Bernie Sanders Thread

#1,027
#1,027
G0 BIG 0RANGE said:
I hear ya, man. Globalization has led to some incredible advancements, but many in my dad and your generation got hosed. I'm glad it has turned out better for you than for the ones I know.

I hate seeing 50-60 year old men and women in our rural and very poor county have the only thing they knew swept out from under them like that. That's a difficult age to transition to a tech job, considering many of them only had GEDs to begin with. Having to take a 50% pay cut (temp services) and try to maintain your standard of living, especially at that age, is awful. Losing their pensions only added insult to injury.

It got worse when my dad was 52, working at a boat factory for $8 an hour and no health benefits, when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Of course he couldn't afford the medical bills, but was fortunately granted early access to Medicare and disability insurance. I think after 28 years of back breaking factory work, he deserves some help.
Click to expand...
I'm only 35 :good!: In the previous post I meant your dad and my dads generation :thumbsup:
 
#1,031
#1,031
Great posts in this thread.

One thing I've wondered: why don't more community colleges and technical schools offer alternate, renewable energy programs? Seems like that's the very near future of skilled working jobs.
 
#1,032
#1,032
Kingston Vol said:
Great posts in this thread.

One thing I've wondered: why don't more community colleges and technical schools offer alternate, renewable energy programs? Seems like that's the very near future of skilled working jobs.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Most of my students who go to tech school go for welding, HVAC, electrical, or LPN programs. Of course, our tech school isn't very big, so others may offer things like that.
 
#1,033
#1,033
G0 BIG 0RANGE said:
I'm not sure. Most of my students who go to tech school go for welding, HVAC, electrical, or LPN programs. Of course, our tech school isn't very big, so others may offer things like that.
Click to expand...

Exactly - same thing here.

Just wondering how complicated/expensive he technology is at this point.
 
#1,034
#1,034
Septic said:
The specter of Trump running as an independent candidate in the general election continues to be a big potential problem for Republicans. In such a scenario Clinton leads with 38% with Bush at 28% and Trump at 27% basically tying for second place. Trump wins independents with 38% (to 28% for Clinton and 24% for Bush), takes 38% of Republicans, and 14% of Democrats.

Finally another declared independent candidate, Deez Nuts, polls at 9% in North Carolina to go along with his 8% in Minnesota and 7% in Iowa in our recent polling. Trump leads Clinton 40/38 when he's in the mix.


Trump grows lead in NC; GOP leads most match ups - Public Policy Polling
Click to expand...

yuP9n2S.jpg


Ya'll thought I was kidding.

Deez Nuts aint kidding, bringing mad heat in N.C.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,035
#1,035
Kingston Vol said:
Great posts in this thread.

One thing I've wondered: why don't more community colleges and technical schools offer alternate, renewable energy programs? Seems like that's the very near future of skilled working jobs.
Click to expand...

If there are two year degrees in electronics and stuff like that those probably would help. The problem is though in community college most of your 2 year degree is just your pre-req's for a 4 year one. A coworker got a AS in computer science, yet he didn't understand how BIOS works..or what is stood for. He basically took a bunch of pre-req's and a java programming class.

Trade schools are good though. I'm about to have a plumber replace 2 38 year old spigots on the outside of my house. That's gonna be at least $300 for the work. Last time they came it was an hour.. There is money to be made for a skilled trades-person with some integrity..or without as well. Neighbors spent $200 to have a toilet installed and they bought the toilet from Lowes. I told em I would have done it for a six pack of beer. :eek:lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,037
#1,037
Kingston Vol said:
Great posts in this thread.

One thing I've wondered: why don't more community colleges and technical schools offer alternate, renewable energy programs? Seems like that's the very near future of skilled working jobs.
Click to expand...

Kingston Vol said:
Exactly - same thing here.

Just wondering how complicated/expensive he technology is at this point.
Click to expand...

Austin Peay partnered up with Hemlock Semiconductors a few years ago in Clarksville. Hemlock has since shut down after 6 or 7 years. I had a friend I grew up with that was a welder for them. I actually done some work at AP for the building they built.

From the numbers Ive heard the cost was in the 250 million range for this outfit.
 
#1,043
#1,043
Bernie Sanders would lose to Deez Nuts all day and everyday. Just gotta make Loony Bernie flinch and victory is yours!
 
#1,045
#1,045
theFallGuy said:
.
Click to expand...

"In an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is running for the Democratic presidential candidacy, said he could back a 90 percent top marginal tax rate.

Harwood brought up that some have likened efforts to combat income inequality to Nazi Germany. Sanders noted sarcastically, “When radical, socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, I think the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent.”

Harwood followed up by asking, “When you think about something like 90 percent, you don’t think that’s obviously too high?” to which Sanders replied, “No.”

He continued, “What I think is obscene is when you have the top one-tenth of one percent owning almost as much as the bottom 90.”

Sanders is right that the top marginal tax rate, paid by the wealthiest Americans, was around 90 percent under Eisenhower — it was actually 92 percent in the 1950s. Today, the top marginal tax rate is 39.6 percent, although the richest 1 percent end up paying less than that on average and the average rate actually fell for many years.

Republicans have consistently claimed that higher tax rates on the wealthy will hold back economic growth, while lowering rates further will spur it forward.

But that’s not likely the case. Last year, economists found that the point at which the top tax rate is high enough to maximize government revenues but not so high that it discourages the rich from trying to earn more is quite high: about 95 percent for the 1 percent. History bears that out.

Economists have pointed out that post-war American growth has been higher during periods with much higher top marginal tax rates and lower when tax rates were substantially lower. When the top rate was more than 90 percent in the 50s, economic growth averaged more than 4 percent a year. But recently when the top rate has been closer to 35 percent, growth has been less than 2 percent a year on average.

The point of higher tax rates isn’t just to penalize the rich, of course. They would need to serve a policy function. For Sanders, that’s combatting income inequality. “If you have seen a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top tenth of one percent, you’ve got to transfer that back,” he told Harwood.

A 90 percent top tax rate could achieve that goal. The same economists who found that the rich can swallow a 95 percent rate also found that a 90 percent tax rate for the 1 percent could significantly reduce the Gini index, a measure of income inequality.

It would also help lower wealth inequality. Meanwhile, everyone’s wellbeing would improve, rich and poor alike."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,046
#1,046
A 90 percent top marginal tax rate doesn’t mean that if you make $450,000, you are going to pay $405,000 in federal income taxes. Americans have a well-documented trouble understanding the notion of marginal tax rates. The marginal tax rate is the amount you pay on your income above a certain amount. Right now, you pay the top marginal tax rate on every dollar you earn over $406,750. So if you make $450,000, you only pay the top rate on your final $43,250 in income.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,047
#1,047
G0 BIG 0RANGE said:
A 90 percent top marginal tax rate doesn’t mean that if you make $450,000, you are going to pay $405,000 in federal income taxes. Americans have a well-documented trouble understanding the notion of marginal tax rates. The marginal tax rate is the amount you pay on your income above a certain amount. Right now, you pay the top marginal tax rate on every dollar you earn over $406,750. So if you make $450,000, you only pay the top rate on your final $43,250 in income.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely stealing...
 
#1,048
#1,048
I find it humorous when our politicians talk about income inequality and tax raising (on anyone) given their spending habits and budget funnies.
 
#1,049
#1,049
This rate was for those earning $400,000 a year in 1950, so a return to this rate would likely be for individuals making 4-5 million a year in today's dollars.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top