Bernie Sanders Thread

#1,226
#1,226
VolsSportsFan said:
How old are you?

And why am I not surprised you're one of the window-lickers that automatically labels anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% a "liberal"?
Click to expand...

1) 65, you?
2) Because you aren't easily surprised, I guess.

I guess you are just one of those crazy conservatives that like to bash religious people , and call them goobers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,228
#1,228
FLVOL_79 said:
Someone with a music degree with a minor in vocal harmony technically is "educated". Chances they are dumb? Good.
Click to expand...

There's way more to post-secondary education than music and art degrees. Tennessee Promise offers two years in tech schools too. I have dozens of low income kids who plan on learning a trade (mostly welding, electricity, etc.) at our local tech school.
 
#1,230
#1,230
FLVOL_79 said:
Someone with a music degree with a minor in vocal harmony technically is "educated". Chances they are dumb? Good.
Click to expand...

All I know is that whoever's responsible for what music gets produced these days is pretty damn dumb
 
#1,231
#1,231
Mtntrout said:
I don't see it as "faith," so much as a course of action worth exploring. We've been doing "trickle down" and deregulation for 15 years and don't have anything overwhelmingly positive to show for it (and some negatives). Obama didn't really do anything to change it in a meaningful way.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see proof that we've been doing deregulation for 15 years (or 20 or 50). The reality is that the regulatory framework is much more expansive in scope than at any time in history. Show me this deregulation. The only 2 examples I can think of were airlines in the 80s and telecomm in the 90s. Since that time, telecomm has been backsliding.

Likewise we haven't consistently been in trickle down mode.

Finally, the amount benefits and # of people on government benefits has been steadily increasing (with the possible exception immediately following welfare reform in the 90s).

The "glory years" of the 50s middle class was characterized by a much freer economy with significantly less regulation and significantly lower benefits. We've been on a relatively steady march of increasing regulation and direct and indirect benefit growth for the citizenry.

The only "trickle down" we've seen is changing of the tax code but I'd argue the primary effect of that is deficit/debt growth. It certainly hasn't impacted spending, the safety net, benefits, etc. Finally, people forget that the changes to the tax code of 2001 and 2003 largely reduced the tax liability of the working poor and middle class as well as the rich. A higher percentage of the population than ever has zero or negative federal income tax liability and a higher than ever percentage of federal revenue comes from a minority of tax payers. Hard to say that is trickle down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,232
#1,232
FLVOL69 said:
It doesn't matter who the GOP nominates, they're winning this election..
Click to expand...

I don't think it's so cut and dry.

The promise of "free stuff" will pull voters. All the dems have to do is hit on govt programs, warmonger republicans, and class warfare.

I personally think it's an uphill battle for republicans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,240
#1,240
Such an indictment on our country that the "top 4" candidates for the Presidecy are Clinton, Sanders, Trump, and Carson.
 
#1,244
#1,244
Lol at some of you. Yea, people with brains are butthurt. The top 0.1% in the US are worth the same as the bottom 90. That's absurd. I highly doubt anyone on this board is in the top 0.01. So you should all support a fairer system. "Trickle down" is a broken philosophy that depended on organizations distributing their greater wealth. It didn't happen. Now it's hoarded among an extremely small percentage. So yes maybe not socialism but something much farther away from what we currently have would be a far better system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#1,245
#1,245
Ttucke11 said:
Lol at some of you. Yea, people with brains are butthurt. The top 0.1% in the US are worth the same as the bottom 90. That's absurd. I highly doubt anyone on this board is in the top 0.01. So you should all support a fairer system. "Trickle down" is a broken philosophy that depended on organizations distributing their greater wealth. It didn't happen. Now it's hoarded among an extremely small percentage. So yes maybe not socialism but something much farther away from what we currently have would be a far better system.
Click to expand...

So punish the wealthy because they are wealthy? Sounds fair. How would you like it if you were part of that 1%? Would you want people saying that just because you have that kind of money that you have to share it with everyone?

A person should be able to make as much money as they want and spend it however they want. It should not have to be distributed amongst those who are less fortunate just because someone is that wealthy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,246
#1,246
Yes. I do. The difference between 2.9 billion a year and 2.1 billion means a lot less than the difference between 20 K and 35 K. If people are out and working everyday they should be fairly compensated. Do you really think billionaires deserve their money? A majority inherited It and did nothing. It's garbage. That was a stupid retort no offense
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,247
#1,247
Ttucke11 said:
Yes. I do. The difference between 2.9 billion a year and 2.1 billion means a lot less than the difference between 20 K and 35 K. If people are out and working everyday they should be fairly compensated. Do you really think billionaires deserve their money? A majority inherited It and did nothing. It's garbage. That was a stupid retort no offense
Click to expand...

Not as dumb as your comment above. Nobody is keeping you or me from going all out to earn more money. They aren't keeping you from being fairly compensated. Their wealth has nothing to do with your current financial status.

You rationalize your own greed, maybe envy, of what they have by saying they don't need it, didn't earn it, and don't deserve it.

It must be miserable to think like this. People with brains shouldn't be "butthurt". They shouldn't look for a populist Santa Claus that is going to even the scores of your envy. They should look around and see that opportunity is everywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#1,248
#1,248
Ttucke11 said:
Yes. I do. The difference between 2.9 billion a year and 2.1 billion means a lot less than the difference between 20 K and 35 K. If people are out and working everyday they should be fairly compensated. Do you really think billionaires deserve their money? A majority inherited It and did nothing. It's garbage. That was a stupid retort no offense
Click to expand...

Yes sir Mr. Stalin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,249
#1,249
Ttucke11 said:
Do you really think billionaires deserve their money? A majority inherited It and did nothing. It's garbage. That was a stupid retort no offense
Click to expand...

A - claiming that no billionaires "worked for their money" is completely false. Not every inherited their money and even if they did at some point someone worked for it and as an individual you reserve the right to pass that wealth on to your children. You should review the list.

20 Billionaires Who Started With Nothing - Business Insider

B - who the F are you to decide who deserves what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,250
#1,250
Ttucke11 said:
you should all support a fairer system. "Trickle down" is a broken philosophy that depended on organizations
Click to expand...

Cutting taxes has been proven to work time and time again. There's no tax cutting going on right now with Obama so I'm not sure what "trickle down" you are referring to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top