He will retire to his “Dacha on the Volga”. Originally Posted by Jackie SWell, he has a HUGE lead in California. Dems a lot of delegates!!!!!!!
there's an assumption that taxes will skyrocket if Bernie gets in.. they will go up sharply, for the very wealthy, but that's all.Two fallacies in that argument in the end.
these faux-deficit worriers don't seem to realize that Trump's deficit has exploded. but like Republicans historically, it's ok if military spending receives a huge increase, while social programs are slashed. Originally Posted by Chung Tran
there's an assumption that taxes will skyrocket if Bernie gets in.. they will go up sharply, for the very wealthy, but that's all.
these faux-deficit worriers don't seem to realize that Trump's deficit has exploded. but like Republicans historically, it's ok if military spending receives a huge increase, while social programs are slashed. Originally Posted by Chung Tran
Two fallacies in that argument in the end.
1. Bernie is supposedly an avowed socialist and his end result is a socialist United States. Why would anyone want someone with that bent as their POTUS.
2. And while Trump's deficit has exploded to a degree, its' far less than the damage that will happen with an avowed socialist at the wheel. Originally Posted by eccielover
By definition, a socialist must want common ownership of the means of production. Is that part of Bernie's policy or has he stated that explicitly? Not that I am aware of. He seems to be more for the evenly weighted "mixed" economy... Part capitalism, part socialism. A "new dealer" as Chomsky says...
Noam Chomsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btJfkPBLULg
you should delete your post before ecky9.5k sees it or he'll want to "hook up" with you.
Noam Chomsky is a socialist asshole.
Currently, the economy seems to be capitalism heavy. The working class is clearly lagging behind. We already depend on many "social" programs already... Is it that "radical" to suggest adding a few more?
Historically, the Republican party always seems to raise our Deficit followed by the Dems who come in and level it back down. I'm still not seeing what horribly things people think are going to happen. People give too much credit to what changes a POTUS will make. I would like to see someone backup their fears by actually stating what horrible things Bernie has done in his long history in politics. Has he been waiting all this time to make his move.
bullshit! the Democrats have always been the "tax and overspend" party. the Republicans gave up their fiscal conservatism because the Democrats pushed forward massive social programs when they had the majority so the Republicans decided to take advantage of fiat currency and as long as they got their programs they allowed the Democrats to get theirs. the single biggest mistake the Republicans ever made and the Nation is worse off for it. they should have dug in and fought tooth and nail against it.
It's fine for the POTUS to play with the deficit if it helps the economy but I would argue not when all we get is temporary tax cuts. They have cut taxes and increased spending. Ok... Now they are are considering cutting spending and I wonder what they will cut? My guess is social programs that people depend on.
Tracking the deficit... Currently projected to hit 1 trillion for 2020 :
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/ Originally Posted by aircave
I am not going to bash Chung Tran, but I believe you are being extremely naïve if you really think that only the "very wealthy" will be taxed heavily if Sanders is POTUS.
I had to write a long paper in undergrad for an econ class. It was about welfare states. Anyway, to get right to the point, I focused on Sweden as being one of them. I believe in racial equality, but I do not believe in wealth distribution equality. I don't want to pay for people who didn't bust their ass like I did to make a nice living so yeah, fuck Bernie Sanders because his views are the complete opposite of mine when it comes to welfare. Originally Posted by Lucas McCain
two questions for you.
what party did the person who sponsored the balanced budget act of 1997 belong to?
John R. Kaisch, Republican.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
Well I really have to disagree with you on that last sentence. The first year of a presidents office should absolutely not be placed on them.
what party did the president who oversaw the greatest single increase in debt in US history as president belong to?
Barack H. Obama, Democrat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanc...et_Act_of_1997
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-b...ercent-3306296
Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion, a 74% increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.
.....Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
- FY 2009 - $253 billion. Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009.9
This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.