking in speculative investing that led to the great market crash.

[QUOTE=Swilly;48960098]Only if we investigate the heap of lies Corporate America does as well. [editline]22nd October 2015[/editline] I get really sick and tired of people who think debt is bad and don't understand the fullest extent of what national debt is. Also, the only reason that its that expensive is because of current prices being jacked up by Corporations and privately run hospitals.[/QUOTE] I really get sick of people who are ignorant of issues, but pretend to be knowledgeable. That $15 trillion estimate includes better negotiated prices and increased payroll taxes. It was a real proposal made by a democratic congressman made to look as good as possible. It represents real cost after all the savings. [editline]22nd October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=paindoc;48960111]Okay now that I'm no longer on mobile The tax is a tax of 1 base (0.01%) on financial transactions, particularly trades of bonds, derivatives, and other securities/speculation type investments and such. The Tax Policy Center released a [URL="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000287-Financial-Transaction-Taxes-in-Theory-and-Practice.pdf"]paper[/URL] on this, but it would raise up to $185 billion over 10 years and hopefully stop the amount of excessive risk-taking in speculative investing that led to the great market crash.[/QUOTE] That's basically pointless when dealing with a $15 trillion+ cost. I mean, it's not even worth mentioning.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48960115]I really hate people who are ignorant of issues, but pretend to be knowledgeable. That $15 trillion estimate includes better negotiated prices and increased payroll taxes. It was a real proposal made by a democratic congressman made to look as good as possible. It represents real cost after all the savings. [editline]22nd October 2015[/editline] That basically pointless when dealing with a $15 trillion+ cost. I mean, it's not even worth mentioning.[/QUOTE] That is not dealing with the national debt. The issue of national debt is terribly misunderstood, and the difference between deficit and debt as well. This is for paying for the proposal for free [I]public[/I] college tuition.

Sorry if I wasn't clear before, that $15 trillion is deficit spending, not debt.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48960156]Sorry if I wasn't clear before, that $15 trillion is deficit spending, not debt.[/QUOTE] it was also an estimate, even if somebody from bernies campaign agreed, there are other estimates which show social programs saving us billions (if done correctly )

[QUOTE=cody8295;48960169]it was also an estimate, even if somebody from bernies campaign agreed, there are other estimates which show social programs saving us billions (if done correctly )[/QUOTE] Financial discussions generally start with the person making the proposal. If Sanders agrees with the $15 trillion estimate, then I see no reason to go to other third party sources. It's his plan. As a side note: plans essentially always cost more than their original congressional proposals, and this $15 trillion estimate is the only official congressional proposal that we have for a comparable plan.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48960198]Financial discussions generally start with the person making the proposal. If Sanders agrees with the $15 trillion estimate, then I see no reason to go to other third party sources. It's his plan. As a side note: plans essentially always cost more than their original congressional proposals, and this $15 trillion estimate is the only official congressional proposal that we have.[/QUOTE] Was it a congressional proposal? I thought it was also third party. I don't think sanders himself agreed with any figure, and his camp doesn't speak for him as we've seen with the BLM apology [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-no-apology-to-black-lives-matter_55d0b03ce4b0ab468d9d920d[/url]

[QUOTE=cody8295;48960228]Was it a congressional proposal? I thought it was also third party. I don't think sanders himself agreed with any figure, and his camp doesn't speak for him as we've seen with the BLM apology [URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-no-apology-to-black-lives-matter_55d0b03ce4b0ab468d9d920d[/URL][/QUOTE] The financial analysis was made by an economist, but the congressman agreed with it. He actively directed questions about the plan's financial state to the $15 trillion analysis.

I still find it funny that the one candidate that seems to fully understand what the majority of young voters want is an old man in his 70s. The only other candidate that comes close is Donald Trump when he retweets dank memes...

[QUOTE=Rahu X;48960324]I still find it funny that the one candidate that seems to fully understand what the majority of young voters want is an old man in his 70s. The only other candidate that comes close is Donald Trump when he retweets dank memes...[/QUOTE] Everyone knows that young people want free stuff. The difference is that everyone else realizes that it can't be sustained, including a lot of democrats.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48960333]Everyone knows that young people want free stuff. The difference is that everyone else realizes that it can't be sustained, including a lot of democrats.[/QUOTE] I guess older people wanting social security and other entitlements is okay though

Seems natural to want free stuff when you have no money to pay for stuff in the first place.

[QUOTE=paindoc;48960351]I guess older people wanting social security and other entitlements is okay though[/QUOTE] Well, they did pay for it their entire life and plan their retirement around it. I agree that there are some issues with that as well, but it's not at all the same situation.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48960369]Well, they did pay for it their entire life.[/QUOTE] And the goal of free college is easing the ridiculous post-college burden on Students, so paying for these entitlement programs isn't even harder, among other things. Its hard to put back money into the economy when the majority of your income goes to loans. [editline]22nd October 2015[/editline] college degrees are now high school diplomas. Its how it be, yo

[QUOTE=paindoc;48960380]And the goal of free college is easing the ridiculous post-college burden on Students, so paying for these entitlement programs isn't even harder, among other things. Its hard to put back money into the economy when the majority of your income goes to loans. [editline]22nd October 2015[/editline] college degrees are now high school diplomas. Its how it be, yo[/QUOTE] I don't know why you're focusing on that. My point so far has been about his entire plan, not this part specifically. This isn't even the expensive part. As a side point, I don't believe the best way of dealing with high tuition is to pay for it for people. It's to address the causes of high tuition.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48960394]I don't know why you're focusing on that. My point so far has been about his entire plan, not this part specifically. This isn't even the expensive part.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. Then who do you believe to have an adequate and thorough tax plan? I'm honestly curious. I don't find any of the republican candidates palatable this time around, even after checking through their stances thoroughly.

[QUOTE=paindoc;48960398]Fair enough. Then who do you believe to have an adequate and thorough tax plan? I'm honestly curious. I don't find any of the republican candidates palatable this time around, even after checking through their stances thoroughly.[/QUOTE] I don't know of any republican candidate proposing $15+ trillion in new spending. So, no, they don't have thorough tax plans, but they also don't have anything huge to answer for.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48960411]I don't know of any republican candidate promising $15+ trillion in new spending. So, no, they don't have thorough tax plans, but they also don't have anything huge to answer for.[/QUOTE] Frankly, my issue with all of the Republican candidates is their ass-backwards stance on womens rights, marriage rights, and immigration (in some cases). A few of them toss up oddly progressive proposals, like trumps proposal to decriminalize drugs and use the profits for drug education. I do think deficit can be overstressed, but there's no point wildly spending. I await more substance from other candidates, and hope the Sanders gives us more as well.