Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vince44

Bernie vs Cruz: CNN debate night!

Recommended Posts

Cruz is going to stomp his guts. There's a reason he's never lost in front of SCOTUS, and is a debate champion.

 

All Bernie will have is his silly appeals to emotion, while avoiding explaining how he could simultaneously claim that the Government is corrupt while lauding giving more of American's tax money to the Government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand these things. I mean, what is the point?

 

At least in Presidential / Party Primaries and stuff, there's a point. - Sort of.

But HRC clearly owned Trump - and that did no good.

 

(Not going to debate that)

 

But something like this? There's no winner or loser, no legislation at stake. It's two dudes spouting their ideas about what'd be nice to have if they ever became POTUS - which they wont - so what's the point?

 

I like to think I'm pretty much a news/poli junkie and even I wouldn't waste time on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather wait for the next pick in the video game draft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People watch this kind of stuff?

On this bored...you seriously are asking this question...I mean seriously.

 

One doucher was gonna watch CNN all day cause of some big thing that was gonna happen with Hillary that never happened...ALL DAY He said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather watch supermike post multiple times about things he doesn't care about

Hey how come everyone else can do it but I can't? Thats not fair!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why Bernie's doing this. Public is overwhelmingly against the plan so what's there to gain? Just don't take your foot off the pedal I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why Bernie's doing this. Public is overwhelmingly against the plan so what's there to gain? Just don't take your foot off the pedal I guess.

Except the public isn't against it only the polls that had Hillary winning by a landslide are against it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the public isn't against it only the polls that had Hillary winning by a landslide are against it

Maybe, but I doubt it.

 

When the administration had to admit that many middle class people may see their taxes increase under the plan, I think that was pretty much the end.

 

'Course I'm sure they'll change that and toss the middle class a tiny little carrot while the mega wealthy make out like focking bandits. That's what they always do.

 

Meanwhile the deficit focking explodes. I'm sure all you "fiscal conservatives" will be real mad about that, right? Right??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but I doubt it.

When the administration had to admit that many middle class people may see their taxes increase under the plan, I think that was pretty much the end.

'Course I'm sure they'll change that and toss the middle class a tiny little carrot while the mega wealthy make out like focking bandits. That's what they always do.

Meanwhile the deficit focking explodes. I'm sure all you "fiscal conservatives" will be real mad about that, right? Right??

When did a notable Federal tax cut result in a reduction of money to the Treasury?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but I doubt it.

 

When the administration had to admit that many middle class people may see their taxes increase under the plan, I think that was pretty much the end.

 

'Course I'm sure they'll change that and toss the middle class a tiny little carrot while the mega wealthy make out like focking bandits. That's what they always do.

 

Meanwhile the deficit focking explodes. I'm sure all you "fiscal conservatives" will be real mad about that, right? Right??

The top 20% of the people pay 80% of the taxes they deserve a break. Guess what when I went from making 100k a yr to over 200 I strangely didn't have more money. I bought a nicer house and 2 nicer cars. I put more in the bank I take my family out two or three nights a week. I worked hard to get where we are for my family and my family only. Not to give more to the lazy peons. I went from paying about 22k a yr to over 48k now

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top 20% of the people pay 80% of the taxes they deserve a break. Guess what when I went from making 100k a yr to over 200 I strangely didn't have more money. I bought a nicer house and 2 nicer cars. I put more in the bank I take my family out two or three nights a week. I worked hard to get where we are for my family and my family only. Not to give more to the lazy peons. I went from paying about 22k a yr to over 48k now

Knowing this, I have even more respect for you taking over my floundering team in the low-rent Dienasty Dynasty League. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top 20% of the people pay 80% of the taxes they deserve a break.

 

The top 10% own 76% of the wealth.. they don't need a break

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top 10% own 76% of the wealth.. they don't need a break

They also don't need to make sure that 50% of the folks have no skin in the game when it comes to paying taxes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top 10% own 76% of the wealth.. they don't need a break

I understand why you say that, but this system of increasingly progressive taxation is creating this result. It slides economic participation continually higher up the food chain, and entrenches lawmakers with producers, so that they do their bidding more and more.

 

You may ask: why would a large corporation want really complicated tax rules?

 

A: so only they can afford to navigate such costs. They lose competition; gain market share, and charge more.

 

You lose.

 

Those who have been given influence over politicians don't care what level of taxation they pay; they can make it up with favorable policy.

 

That's what cronyism is. Have you noticed that we have been on a decades-long trend where the top X% is paying an increasingly higher percentage of total taxes collected?

 

Yet: the economic dysfunction befalling the middle class is worsening, and has been, along that exact same time-line.

 

This is as a result of three things:

 

1. (Neo)Keynesian monetarism. Instead of pursuing Hayak's vision of monetary policy, we pursued John Maynard Keynes' ideology. That results in currency expansion to create 'controlled' inflationary growth. The result: those with no money invested lose 4% of their buying power every year, and cannot catch up. This system is harmful to lower classes. The rest must keep their money in investment (risk) vehicles, to avoid falling behind themselves. This, naturally, creates economic expansion, but it's hyper stimulated (hence: Boom/Bust). It also inflates our costs above rival economic powers globally, and forces companies which would otherwise operate domestically to become multi-national.

 

2. High Corporate Taxation. This should be self-explanatory, but I suspect it isn't for many. If our companies paid no corporate tax, only the employees would (which is, IMO, how it should be). Taxes are simply fixed costs on business, having to be covered by the costs of goods/services they provide. It is not just the raw tax which must be covered, by the costs of the accountants/tax and regulatory specialists which must be covered. This, too, is cronyist: it favors huge companies, who strangle out smaller competition which cannot afford such tax avoidance/minimiziation maneuvers.

 

Particularly things like locating HQs in Ireland, which Johnson Controls (ie) did. Think about why, and what about high corporate taxation is useful to this country (it isn't: we lose companies like the above, and everyone pays more for their goods and services regardless). The most goods and services cost, the more it harms those whose incomes go more for staples than others (again: the poor). This means even less money is set aside for investment, slowing the mobility of lower classes into the upper classes - not to mention the effect on employment: not only in the raw employment %age, but in the amount PER JOB which is earned.

 

3. Progressive Taxation. Most on the left think that this is helpful to the rest of society, but it is not. It promotes cronyism, and incites companies and the wealthy to further take advantage of lobbying to gain advantage and avoidance. It is directly inflationary. One of the effects is things like hyper-expansion of compensation packages of people like CEOs. Even athletes.

 

If those who favor increasing the rate at which we shift the tax burden to the wealthy understood any of this, they would not believe as they have.

 

But they'll never acknowledge the connections; too many of them are addicted to the notion of class envy, and that manifests in hating "the rich", and wanting to soak them even more. Their wishes create exactly the opposite outcome of the intention - just like Government entitlement programs have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did a notable Federal tax cut result in a reduction of money to the Treasury?

I guess you probably want to play some semantics game or something now?

 

Reagan tax cuts in the 80s and Ws tax cuts both blew up the deficit. Hell, Reagan basically invented the debt with his tax cuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top 20% of the people pay 80% of the taxes they deserve a break. Guess what when I went from making 100k a yr to over 200 I strangely didn't have more money. I bought a nicer house and 2 nicer cars. I put more in the bank I take my family out two or three nights a week. I worked hard to get where we are for my family and my family only. Not to give more to the lazy peons. I went from paying about 22k a yr to over 48k now

You make more money now so you pay more taxes? Wow, that's crazy! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you probably want to play some semantics game or something now?

Reagan tax cuts in the 80s and Ws tax cuts both blew up the deficit. Hell, Reagan basically invented the debt with his tax cuts

There is nothing "semantics" about what I stated. If a tax cut doesn't have the effect of reducing the amount of money the Government collects, then the deficit didn't increase because tax collections cratered, but because the Government SPENT TOO DAMNED MUCH.

 

Clearly, therefore, revenue and spending metrics are influenced by two different variables. One can increase tax collections, but STILL increase the deficit by spending even more.

 

Is that difficult for you to grasp? If not: demonstrate it. Answer the question I asked you. With numbers and sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing "semantics" about what I stated. If a tax cut doesn't have the effect of reducing the amount of money the Government collects, then the deficit didn't increase because tax collections cratered, but because the Government SPENT TOO DAMNED MUCH.

 

Clearly, therefore, revenue and spending metrics are influenced by two different variables. One can increase tax collections, but STILL increase the deficit by spending even more.

 

Is that difficult for you to grasp? If not: demonstrate it. Answer the question I asked you. With numbers and sources.

That's okay, you can live in your fantasy land where cutting the amount of money you bring in DOESN'T create a deficit. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of math knows you are wrong :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruz must have the most punchable face in Washington.

Why don't you share your picture here? I bet your face is10x more punchable than Cruz on his worst day. Now go get the coffee ready sweetie.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's okay, you can live in your fantasy land where cutting the amount of money you bring in DOESN'T create a deficit. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of math knows you are wrong :thumbsup:

I'm asking you to demonstrate where a tax cut in our country's history actually reduced the amount of money that was brought in.

 

But you refuse to support your assertion.

 

I'm very confident that our brief exchange illustrates that you are avoiding addressing what I'm saying.

 

The next thing to then consider is why you need to protect your belief system if it cannot endure a simple question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm asking you to demonstrate where a tax cut in our country's history actually reduced the amount of money that was brought in.

 

But you refuse to support your assertion.

 

I'm very confident that our brief exchange views that you are avoiding addressing what I'm saying.

 

The next thing to then consider is why you need to protect your belief system if it cannot endure a simple question.

No I'm just not interested in playing this game. I know you just want to peddle some bullsh1t right wing talking points that basically no one ACTUALLY believes - that somehow cutting taxes will actually magically resort in MORE money brought in :o and it won't increase the deficit at all!! :o

 

Everyone who is too old to believe in fairies and Santa Clause knows that sh1t is too good to be true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict that Worms - if he even bothers to answer the question at all - will attempt to claim that revenues went down as a result of tax cuts with charts that compare tax revenues only as a portion of GDP.

 

It is only using that tactic that the leftist can even come close to supporting their claim, but it is 100% dishonest.

 

GDP is comprised both of economic activity and deficit spending. Thus: if deficit spending outpaces revenue collections, the ratio of revenue collections to total GDP will actually appear to decline.

 

That is absolutely a dishonest characterization, invented by those whose goal isn't honesty, but to continue the path to soak the taxpayer with continually higher taxes.

 

This is what we face, everyone. Liars.

 

Worms can demonstrate that he is not one of those. All it takes is some sourceable material that demonstrates that cutting taxes on American companies and the American people results in cratering revenue collection, instead of what I assert it does: promote economic activity which results in MORE revenue, AND a wealthier individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'm just not interested in playing this game. I know you just want to peddle some bullsh1t right wing talking points that basically no one ACTUALLY believes - that somehow cutting taxes will actually magically resort in MORE money brought in :o and it won't increase the deficit at all!! :o

Everyone who is too old to believe in fairies and Santa Clause knows that sh1t is too good to be true

You're not interested in "playing that game" because you know your claim is bullsht. But you are clearly still here, trying to stamp out this challenge to your silly notions.

 

But how strong could your position possibly be, if you are simply punting when asked to provide simple evidence of your claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×