Dem Debate

but what makes him unable to Accpet facts today



what makes these people think others don't notice they have no SET criteria about what a FACT is?
 
cawacko said:
Not able to watch but reading Twitter comments on the way to Warriors game. Said when asked about Paris attacks Bernie basically pivoted to climate change and said it was a bigger threat than terrorism then went to income inequality. Is that accurate?

If so it just reinforces why Bernie isn't prepared to be CIC.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. In fact he attacked Hillary for her role in the run up to the invasion of and immoral war in Iraq which was responsible for creating the power vacuum and subsequent anarchy that has permitted the rise of paramilitary terrorist like ISIS.
 
StormX said:
How much more free stuff did they promise the idiots???
Click to expand...
They only offer that shit to Corporations and inbred hillbilly trailer park rednecks like you. So get off the tit and go get a job. I'm tired of supporting you and your ilk lazy ass with my tax dollars.
 
Threedee said:
They didn't actually pay the 91% rate. It just so happens that the tax code was set to charge that rate in theory. In practice, no one was ever going to pay such an outrageous rate.
Click to expand...
Well no shit but it wasn't like you have a bunch of tax loopholes to lower your rate. It was "Use it or lose it" which was the whole idea of a tax rate that ridiculously high. It forced the ubber wealthy to invest that income or lose it to taxation and thus would prevent them from sitting on large amounts of capital and taking money out of circulation within the economy and thus damaging economic growth. It also prevented to much wealth from accumulating into to few hands which would prevent an oligarchy from arising, which is the singular greatest threat to our democratic republic. You only have to look around you to see what is currently happening within our economy and society to see the truth of that.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well no shit but it wasn't like you have a bunch of tax loopholes to lower your rate. It was "Use it or lose it" which was the whole idea of a tax rate that ridiculously high. It forced the ubber wealthy to invest that income or lose it to taxation and thus would prevent them from sitting on large amounts of capital and taking money out of circulation within the economy and thus damaging economic growth. It also prevented to much wealth from accumulating into to few hands which would prevent an oligarchy from arising, which is the singular greatest threat to our democratic republic. You only have to look around you to see what is currently happening within our economy and society to see the truth of that.
Click to expand...

Says the Clinton voter.
 
the FACTS clearly show the dems are better for the economy no matter how many times you lie about it billy
 
cawacko said:
The bigger issue is Sanders thinking it would work today because he thinks it worked in the 1950's. Totally different economic world we live in today it's not even comparable.
Click to expand...
You're rationalizing and you don't understand the differences between now and then. As Damo just pointed out the tax rates are graduated. You pay a rate only for that portion earned above a specific level. You also had different tax loopholes. If you invested that income it wasn't taxed at the highest marginal rate. Only the profits from the investment were if they exceeded the graduated rate. If you just sat on the money, yup, Uncle Sam would take it and guess what? You didn't have the problems with income inequality or the threat of oligarchy which our nation faces today. It also assured one of the greatest eras of economic growth in the nation because of the notion of "Use it or lose it" and there's a lot to be said for that sort of graduated progressive taxation. It prevents both recession and an aristocracy of money (i.e. oligarchy) from arising.

Which is really pretty much a moot point as the Ubber wealthy aren't paying taxes at the highest marginal tax rate of 39.6% that Damo listed. Most of their income is coming from investment income so they pay the 15% long term capital gains rate. Meaning a Mitt Romney pays about a 17% total tax rate on his $40 million annual income while I pay 22% on my low six figure income. Is that fair? Does this not say that those who invest are more important to society than those who produce wealth? I'd have to say yes based on how taxation really works.

Should we currently go back to those levels? No, I don't think so. Should we consider raising them to higher graduated levels to make the investments in public education and public infrastructure that we absolutely have to make to remain competitive? Yes, this is something we need to consider. Should we consider having an alternative minimum tax rate for the ubber wealthy so that they don't get a free ride on taxation and pay lower rates that many middle and upper middle class people do? Hell yes we should. Those who benefit the most from our national investments should pay the most to sustain and grow them.

Our current over-spending on the military industrial complex is causing serious political, military and economic over-reach on the behalf of this nation and unless we make the hard decisions there to cut our military spending to more reasonable levels so that we can focus on other national goals that are just as important then we need to considering to re-organizing to a more graduated and progressive tax structure so that we can achieve other important national goals.

This mentality that bending down and brown nosing the asses of the ubber wealthy cause they are the only possible source of economic prosperity if a fabulous myth. It does not serve the interest of this nation or its people to permit the concentration of the vast majority of the nations productivity into the hands of a few thousand families. That is insane.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
They were the best in my opinion. I wouldn't expect you to like them. You gotta a problem with the tax comment, take it up with Politifact.

Our ruling

Sanders said income tax rates under Eisenhower were as high as 90 percent. A look through the records shows that top earners in the eight years of Eisenhower’s presidency paid a top income tax rate of 91 percent. It was even a bit higher before he took office.

We rate Sanders’ statement True.


rulings%2Ftom-true.gif


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/
Click to expand...

I didn't say he lied, but it isn't very accurate and has no relevance to today.

1) the total number of people it could impact was very small

2) because of the convoluted code nobody actually paid 90%

Either Sanders or you are grossly misinformed or dumb as dog shit

Which is it?
 
Legion Troll said:
Damo posted a link to a tax advice blog from 2006 with 2006 information.

I guess you'll explain how that's relevant to the discussion of Eisenhower-era taxation.

Or not.
Click to expand...

so since the answer to your question has been around for many years what is your excuse for not knowing it?......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top