Bernie-mania running wild as Hillary Clinton sputters

[edjr 6,898]

BERNIE, BERNIE, BERNIE!!

 

 

 

PORTLAND, Maine — Bernie-mania swept through here last night, as more than 7,500 screaming, sign-waving supporters packed a downtown arena — many lining up hours early — for surging Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The outpouring came as a Bay State Democratic congressman warned one-time sure-shot Hillary Clinton has an “excitement problem” in the Democratic race for the White House.

“In case you didn’t notice, this is a big turnout,” Sanders told the cheering crowd at Cross Insurance Arena. “From Maine to California — we have friends from Alaska and Hawaii as well — the American people understand that establishment politics and establishment economics is not working for America.”

The rally started 20 minutes late so the people stuck in line outside could filter in, and nearly every seat was filled. Some supporters waved homemade signs, including one that read “#Bern Baby Bern” and “Feel the Bern.”

“We love you,” one woman shouted toward the end of Sanders’ speech.

Thousands more watched a YouTube live stream of the rally on the campaign’s website.

“Hillary is not bad. It’s just, we all know she is having an excitement problem. We all know that. It’s not a secret,”

U.S. Rep. Michael E. Capuano said in a Boston Herald Radio interview yesterday. “Everybody wants to fall in love with the perfect candidate. Everybody wants that. So do I. Who doesn’t?”

Capuano said it’s still a “longshot” that Sanders could knock off Clinton, but admitted the Vermont senator’s popularity is hard to ignore.

“Especially if you share a fair number of his values, he’s a pretty exciting guy,” said Capuano. “He’s a street fighter. He’s been a real mayor. He’s always been on the outside looking in as far as establishment politics goes. So I think on some levels, he’s lighting it up pretty good.”

Sanders drew nearly 10,000 people at a rally in Wisconsin last week and polls have shown him closing the gap with Clinton, once seen as the automatic Democratic nominee.

The Vermont senator’s supporters, who lined up as early as 3 1⁄2 hours ahead of time, touted his straight-shooting middle-class pitch and labeled Clinton as out of touch.

“I don’t think she’s my voice anymore — I was hoping she would be,” said Rich Stafford of Salem, Mass. “She’s just too tied into corporate America, too tied in with the banking system, millionaires and billionaires. Her husband’s getting $500,000 to give a speech. How many Americans are in that category?”

John Wibby of South Portland said even if Clinton starts talking about the progressive issues Sanders has been championing, he can’t trust her.

“She seems really not that genuine to me,” said Wibby. “She seems to flip-flop a lot on the issues.”

But members of the Bay State delegation backing Clinton dismissed she’s struggling to get voters — or activists or donors. U.S. Rep. Niki Tsongas pointed to a packed Provincetown fundraiser she attended last month for the former first lady.

 

 

ANYTHING to keep Hillary off the Iron Throne.

 

 

Paul vs Sanders would get me very interested and maybe even register to vote.

[hoytdwow 202]

 

 

Paul vs Sanders would get me very interested and maybe even register to vote.

I find myself on a strange continuum between Paul and Sanders. I like a lot of both of their platforms, but neither in its entirety.

[edjr 6,898]

I find myself on a strange continuum between Paul and Sanders. I like a lot of both of their platforms, but neither in its entirety.

 

Isn't that what we need? 2 people that actually stand for something true and not just something they spew to get votes?

 

When was the last time we had 2 true candidates that weren't just saying what they think we want to hear?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

[KSB2424 3,174]

edjr, do you know anything about Bernie? I didn't, he intrigued me, so I googled. What I found was scary. He's more left on the political Spectrum than any candidate in 40 years. He's left of Obama, Hillary, all of them. He doesn't shy away from the "Socialist" tag, in fact he embraces it. It's what he wants. Which is fine, if that's what you want, but I'm just saying.

 

Bernie's surge is an indication that the Democratic Party is doing what the GOP did a decade or so ago. They are going even further to the fringes. The Democratic Party is moving further away from the middle, way further. Here's a good Politico article about what I'm speaking of:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-socialist-surge-119785.html

 

No one asked Bernie Sanders what he thought about the Greek referendum on Sunday, but he shared his thoughts anyway.

“I applaud the people of Greece for saying ‘no’ to more austerity for the poor, the children, the sick and the elderly,” Sanders said in welcoming Sunday’s vote, even as it rattled world markets and provoked predictions of economic doom. The statement didn’t just align Sanders with left-wing Europeans; it aligned him with lefter-wing Greek socialists who are too radical for some of those left-wing Europeans.

Story Continued Below

Democratic primaries have always featured liberal insurgent candidates, but perhaps none quite so liberal or insurgent as the socialist senator from Vermont. Sanders’ comments are a reminder of just how far the second-place Democratic presidential candidate stands from the American mainstream on some issues, and the looming reckoning Democrats face with their party’s leftward drift.

Never mind whether Sanders can crack 40 percent in any primary against Hillary Clinton — he has already established himself as her de facto challenger and a standard-bearer of a party that was, until this year, too far to the right for his liking.

 

“When I hear Bernie talk I’m almost inclined to accuse him of plagiarizing me,” said Ralph Nader, the left-wing gadfly whose third-party bid many Democrats still blame for swinging the 2000 election to George W. Bush.

Nader’s kinship with Sanders is yet another sign that the Democratic Party’s goal posts have moved left. The percentage of Democrats who identify as socially and economically liberal has increased 17 points since 2001, according to a recent Gallup poll. And the party’s restive liberal base — led in recent years by progressive icon Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren — has pushed the party establishment on social issues like same-sex marriage and populist economic ones like equal pay and paid sick leave. Republicans, at least, are betting that broad swaths of the electorate have been left behind.

“Look, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and the other Democrats in D.C., they’re for socialism. They just — they’re not as honest as Bernie is,” said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show last week. “Did you honestly believe we would live to see the day when a guy, an honest-to-goodness socialist, is running for president and doing — he got 10,000 people in Wisconsin to come hear him speak, he’s gaining on Hillary in the polls? This shows you how radical the Democratic Party is.”

In Wisconsin, where Sanders appeared last week before a progressive throng in Madison, the state Republican Party put up billboards featuring Sanders and Clinton riding together on a moped with the words “Left and Lefter” and “extreme policies.” Shortly before Sanders’ speech, Gov. Scott Walker took the unusual step of criticizing the long-shot Sanders, saying his approach is in “stark opposition to most Americans.”

It’s usually Democrats who play this game — as they did with Republican challengers to Mitt Romney in 2012, or with fringe characters like Todd Aiken. Now, it’s Republicans seeking to use the Sanders surge to portray Democrats as radical and out of touch. And that’s making many Democrats nervous, said Joe Trippi, who ran Vermonter Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004.

 

“We can’t lose the presidency. We can’t take a risk by nominating somebody outside the comfort zone. That’s what’s driving the inevitable-ness” of Clinton, said Trippi, speaking about the party establishment’s thinking.

Sanders is unlikely to tone it down for the long-term good of his newly adopted party.

 

“Bernie is saying what he believes. He’s unlikely to run for president again, and this is his shot … This is as unfiltered and as clear as it comes,” said liberal labor economist Robert Reich, who compared Sanders to past Democratic candidates like Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern.But Sanders comes from an even more radical milieu than those left-wing insurgents of the 1960s and 70s.

As mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in the 1980s, Sanders visited Nicaragua in solidarity with its socialist Sandinista regime and later honeymooned in the Soviet Union, where he established a sister-city relationship with the community of Yaroslavl. In the mid-1960s, when Clinton was calling herself a “Goldwater girl,” Sanders spent time on a kibbutz in Israel.

 

“I think he’s the most leftist, and I think he is the greatest megaphone for leftist dissent” since Henry Wallace in 1948, said Doug Wilson, who served as deputy campaign manager for Gary Hart in 1984, who challenged establishment front-runner Walter Mondale. (Wilson and Hart are backing former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley in the Democratic primary.)

And Sanders has long been unabashed about his socialist beliefs. “Nobody should earn more than $1 million,” he told the Burlington Free Press in 1974.

“I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves,” he wrote in 1976.

While statements like these might be a skeleton in another candidate’s closet, Sanders has never renounced socialism, even if his brand of it has become more moderate. “Do they think I’m afraid of the word? I’m not afraid of the word,” Sanders said of the term “socialist” in an interview with The Nation on Monday.

 

Sanders — pointing to high approval numbers for a higher minimum wage, pay equity for women and other issues — often argues his agenda is mainstream. “It is not a radical agenda,” he said at a breakfast for reporters last month. “In virtually every instance, what I’m saying is supported by a significant majority of the American people.”

“I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves,” Bernie Sanders wrote in 1976. | AP Photo

Still, many of his most important positions today fall well outside the traditional parameters that have bounded American political discourse in recent decades. He wants to raise the marginal tax rate for top earners to more than 50 percent — which would be the highest rate in 30 years and is more than 10 points higher than Barack Obama proposed as a candidate in 2007. He says he would replace the Affordable Care Act — perhaps Obama’s signature accomplishment in office and a prized victory for Democrats — with a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system, a position that was too liberal for Dean when he was governor of Vermont. (Sanders’ standard Obamacare line is to quickly laud its “modest gains” but quickly say it isn’t enough.)

He has called for free tuition at four-year public colleges and universities and introduced legislation that would break up banks like Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. He said this weekend that he’d consider left-wing New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for his Cabinet.

But if all of that goes too far for the general American public, much of the Democratic Party is right there with him. “He’s not in the mainstream of the Democratic apparatchiks and the paymasters,” said Nader, “but look at where he polls on breaking up the big banks, on opposing trade dictatorships.”

 

 

[parrot 789]

He's more left on the political Spectrum than any candidate in 40 years. He's left of Obama, Hillary, all of them. He doesn't shy away from the "Socialist" tag, in fact he embraces it. It's what he wants.

 

Pretty funny to see Sanders gaining traction while Hilary is all the GOP talk about. Sanders really is everything they would have us believe Obama and Hilary are.

[KSB2424 3,174]

 

Pretty funny to see Sanders gaining traction while Hilary is all the GOP talk about. Sanders really is everything they would have us believe Obama and Hilary are.

 

Exactly, sort of my point. Any Blue Dog Democrat or "Independent", if they did their homework would vote for Hillary over Bernie. Hillary has her baggage, which is why some want "anybody else", but Bernie is left of the left. I guess what I'm saying is people need to do their homework and not just go on names.

[edjr 6,898]

edjr, do you know anything about Bernie? I didn't, he intrigued me, so I googled. What I found was scary. He's more left on the political Spectrum than any candidate in 40 years. He's left of Obama, Hillary, all of them. He doesn't shy away from the "Socialist" tag, in fact he embraces it. It's what he wants. Which is fine, if that's what you want, but I'm just saying.

 

Bernie's surge is an indication that the Democratic Party is doing what the GOP did a decade or so ago. They are going even further to the fringes. The Democratic Party is moving further away from the middle, way further. Here's a good Politico article about what I'm speaking of:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-socialist-surge-119785.html

 

I didn't say I wanted him as president, did I?

 

I specifically said anything to keep Hillary off the Iron Throne.

 

If it is really Paul vs Sanders, I think paul would win and that is who I want.

 

NO candidate is perfect, EVERY candidate has Smegma on them if you look under their balls, especially Hillary.,

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

Taxing the rich at the same rate as the rest of us is considered far left wing now? Not wanting college to cost as much as a house is far left wing? Tax credits for working families for child care, making sure social security is protected is far left wing? Talk about moving the goal posts.

[parrot 789]

 

I didn't say I wanted him as president, did I?

 

I specifically said anything to keep Hillary off the Iron Throne.

 

If it is really Paul vs Sanders, I think paul would win and that is who I want.

 

NO candidate is perfect, EVERY candidate has Smegma on them if you look under their balls, especially Hillary.,

 

How would Hilary be worse than Sanders?

[edjr 6,898]

Taxing the rich at the same rate as the rest of us is considered far left wing now? Not wanting college to cost as much as a house is far left wing? Tax credits for working families for child care, making sure social security is protected is far left wing? Talk about moving the goal posts.

 

The GOP spin machine is working HARD to make sure there is not another D in the office.

 

Isn't Sanders actually a independent? The only one in the house?

[edjr 6,898]

 

How would Hilary be worse than Sanders?

 

It's just time to move on. Can we please not have a Clinton or Bush in the white house, ever again?

[KSB2424 3,174]

 

I didn't say I wanted him as president, did I?

 

 

 

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying. Similar to if a NewbieJr would love it if a Donald Trump or a Mike Huckabee won the GOP nominaiton you think the same of Bernie. As in it would be an easier defeat for your man Rand Paul.

 

So you don't neccessarily like Bernie, you just think he is a weak POTUS canidate so you hope he wins the Dem nod?

[edjr 6,898]

 

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying. Similar to if a NewbieJr would love it if a Donald Trump or a Mike Huckabee won the GOP nominaiton you think the same of Bernie. As in it would be an easier defeat for your man Rand Paul.

 

So you don't neccessarily like Bernie, you just think he is a weak POTUS canidate so you hope he wins the Dem nod?

 

I like Bernie better than Hillary and I do agree with him on what MB stated.

Taxing the rich at the same rate as the rest of us is considered far left wing now? Not wanting college to cost as much as a house is far left wing? Tax credits for working families for child care, making sure social security is protected is far left wing?

 

 

Everytime I see him on Maher's show I like him. I'd prefer him over Hillary as a concellation prize.

[MDC 7,894]

My wife is significantly to the left of me and much more engaged in national politics. About a month or so ago I told her I would probably vote 3rd party or not vote if the election were Jeb vs. Hillary and she asked why, with the Supreme Court at stake etc. I told her there would be really no functional difference at all between a President Jeb vs. a President Hillary. Because the two of them are so close on just about every major issue, they'd be reduced to arguing over things like gay marriage and abortion rights.

 

These are issues I care about, but I don't believe there would be any real difference between either candidate on the big questions: How do we strike the right balance between being pro-business and protecting consumers and employees? What are the reasonable limits of the government's ability to stall class disparity and improve conditions for people in poverty? What is the US's ideal role in the world? How do we approach counter-terrorism?

 

I do not for a second believe that Jeb or Hillary want to talk about these issues, because there is so little difference between them and the Dem. / Rep. party on these issues other than the way they spin it.

 

So it's for this reason why I'd LOVE a Rand Paul / Bernie Sanders standoff. I think they either agree or are close enough on the "window dressing" issues like abortion, gay rights, drug rights, etc. where we wouldn't have to listen to two people quibble about relatively minor social stuff. But they are WORLDS apart on the big ticket questions above and it would offer voters a real honest choice between two starkly different worldviews for the first time in a while.

 

Unfortunately the Dems will do to Sanders exactly what the Reps will do to Rand: They'll write him off as crazy, radical, unhinged and warn the country club base that nominating him would be general election suicide. So we'll be choosing between two milquetoasts and/or voting for the lesser of two evils again.

[KSB2424 3,174]

Taxing the rich at the same rate as the rest of us is considered far left wing now? Not wanting college to cost as much as a house is far left wing? Tax credits for working families for child care, making sure social security is protected is far left wing? Talk about moving the goal posts.

 

The Rich pay the most taxes in this country, that cannot be refuted. And I'm okay with that. But we can stop with the rhetoric.

 

Bernie doesn't want college costs to stop rising....he wants FREE college for all. As a father of two boys that sounds great....but my brain asks (ummmm....who the hell is going to pay for that, aint nothing free).

 

Look, every canidate has one or two good ideas.....if I could pick and choose one or two from every canidate we'd have the perfect one, like Voltron.

 

But you can't do that....the fact remains that Bernie is far left on the political specturm overall. He doesn't shy away from that. And if that is your thing, then he is your man. I'm just saying that people need to know that going in is all.

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

 

The Rich pay the most taxes in this country, that cannot be refuted. And I'm okay with that. But we can stop with the rhetoric.

 

Bernie doesn't want college costs to stop rising....he wants FREE college for all. As a father of two boys that sounds great....but my brain asks (ummmm....who the hell is going to pay for that, aint nothing free).

 

Look, every canidate has one or two good ideas.....if I could pick and choose one or two from every canidate we'd have the perfect one, like Voltron.

 

But you can't do that....the fact remains that Bernie is far left on the political specturm overall. He doesn't shy away from that. And if that is your thing, then he is your man. I'm just saying that people need to know that going in is all.

He wants free public education college tuition, not all colleges. If you think that saddling the younger generation with massive amounts of debt doesn't cost us all you're sadly mistaken. Kid gets a loan on an overinflated education and pays the bank back for 10 years instead of spending that money or buying your house. Yay banks!

[edjr 6,898]

He wants free public education college tuition, not all colleges. If you think that saddling the younger generation with massive amounts of debt doesn't cost us all you're sadly mistaken. Kid gets a loan on an overinflated education and pays the bank back for 10 years instead of spending that money or buying your house. Yay banks!

 

 

if you get a loan today for 200,000 to buy a house, in 30 years you'd have paid over 400,000. (including taxes)

 

Insanity as well

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

 

The Rich pay the most taxes in this country, that cannot be refuted. And I'm okay with that. But we can stop with the rhetoric.

 

Bernie doesn't want college costs to stop rising....he wants FREE college for all. As a father of two boys that sounds great....but my brain asks (ummmm....who the hell is going to pay for that, aint nothing free).

 

Look, every canidate has one or two good ideas.....if I could pick and choose one or two from every canidate we'd have the perfect one, like Voltron.

 

But you can't do that....the fact remains that Bernie is far left on the political specturm overall. He doesn't shy away from that. And if that is your thing, then he is your man. I'm just saying that people need to know that going in is all.

The rich pay a much lower percentage of their income to taxes than the rest of us. It's called capital gains, and it's a flat 15%. Why don't I get that rate, or you? Because we didn't write the tax laws, the rich do, that's why. And let's not forget carried interest.

[KSB2424 3,174]

He wants free public education college tuition, not all colleges. If you think that saddling the younger generation with massive amounts of debt doesn't cost us all you're sadly mistaken. Kid gets a loan on an overinflated education and pays the bank back for 10 years instead of spending that money or buying your house. Yay banks!

 

Free tuition, free anything sounds great. The fact remains, nothing is free though MB. There are two sides of a ledger, the debits and the credits. When speaking of something being "free" it's disenginous to not talk about both sides of the ledger.

 

I want free stuff too man. :standswithhandout:

 

Greek residents got alot of free stuff......but there is always a cost.

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

 

 

if you get a loan today for 200,000 to buy a house, in 30 years you'd have paid over 400,000. (including taxes)

 

Insanity as well

Yes, but at least you had a roof over your head and own it at the end. Beats paying a ton of money for a diploma that may get you a job. Unless it can be outsourced to India, where the college education is free.

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

 

Free tuition, free anything sounds great. The fact remains, nothing is free though MB. There are two sides of a ledger, the debits and the credits. When speaking of something being "free" it's disenginous to not talk about both sides of the ledger.

 

I want free stuff too man. :standswithhandout:

 

Greek residents got alot of free stuff......but there is always a cost.

The banks and Wall Street get more free stuff than all of us. Let's start with cutting them off from the public trough.

[KSB2424 3,174]

The rich pay a much lower percentage of their income to taxes than the rest of us. It's called capital gains, and it's a flat 15%. Why don't I get that rate, or you? Because we didn't write the tax laws, the rich do, that's why. And let's not forget carried interest.

 

A. Capital Gains jumps to 20% at like 400k or something close. So its not flat.

 

B. I'm okay with a progressive tax code, where the rich pay most, the middle pay some, and the poor pay none. And well that's sort of what we have now MB. If you want to raise Capital Gains a bit (5 more percent) then fine, whatever. Some people are okay with that. Bernie wants to people to pay over 50% tax rates, he is on record to say NOBODY should make more than a million dollars. I'm sorry, that is just way to liberal for me. This is America afterall. I'm okay with some stuff, but not chaning who we are.

[edjr 6,898]

When we get paid, we pay a federal tax, a state tax and for all the other bullchit?

 

Then we go to buy something and we pay MORE taxes? We sell something that we bought with our taxed money and then we have to pay MORE taxes?

 

WHat the fock? Shouldn't OUR money that we earn just be taxed ONCE? Isn't that enough for fock sakes?

 

by the time we are done paying taxes, some of us are out 40 focking %

[KSB2424 3,174]

When we get paid, we pay a federal tax, a state tax and for all the other bullchit?

 

Then we go to buy something and we pay MORE taxes? We sell something that we bought with our taxed money and then we have to pay MORE taxes?

 

WHat the fock? Shouldn't OUR money that we earn just be taxed ONCE? Isn't that enough for fock sakes?

 

by the time we are done paying taxes, some of us are out 40 focking %

 

edjr, you are all over the place. You want your cake and eat it too. In one post you want free college, then in the next you complain about paying taxes. How do you think this all works?

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

 

A. Capital Gains jumps to 20% at like 400k or something close. So its not flat.

 

B. I'm okay with a progressive tax code, where the rich pay most, the middle pay some, and the poor pay none. And well that's sort of what we have now MB. If you want to raise Capital Gains a bit (5 more percent) then fine, whatever. Some people are okay with that. Bernie wants to people to pay over 50% tax rates, he is on record to say NOBODY should make more than a million dollars. I'm sorry, that is just way to liberal for me. This is America afterall. I'm okay with some stuff, but not chaning who we are.

I think even Bernie knows some of what he says is unrealistic. But he is resonating, and it's funny that the Tea Party was born in reaction to the bailouts, but Bernie is the one that actually wants to prevent that from happening again. And if you keep sticking it to young people so the Banks and Wall Street can obscenely profit, they are going to react, and someday you will end up with a far left wing government.

[Sho Nuff 720]

The rich pay a much lower percentage of their income to taxes than the rest of us. It's called capital gains, and it's a flat 15%. Why don't I get that rate, or you? Because we didn't write the tax laws, the rich do, that's why. And let's not forget carried interest.

 

You do get that same rate on capital gains.

Want to change that rate...that is another story.

 

The tax code needs changing...no doubt about that.

But some of this "the rich need to pay their share" crap is always ridiculous given how much of the burden the rich actually shoulder in this country already.

[edjr 6,898]

 

edjr, you are all over the place. You want your cake and eat it too. In one post you want free college, then in the next you complain about paying taxes. How do you think this all works?

 

Did I complain about paying taxes? No.

 

I asked why can't we pay taxes ONCE?

 

Why must our money be taxed, two or 3 times?

[hoytdwow 202]

I like Rand and am on board with a lot of his ideas, but I just can't stomach this whole "the free market is the answer to every problem." Or that markets should be largely free of any regulation or taxes or any other "interference" from the government. As just one example, coal and oil companies and their lobbyists writing environmental policy and rules is asinine.

 

That's what I like about Bernie, is he knows that's bullshit. He's far too liberal for me in general, but he is absolutely right about needing to limit corporate influence on our political and legislative lives. And he's the only one who has the ballz to say so and who would do something about it.

 

The strict constructionist and overly theoretical view of the Constitution Paul has is also invalid at this point in history IMO.

[edjr 6,898]

I like Rand and am on board with a lot of his ideas, but I just can't stomach this whole "the free market is the answer to every problem." Or that markets should be largely free of any regulation or taxes or any other "interference" from the government. A strict constructionist and overly theoretical view of the Constitution is also invalid at this point in history IMO.

 

That's what I like about Bernie, is he knows that's bullshit. He's far too liberal for me in general, but he's right about needing to limit corporate influence on our political and legislative lives.

 

Is what we have now working? has it worked over the past 20 years?

[Mungwater 601]

The rich pay a much lower percentage of their income to taxes than the rest of us. It's called capital gains, and it's a flat 15%. Why don't I get that rate, or you? Because we didn't write the tax laws, the rich do, that's why. And let's not forget carried interest.

You can get it, just have to invest your money.

[hoytdwow 202]

 

Is what we have now working? has it worked over the past 20 years?

um, no? I don't know what you mean by this. What does "working" mean?

[edjr 6,898]

um, no? I don't know what you mean by this. What does "working" mean?

 

it's time for a change, time to try something new.

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

You can get it, just have to invest your money.

Hey, if for some reason you guys want to be cheerleaders for Wall Street, go right ahead. But just realize your love is a one way street.

[parrot 789]

I like Rand and am on board with a lot of his ideas, but I just can't stomach this whole "the free market is the answer to every problem." Or that markets should be largely free of any regulation or taxes or any other "interference" from the government. As just one example, coal and oil companies and their lobbyists writing environmental policy and rules is asinine.

 

That's what I like about Bernie, is he knows that's bullshit. He's far too liberal for me in general, but he is absolutely right about needing to limit corporate influence on our political and legislative lives. And he's the only one who has the ballz to say so and who would do something about it.

 

The strict constructionist and overly theoretical view of the Constitution Paul has is also invalid at this point in history IMO.

 

[hoytdwow 202]

 

it's time for a change, time to try something new.

no shit. That's what I'm saying

[Mungwater 601]

Hey, if for some reason you guys want to be cheerleaders for Wall Street, go right ahead. But just realize your love is a one way street.

I don't, but I pay capital gains on money I invest, it isn't just a rich game. Everyone who invests pay capital gains.

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

 

You do get that same rate on capital gains.

Want to change that rate...that is another story.

 

The tax code needs changing...no doubt about that.

But some of this "the rich need to pay their share" crap is always ridiculous given how much of the burden the rich actually shoulder in this country already.

Why is my labor taxed at a higher rate than a capital gain? It would be one thing if the capital gains were actually at risk, but as we found out, the risk was only for the little guy and the tax payer.

[parrot 789]

The rich pay a much lower percentage of their income to taxes than the rest of us. It's called capital gains, and it's a flat 15%. Why don't I get that rate, or you? Because we didn't write the tax laws, the rich do, that's why. And let's not forget carried interest.

 

Do you have any support for that assertion?

[hoytdwow 202]

Why is my labor taxed at a higher rate than a capital gain? It would be one thing if the capital gains were actually at risk, but as we found out, the risk was only for the little guy and the tax payer.

Because your labor isn't worth jackshit to the millionaire investors who have bought and paid to have laws and tax codes written to favor them by lawmakers who by and large are also millionaire investors (at least in the Senate).