Bernie Sanders' popularity making Hillary Clinton campaign 'nervous'
77 replies, posted
here's one thing i wonder, when progressive politicians come with plans to get stuff like improving public health care in any country with a good economical plan on how they are going to get the money they are called out for promising more than it's possible, when they clearly have it planned?
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49499676]You do realize that it's only the last couple months where the biggest shifts happen right? All the best political ammunition is saved for the end when it has the most impact, and quite frankly Hillary has too much bullshit in her past for her campaign to survive widespread scrutiny.
I think Sanders getting the nomination is way more likely than people give him credit for.[/QUOTE]
This. Most early voters don't make their minds up until 3-1 weeks before they even cast ballots or caucus.
[editline]10th January 2016[/editline]
Breaking: [url]https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/686185998410067968[/url]
Brand-new NBC/WSJ/Marist poll of IA (LVs) for the Dem race: Clinton 48 Sanders 45 O'Malley 5
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49499676]You do realize that it's only the last couple months where the biggest shifts happen right? All the best political ammunition is saved for the end when it has the most impact, and quite frankly Hillary has too much bullshit in her past for her campaign to survive widespread scrutiny.
I think Sanders getting the nomination is way more likely than people give him credit for.[/QUOTE]
Yeah and I also realize that people in both parties will believe anything their advisors tell them, which is why when Romney got blown out in the general, Karl Rove shit his pants on live television. I will be voting for Sanders but that doesn't change the fact that he isn't an actual challenger and that the DNC has carefully planned everything out.
[QUOTE=eirexe;49499720]here's one thing i wonder, when progressive politicians come with plans to get stuff like improving public health care in any country with a good economical plan on how they are going to get the money they are called out for promising more than it's possible, when they clearly have it planned?[/QUOTE]
because when the plan is to convert all public university to ~free~ using a .5% tax on ALL STOCK TRADES everyone knows you have fuck all clearly planned and you will never move legislation through to do shit
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;49499729]This. Most early voters don't make their minds up until 3-1 weeks before they even cast ballots or caucus.
[editline]10th January 2016[/editline]
Breaking: [url]https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/686185998410067968[/url]
Brand-new NBC/WSJ/Marist poll of IA (LVs) for the Dem race: Clinton 48 Sanders 45 O'Malley 5[/QUOTE]
Well this made my day.
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;49498979][t]http://i.imgur.com/IcHiwMP.png[/t]
An infographic on how Sanders will pay for his programs[/QUOTE]
robinhood tax on wallstreet hahahahahhahaha
have fun jacking up the taxes and having every major company run off to some other country with a lower tax rate
Actually it'll almost completely kill micro trading exploited by computer systems.
Not entirely sure what the exact stabilisation effects that might have and if they might mitigate the tax.
Edit: although it'll probably drop stock values initially
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;49501099]robinhood tax on wallstreet hahahahahhahaha
have fun jacking up the taxes and having every major company run off to some other country with a lower tax rate[/QUOTE]
Yes every company is going to abandon a country of 300 million because taxes were raised by 0.5%
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;49501099]have fun jacking up the taxes and having every major company run off to some other country with a lower tax rate[/QUOTE]
You mean like they do right now? Not that I'm necessarily defending the Robinhood Tax, I just think it's absolute insanity when people go "but you can't tax corporations or Wall Street, they'll just pick up and leave!!" because, newsflash, they already do that. It's not like Wall Street is looking at our current tax system and going "ah, this isn't so bad, let's just sit here in America and take the hit", they're already overseas as it is.
[QUOTE=srobins;49501370]You mean like they do right now? Not that I'm necessarily defending the Robinhood Tax, I just think it's absolute insanity when people go "but you can't tax corporations or Wall Street, they'll just pick up and leave!!" because, newsflash, they already do that. It's not like Wall Street is looking at our current tax system and going "ah, this isn't so bad, let's just sit here in America and take the hit", they're already overseas as it is.[/QUOTE]
and it seems pretty pointless trying to directly compete with Bermuda and the Bahamas considering their corporate tax rate is literally 0%
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49501135]Actually it'll almost completely kill micro trading exploited by computer systems.
Not entirely sure what the exact stabilisation effects that might have and if they might mitigate the tax.
Edit: although it'll probably drop stock values initially[/QUOTE]
Microtrading is a sick system too. There are machines set up that just scrape money off of Wallstreet day by day on tiny transactions.
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;49501099]robinhood tax on wallstreet hahahahahhahaha
have fun jacking up the taxes and having every major company run off to some other country with a lower tax rate[/QUOTE]
answer me this
should we tax companies anything ever? Because you know, they can always go tax free places.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;49496477]Yes, when we are talking about New York City real estate. Thats nothing.[/QUOTE]
It's nearly 6 million dollars in today's money, and as far as I know real-estate has inflated faster than the dollar, so 1 million is a pretty good amount when he received it.
Watch as returns from defined contribution plans, retirement plans, fall under a 'Robin Hood tax', as many DCPs trade shares, derivatives and bonds. Apparently a strong public social security system is the way to go, that is until social security crashes hard in the coming decades. DCPs should be encouraged and it should be the defined benefit plans which are discouraged, while social security should only exist as a back-up for people who don't save enough in a DCP.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;49503221]Watch as returns from defined contribution plans, retirement plans, fall under a 'Robin Hood tax', as many DCPs trade shares, derivatives and bonds. Apparently a strong public social security system is the way to go, that is until social security crashes hard in the coming decades. DCPs should be encouraged and it should be the defined benefit plans which are discouraged, while social security should only exist as a back-up for people who don't save enough in a DCP.[/QUOTE]
Eliminating the cap on the payroll tax on all income above $250,000 would extend the solvency of social security for something like 45 years, that's a Sanders proposition btw. Nice try though.
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;49503246]Eliminating the cap on the payroll tax on all income above $250,000 would extend the solvency of social security for something like 45 years, that's a Sanders proposition btw. Nice try though.[/QUOTE]
Then what happens after 45 years? 45 years isn't long term. I would only be on the verge of retiring in 45 years. I don't have to worry about the solvency of Australia's retirement system because it is one of the most sustainable in the world (based on what the U.S. calls DCPs). However if I were in the United States, I wouldn't like to hear that social security would become insolvent [i]just before I were to retire[/i].
U.S. social security was flawed from the onset. You had 5 workers supporting every retiree a few decades ago, today that ratio is around 3 to 1. In 45 years, that ratio will be below 2 to 1. You can't simply tax your way out of that problem, that's a severe structural problem. If the structure of social security isn't changed, either benefits will need to be cut, retirement age will need to keep on rising beyond the 70s, or the workers who drive the economy will need to pay more and more payroll tax.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;49496247]Aint no one else, Trump is legit smart with the economy and speaks his mind, I really like how he will say "I am smart, I am rich" even if that sounds douchey, hes not pussyfooting. I also strongly support his views on military veterans, he seems to really actually care. I know how much he lies, or how much he uses speech in a business manner, but he really gives a fuck about veterans which I think is extremely important. He also has an incredible view on gun laws and the 2nd amendment. Its actually realistic, calling for more help with mental healthcare and changing the USA view on guns, but not trying to control them. Hate Trump all you want, but his view on gun control is like, fucking perfect and logical.
But Trump would be a horrible Commander in Chief(same with Bernie tbh, same with most presidents)
Bernie on the other hand, his economic proposals are full on magic promises. Free college? Free healthcare? okay dude, how about even explaining the basics on how you will do that. How will you make it happen?
That said, Bernie is extremely truthful, hes not as blunt or egotistical as Trump, but he really comes of as genuine. Sounds like his mind is in all the right places, but promises too much. So if we could get Trumps actual sassy attitude, plus Bernie actual good views and honesty, I think we would have the best candidate. You can tell a shill from someone who cares, and the way Bernie will get riled up sometimes shows how much he actually cares and believes in what he says. Thats really good.
I do think Bernie will do good, and at the very least lay groundwork for legitimate progressive social things though.
Where as I think Trump would really do good with the economy and veterans.
Sadly neither are good as a commander in chief, but almost no president is.[/QUOTE]
how the fuck can you genuinely think that trump cares about veterans when he's literally dismissed john mccain being held as a prisoner of war and minimizing the shit that he went through.
trump is a goddamn scumbag and if you can't see through his stupid shit then you're a simpleton.
Bernies budget and economy plans have been praised by economist, the taxing of wall street would bring the federal government a fuck load in revenue allowing them to pay off programmes like universal health care and free university admission
[editline]11th January 2016[/editline]
but also you have the long term goals of these two programmes
more accessible higher education = more highly educated citizens = more jobs = all round better for the economy
accessible free health care = long lasting healthy citizens = life expectancy increase
the downside to long lasting healthy citizens is the age of retirement increases and so does pension accessibility, however assuming you work in a high paying job your entire life, your superfund will have a great amount to retire comfortably on
I think that if we take the massive segment of our population that's currently struggling to make ends meet and provide them some services one would expect in a first-world country, we'd have a whole lot more people willing to take entrepreneurial risks, revitalizing the middle class and small businesses everywhere.
Example- an engineer fresh out of university might use his education to start a lean and efficient solar power business rather than rushing to whatever shit job he can get from the local energy monopoly to service his suffocating student loan debt.
People who are scared that the elites will move their companies out of the country need to realize that America's middle class, if sufficiently-empowered, can and will drive economic growth. This is essential because a stronger middle class and the growth of small businesses will signal a major shift of wealth back into the general public and a reduction of elite influence over politics.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.