Printed in Des Moines Register: Our caucus: Debaters agree on one thing -- Sanders

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/caucus/2015/12/26/our-caucus-bernie-sanders-dowling-catholic-paradigm-ankeny-anna-senneff/77777040/


Anna Senneff, Our Caucus 10:02 a.m. CST December 26, 2015

I recently attended the Dowling Catholic Paradigm, a national level speech and debate tournament, and encountered teams from across the nation — Minnesota, Illinois, Colorado, Massachusetts, and even, I heard, Florida. Why they'd come to Iowa in the winter is beyond me.

The Paradigm is one of the most geographically diverse tournaments I’ve had the privilege of competing in. In addition to the differing backgrounds, debate kids have an innate need to disagree and argue about anything one can possibly argue about. However, I noticed the vast majority of people I came across had one thing in common: devoted support for Bernie Sanders.

This is definitely something I’d noticed before, from countless Sanders campaign stickers plastered onto laptops, to conversations in tournament school hallways, to one girl’s assertion on that Saturday that, “Bernie Sanders is just a kind, old man trying to fix America, and I think we should let him.” It’s rare to find anything that a majority of debaters can agree upon, unless it’s that tournament concessions are disgusting and that NFL sounds much cooler than NSDA. But the Sanders' bandwagon, I’ve noticed, is one that appeals not just to debaters, but to young people in general.

So what’s that about? I can’t say I’m a Sanders supporter, but I’ve come across countless teens who are. I know the man has made some big promises, including free public college, higher minimum wage, a new immigration policy and more. I can see where a lot of his plans would appeal to the younger population (and to be honest, we haven’t been afforded many great options as far as presidential candidates). But here’s the congruence I’ve seen between Sanders and his younger supports: liberalism and progressiveness.

FULL story at link.

[MeNMyVolt]

1. Crappy headline OS. It's not an Op-Ed from the Register.

Though, it's a good opinion on what may be happening with the young folks.

[tecelote]

83. Speaking of opinion... this is a fantastic line...

"Bernie Sanders is just a kind old man trying to fix America, and I think we should let him.”

I Agree 100%

[Dragonfly]

103. I haven't posted for a...

long time, yet I remain attentive to the "daily grind of gritty geopolitics."
I respond tonight to the superb quote which tecelote previously noted favorably. Would love to see some talented T-Shirt peeps design a way to place this touching line of creative truth in fuller view of the populace/electorate. This sentence evokes the cultural touchstone of a growing compassion for the Elders. [Yes, I'm a pre-1950 boomer, so this pleases me.] Yeah, hope these words get circulated somehow...

[MeNMyVolt]

2. OS, you are one of the best. K&R even though I'm an HRC supporter.

[Omaha Steve]

3. So everybody knows I edited to add printed in to the original title

[Jackilope]

4. Thank you for posting it, OS. Good read!

[rhett o rick]

5. k & r. Thanks for posting. nm

[TheFarseer]

6. I wouldn't be surprised at anything

For the Iowa caucus.

[MrMickeysMom]

7. "The Paradigm is one of the most geographically diverse tournaments ..."

GEOHGRAPHICALLY DIVERSE

This would include more than just the young people and a "kind old man"... To many of us, he's our peer... He is part of the movement we were awakened to only lightly in the 1960s.

[Indydem]

8. Of course it appeals to youth.

If youve never worked a job, paid taxes, owned a business, made a payroll, or tried to keep your children fed while the government is taking 30% of your income why wouldn't you support the guy who wants to raise taxes to 70%?

"He's offering free college and a unicorn! He's my guy, that kind old man! He's just like Santa"

[beam me up scottie]

9. .

[Indydem]

13. Keep saying that.

The point of a straw man argument is that it
Is easily knocked down.

I still can't get a single Bernie supporter to explain how we are going to pay for all of his promises without going to a tax wedge like Scandanavia (70%).

By all means, knock it down. I would love to hear this.

[beam me up scottie]

15. Didn't you also say "no US politician has ever been as far left as Sanders"?

Indydem

29. Who taught you history?

A clown?

FDR didn't "challenge the economic royalists," he worked with them. He gave them a shit ton of money to build up the armed forces. His policies were no where near as left as Sanders. In fact, no US politician has ever been as far left as Sanders (I-VT).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=945519

Why would I waste my time responding to someone who accuses others of being ignorant but clearly doesn't know the first thing about Bernie?

It would be (as Barney Frank once said) like talking to a dining room table.

[Indydem]

16. Please, by all means, enlighten me.

Who are the Anerican politicians, who have garnered as much support as Sanders, that have fallen as far left as he does?

Of course their have been communists and socialists - is that who you want Bernie lumped in with?

I meant mainstream Democratic candidates.

The fact I have to add all these qualifiers to get an answer out of you Bernie folks really tells me all I need to know.

There has never been a legitimate candidate as far left as Bernie. Period.

[beam me up scottie]

18. .

[Indydem]

19. Still can't answer the question.

Enjoy your stupid game playing.

Sanders is not a Democrat and when this is all said and done the party of FDR, JFK, and Obama will take the day.

[Mbrow]

23. There is not enough room to tell all the reasons you should vote for Bernie.

But as the Rabbi Hillel said, Quote

Once there was a gentile who came before Shammai, and said to him: "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot. Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding. The same fellow came before Hillel, and Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it." - Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Go and learn.

[cascadiance]

58. He and the rest of us can't read your mind about what you mean by "far left"...

which you WON'T DEFINE and only use as an expletive rather than trying to even attempt to do any constructive dialogue about what it means and why it makes Bernie or any Democrat for that matter bad.

It is that kind of labeling that we are used to have coming at us about our candidates from Republicans and not Democrats, who have little ability to rationally defend their own candidates' stances, and would rather just appeal to people's base instincts with things like "He's a socialist" card instead of ANY useful discussion on issues.

If FDR were alive today, he would be a lot more proud of how his speech taking on the economic royalists of his time was followed more by Bernie today than other so-called Democrats like even Obama who has prioritized the economic royalists TREATS he's been working for them with all the f'd up "Free Trade" deals that he's worked with Republicans to get passed rather than Democrats that still cling to the standards that older Democratic Party members have set.

And you DO understand that Bernie and more progressive presidents like FDR and Eisenhower and even JFK before him aren't taxing ALL of the wealthy's income at 70% and just the top amount that they make with the top MARGINAL bracket. When you leave that out, you once again expose yourself as using the same tactics that corporatist Republicans do in trying to argue against a progressive tax system.

[dreamnightwind]

97. Thanks, destroys that poster's bogus claim

IndyDem http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251948834#post8

If youve never worked a job, paid taxes, owned a business, made a payroll, or tried to keep your children fed while the government is taking 30% of your income why wouldn't you support the guy who wants to raise taxes to 70%?

"He's offering free college and a unicorn! He's my guy, that kind old man! He's just like Santa"

You:

And you DO understand that Bernie and more progressive presidents like FDR and Eisenhower and even JFK before him aren't taxing ALL of the wealthy's income at 70% and just the top amount that they make with the top MARGINAL bracket. When you leave that out, you once again expose yourself as using the same tactics that corporatist Republicans do in trying to argue against a progressive tax system.

If the poster had any decency he/she would apologize for their dishonest post.

[madokie]

27. I don't see

that you my friend can be enlightened. So why bother.

I suspect you think that Hillary is the answer. My o my

[Indydem]

28. Not particularly

Honestly, I would have rather had the opportunity to vote for Joe Biden. As that is now the option, I will vote for the only lifelong Democrat running for the nomination.

Sanders is not a member of the party. He's something else entirely. I will vote for him on the chance that he wins the nomination, but I will, without a doubt, be voting for the lesser of two evils.

[cascadiance]

60. Love the perks that other Delaware corporations also like that Biden gave them with Bankruptcy bill?

Seems about right with the way you are criticizing traditional Democratic Party values here.

[Marty McGraw]

88. Evil? Really?

Remember Smiling?

Vote Bernie 2016!

[AgingAmerican]

44. You are saying he isn't right wing enough

Right?

Does 90% top marginal rate ring a bell? We had it from the 50s til the late 70s.

But don't let that rain on your strawman.

[Indydem]

89. Well, when you are wrong...

The 90% bracket lasted from 53-63.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy recognized that putting a cap on achievement like that was damn stupid, and helped kill it.

63. Not the late 80's.

No. Bernie is far too left. Far too left. And when people like you, who don't have a basic grasp on history support him, I know I am right.

[AgingAmerican]

90. The 90% top marginal rate did not put a cap on achievement

You obviously dont understand how it worked.

Instead of taking their money out as income, business owners instead put the money back into their businesses, causing them to grow. They would then take their money out later in the form of equity, which was taxed at much lower rates.

The result? Full employment and businesses grew at incredible rates making business owners lots of money. No bubble/Burst economy, no recessions during that time period.


The high rate lasted until the late 70s, that was a typo.

"Taxes penalize achievement" is a standard Republican talking point.

And no, Kennedy didn't buy into that talking point. You are referring to a comment he made during his second debate with Nixon where he talked about lowering the top marginal rate. The part that you leave out is he said the difference would be made up by closing loopholes, many of which were so huge that some corporations and business owners paid almost nothing.

[Indydem]

91. Oh, bless your heart.

The 91% tax rate lasted from 52-63. Period. Full stop. You are wrong. In 1964 the top rate went to 77%.

Again, since you can't bother to grasp the basics of history, Google the facts, or learn when told, the rest of your opinions on what the 90% tax bracket did, are of no use to me.

And by no use, I mean wrong.

http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/Labortaxes/taxableincome/taxableincome_attach.pdf

[AgingAmerican]

92. You cannot refute how high top marginal rates worked

Full stop.

You are pushing the Republican position.

Have a nice day!

[Indydem]

93. I can and do.

The growth experienced in the United States after World War II had nothing to do with the top marginal tax rates.

How is that we had such great economic growth under President Clinton at only 39%?

Your evidence is complete and utter horseshit.

And you are still wrong about history.

[dreamnightwind]

98. Tech boom, bubble economy, and the growth was not great for many under Clinton

If you're speaking of growth as measured by GDP, it's a statistic which has almost nothing to do with the well-being of citizens.

We had a once in a lifetime tech boom as we (a few of us actually) built out the internet, Clinton went along with Republicans to deregulate the financial industry creating a massive bubble economy that famously and disastrously burst, and the average non-tech worker didn't fare so well in those times. Clinton's full embrace of globalization and NAFTA helped corporate profits at the expense of U.S. workers. Greenspan called Clinton the best Republican president of recent times, or some such.

Directly to the point of this discussion, the low top tax rate allowed profit to be extracted rather than reinvested. Workers' lives were ruined, the ownership class made out like bandits, massive private fortunes were accrued which are now used to buy politicians and manipulate public opinion against such ideas as returning to a high marginal tax rate, which would incentivize reinvesting in the company rather than building vast wealth for a few.

[AgingAmerican]

108. It's basic economics.

Please tell us, Mr supply side economics genius, how we had the most stable long term economic growth period, with full employment and no recessions when we had obscenely high marginal tax rates? According to you and the GOP, what happened is impossible!

So please explain your alternative reality to us. I'm sure you can come up with something!

Under Bill Clinton we had the 'Collapsing Bubble' economics of Libertarian Alan Greenspan, whom interned with Ayan Rand in the early 60s.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

106. You're arguing from a Republican point of view.

That's not an opinion, and it's not a theory. You're arguing from a Republican vantage. I don't care one way or another, but you shouldn't be surprised when you get pushback, since your arguments are indistinguishable from the right's arguments.

Also, if you believe that Aging American's mistake with respect to when the 90% top rate ended somehow invalidates everything he thinks and validates your thinking, you live in Magical World.

[Cal33]

25. By increasing taxes on the rich, many of whom today are paying no taxes at all. In

fact, some of the ultra-rich are not only not paying taxes, they are even receiving
government subsidies! Irony of ironies!! Some poor people are starving to death.
It's a mad, mad world!

Obama has brought up several times the topic of increases taxes on the rich, but
has not been able to carry his intentions out.

[Indydem]

26. Lots of fallacies there.

But we can start with the first one.

Rich people are not "not paying taxes" unless they have no income. Even if their income is in carried interest, they are still paying 15% taxes on it. Now, that's clearly not enough, and we should definitely make a rule change for those that are only receiving income from investments to pay marginally more (though making them pay the full 39% is bullshit). Usually, the tax rate for the wealthiest is considered to be 19-24%. So this idea that they aren't paying taxes is a myth and pure bullshit.

"They are even receiving government subsidies" - another myth, perpetuated by know-nothing leftists. The government is not giving food stamps or section 8 housing to the rich. They are only eligible for the same benefits that you and I receive when we file taxes. Of course they are going to get more in credits, because they spend more and they pay more in taxes ($ for $, not as a percentage).

"Some poor people are starving to death" - to death? In America? Nope. I call complete and utter bullshit on that one. The United States is rated #1 globally for food security. People who are dying of malnutrition in America are dying almost entirely of medical complications that $ has no factor in. If they are dying unrelated to that, they are dying of pride of negligent parents. Between public and private assistance in this country, no one should be starving. It's no smorgasbord of endless variety, but people have options. Should we do more, sure. Is that people starving, no.

Now we get to the real rub with Bernie Sanders (I-VT). So President Obama has tried to raise taxes on the wealthy "several times" but hasn't been able to get it done? How in the world is Bernie, even if he can somehow get all of his unicorn farts and magic free stuff through congress, going to pay for it? He can't. He is not going to get anything done. Period. If he gets elected, he's going to go to the White House and spend 4 years complaining and giving speeches and that will be it for him.

Hyperbole and false truths aren't going to change my mind. I understand what Scandinavia looks like. I understand what Europe looks like. Americans already (on average) think they pay too much in taxes. Scandinavian taxes are MORE FLAT and less PROGRESSIVE than the tax structure we have now. They raise far more capital by taxing income and payroll AT A HIGHER RATE THAN WE DO. What does that mean? The lowest income worker pay MORE in Scandanavia than in the US.

Many of you Bernie folks have signed on for a poison pill and you don't even know it.

[questionseverything]

31. why would it be bad if carried interest peops paid the 39%?

that working people already pay

a persons labor should never be taxed higher than a rich persons investment

[Indydem]

33. Because they already paid the 39% once.

They made the money once at labor. Now you want to tax it again? Why don't we just cut out the middleman and take it all?

[questionseverything]

35. lots of trust fund babies great grandfathers might of "labored"or not

it really doesn't matter where the investment money comes from since the tax rate is progressive

[Indydem]

37. Fallacy.

There are only a few dozen people in this country who have ever inherited enough to matter.

Anyway, carried interest doesn't apply to trust fund babies.

[AgingAmerican]

47. Do you even know what a fallacy is?

You sure repeat a lot of Republican talking points.

[neverforget]

86. According to him, we are "know-nothing leftists"

Tells me all I need to know about that poster.

[cascadiance]

64. Yea because Walton family owns as much wealth as FORTY PERCENT of Americans!

And you think they didn't inherit this wealth from Sam? Huh?

And you know how in so many states, etc. that the wealthy get away without paying capital gains tax when they put all of their high capital gains investments in their inheritance that they never (nor do they have to like most of the rest of us do) cash out, since when it gets passed on to their kids, the capital gains revenue is lost since the inheritor only pays for the capital gains of the value timed when they sell it versus WHEN THEY INHERITED it, not the original value of that investment when it was first acquired, which for rich people is usually far less when originally acquired than when they die.

The inheritance game is also rigged, but most people don't realize that. Read this article to note how Oregon loses about $2 billion that it could really use each year to the rich not really paying what they ought to in capital gains tax on inheritances. That's why inherited wealth is rigged and is rigging the game to divide our society more in terms of wealth.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2012/07/oregon-estate-tax-2-billion-dollar-loophole/

[senz]

72. Here's how Randall Munroe puts it:

[Z_California]

55. The old BS "double taxation" argument? Really?

You should prolly register as a Republican.

[Lokijohn]

84. Bullshit

Only the new income is taxed. If a person receives $1 million in interest, dividends or whatever they are taxed on that new income, NOT the investment that generated that. You do understand that, right?

[Cal33]

34. You haven't read my post carefully. I used the words "many of whom" in the 1st paragraph, and

"some" in the second. You are trying to make it look like I am implying that rich
people all pay little or no taxes - which is false. I implied nothing of the kind.

Just Google: "Corporations that pay low or no taxes." You'll get thousands of articles. Read the
link below. It does name companies that are paying average to low taxes, as well as those that
are paying negative taxes -- in other words, getting government subsidies.

Whose leg are you trying to pull?

Here is one link:

http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/sorrystateofcorptaxes.php#Whos Paying and Whos Note

[Indydem]

36. You said "rich people"

Now you are talking about corporations?

Make up your mind.

But, since you are too ignorant to understand why these companies are paying so little in taxes, I will explain this, again. (This has to be at least the 3rd time I have explained this to you leftists on DU).

9 of the top 10 on that list are power companies. Power companies that our president, and our congress spent a fortune in subsidies and incentives to get to put up windmills, solar, and grid modernization. (And GE, the largest maker of windmills). You can't, in one breath say you want to have greener energy and then in the next breath complain because the government offered incentives to go green! As a matter of fact, 15 of those 26 companies are power companies (and GE) who had money thrown at them to do exactly what we wanted!

Two more are trucking companies, given subsidies in the stimulus package to green up their fleets.

Two more are wireless communication companies, given incentives in the stimulus package to roll out LTE infrastructure to a wider market.

I can list almost each and every one of the others and explain why their tax burden was reduced. Of course, none of that matters to folks like you. If it did, you would have already figured this stuff out on your own, and not just keep regurgitating 3 year old numbers that are easily explainable.

[Cal33]

42. If you want to dot every i and cross every t, Who owns the corporations? The few rich

who own many shares, and the many middle-class people, who own a few each. It's the
corporatists who claim that corporations are people. And you are standing up for them?
Correct? Do you agree with their definition of "people" or not? As you said in your post,
"Make up your mind."

We all know that 99% of Americans have little or no influence with our government. It's
the few financial elitists who have all the say with our government. And Bernie Sanders
is going to try to change this and bring America back to the days of Democracy and the
great nation we once were.

By the way, the link in my previous post also did quote information from 2014. It cannot
give any information later than that because 2015 is not yet completely over. What were
you saying about "ignorant" people?

Below is a link from Princeton University, stating that America is no longer a Democracy
but has become an Oligarchy:

http://journal-neo.org/2014/11/11/princeton-makes-it-official-usa-has-become-oligarchy-no-democracy/

[artislife]

43. ....

keep pushing the meme, even though it isn't true.

[Dont call me Shirley]

94. Taxes on the rich were 90% during Eisenhower presidency.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/

They've stolen and are hoarding so much money, at a 90% tax rate they'd still be rich and all our programs can be paid for. Plus redirecting halfpenny more of the DOD money could even put our infrastructure into the 21st century.

[Indydem]

99. That is such an ignorant statement.

The 91% tax bracket started at $250,000.

Adjusted for inflation, that is about $2,200,000. If you aren't going to adjust for inflation, then you must realize that you are saying that no one in America deserves to earn more than $250,000. Knowing most of the Bernie Sanders folks here, that is probably what you think, but lets assume that you are going to be honest, and adjust for inflation.

We get MORE in taxes by having the tax bracket start at $465,000 and get 39% for the rest of their income, rather than essentially halting compensation at $2.2 million.

This is simple mathematics. If you don't understand it, thats fine. I encourage you to talk to someone who does.

[Dont call me Shirley]

101. I said for the rich, not for everyone! What I said is NOT ignorant!

The rich are not supposed to be able to pass on monarchical-like fortunes. That was what the 90% tax rate on the wealthy was for, so they wouldn't be able to monopolize business and buy politicians. It was also used to help pay for the General Welfare of the people of this country, but let's decimate all social programs except tax breaks and subsidies for the rich, right, Indy?! Let's go back to the late 1800s and the roaring 20s and the bread lines of the 30s so the rich don't have to pay a damn cent for the infrastructure they use in this country, right, Indy?!

Thanks but I'm an Franklin Delano Roosevelt Democrat, a progressive Democrat, not a right-wing corporate-oligarch dlc democrat.

[Skidmore]

10. +1

[senz]

50. Like Republican arguments?

Sure you do.

[Skidmore]

52. Not an R argument at all.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around those Sanders supporters who think that he's going to attract Trump supporters.

[senz]

56. Okay, I'll bite.

The Trump supporters who like Bernie are not ideologically inclined. They respond to Bernie's honesty and outspokenness just as they respond to Trump's honesty and outspokenness.

It has nothing to do with political views.

Now don't tell me you can't wrap your head around that.

[Skidmore]

59. My husband came home from work

shortly after the Thankgiving holiday and told me of a conversation he heard between a group of guys on the job who really love them some Trump. However, they were strategizing on who would throw caucus votes to Sanders to mess with the Democrats' nomination process. And then, ta da, they would throw their GE votes to the Rs. I think there is much more of this going on than honest "issues" voting for a candidate that does not support Teabagger values. By the examples on these boards, the very last thing Sanders supporters I see here are interested in is "issues."

[senz]

61. Sorry, but I'm short on patience today

and presently your comment reads like blather. Try back another time.

[Skidmore]

62. Too bad you feel that way.

Why would a person who supports the ideology of someone like Trump be seen to suddenly convert to a supporter of Sanders? Makes no sense whatsoever. Blather?

[George II]

68. You want people to adjust their posting schedule...

...because YOU are short on patience?

[senz]

76. George, honey, I don't know how to say this

but I think it's time we part ways.

I've tried so hard to make it work ... but we're just not cut out for one another.

Lord knows, I've enjoyed the wealth of information you've so generously shared with me, and the width and breadth of your immense heart. You know how badly I'll miss you.

But the time has come to put you on ignore.

So ... long live Canada!

... and ... goodbye.

[dana_b]

11. You may be surprised at how many older people he appeals to also.

I've done all of the things that you listed except owned my own business and I still think that he's the best person for the job.

[Indydem]

12. No problem there.

If you are old enough and experienced enough to know the consequences of your actions, then by all means, support him.

However a bunch of 17 year olds who stand to receive $100,000 in free benefits from his plans aren't exactly the most objective demographic.

[Karma13612]

21. He is! Eom

[Ron Green]

14. Nice talking points, but my guess is that your Free Market

has already taught its harsh lessons to most young people who pay attention.

What kind of Democrat says such things as you've posted here?

[Indydem]

17. The traditional kind.

This board has been invaded by leftists. People who consider themselves Democrats, but sure as hell don't fit them old of JFK or FDR.

I'm not one of those.

[Cal33]

48. Leftists don't fit in with DFR and JFK? FDR raised taxes to 91% during WW II -- for those

who could afford it -- for the rich. Your values seem to be dead set against those of FDR.
You are the one who doesn't fit in with him.

[Karma13612]

20. That's pure crap. He is NOT going to raise our taxes to 70%. Eom

[Indydem]

22. Then how is all of this getting paid for?

He wants to deliver the world, and make America more like Scandanavia with all the perks and benefits, but taxes aren't going to go to Scnadanavian levels?

How does this magic math work?

I am desperately waiting for a Bernie supporter to explain to me how we are going to do this!

Bernie has already admitted that in order to get the paid family leave he wants, he is going to have to raise payroll taxes by 2%. What do you think it's going to look like when he's done?

Please, explain the math to me.

[Mbrow]

24. You can start by stopping

All the war spending and the waste in the department of defense alone would pay for a lot of it. go to his web site and look, he has talked about it before, it will be cheaper then sending our kids to die in the sand box....

[Karma13612]

30. Excellent points as well. Eom

[Karma13612]

29. Unless you are part of the 1%, Bernie is not raising our taxes to 70%.

He does plan on asking the über wealthy to pay "their fair share".

And he wants to have a Wall Street transaction tax on specific types of trades.

That is some of his proposals. Not all, by any means.

[Indydem]

32. Average taxes in Scandanavia are 56.9%

To do what Bernie wants in the US, the average tax wedge will have to be 70%.

You clearly haven't done your research. You don't understand how regressive the Scandanavian tax structure is, and how much each working person must pay.

You can take the pentagon budget to 0 and tax rich people at 90% and still not pay for what Bernie wants to do.

[questionseverything]

38. theoretically WE THE PEOPLE

have the ability to set our own tax structure

and there is no reason it needs to be regressive if we start by taxing the 1%ers and the corps that do business here but pay no taxes

[Indydem]

39. And how does one make that happen?

You do understand that the republicans will never go along with this scheme?

You do understand that the vast majority of the Democratic Party is not anti-business, anti-profit, anti-wealth or anti-capitalism?

So how do you think that you are going to tax the 26,000 people that you hate so much into providing trillions of dollars in new revenue?

[questionseverything]

40. first of all i try not to HATE anyone

bernie has tax plans on his campaign page that explain the funding...even if we beat all odds and he wins those will have to be tweaked and compromises will be made

but i trust bernie to at least TRY for the 99%

that is something i lost long ago with the clintons

i think it is funny that you are characterizing bernie as the tax and spend guy when tax rates for working people were much higher during the clinton years than they are now

another odd thing is how we have run deficits for years to pay for the disastrous wars in the middle east but when WE THE PEOPLE want healthcare it has got to be paid for

[Indydem]

41. There is a limit on the credit card

The money Bush and Obama have spent over the past 15 years has run up the credit card.

If you want to institute a new domestic program that will continue to cost money, it had better be paid for.

Things may change, but starting out saying "we are going to borrow money from China so we can give people free stuff" is a fast track to legislative defeat.

BTW if "WE THE PEOPLE" want healthcare, they can earn it just like the other 270 million Americans do. Need help? We have Medicaid available for all Americans who make less than $12k (that's minimum wage) and subsidies in the exchanges for those who make more.

This bullshit argument that we NEED single payer because everyone hates their insurance is false. Patently false.

[artislife]

45. You are one of the reasons I cannot back h

Your arguments in this thread suggests that you speak for many of the hard core h supporters.

You got yours, don't want to lose it.

Guess what, the millenials will get nothing but a broken planet and serious debt if we keep on going the way we are.

I don't have kids, but I feel a sense of responsibility towards the poor kids who are going to inherit this mess. I kind of don't care for the kids of people who don't give a sh*t, though. And I don't like that.

[Indydem]

87. Wrong.

I just have a moral and ethical opposition to outrageous taxes.

I don't "have mine" - at best my wife and I are solidly middle class. Probably lower middles class this year. I don't "have" anything but what I've worked for.

I am a millenial (born in '81) and I'm not worried about the "broken planet" because I think science will solve the problems science created.

I do have children, and I have a great deal of responsibility to make sure the world they inherit is better than the one I inherited from the glutonous baby boomers. That includes making sure they aren't taxed 70% on their income and don't live in a socialist country, contrary to what it was founded on.

[dreamnightwind]

100. You're still using that line, you need to stop

it is a lie.

"That includes making sure they aren't taxed 70% on their income"

Bernie is proposing a top marginal rate in that neighborhood, which is not at all the same as taxing their income at that rate, and you know it.

In what world does making bogus arguments like that move us closer to a better society? If you want to advocate for ideas, do it honestly without deception.

[questionseverything]

46. the subsides in the exchange are a good example of deficit spending that enriches corporations

and provides nothing but corporate profits as most people can still not afford the co pays

and do not get me started on the folks like me that are expected to pay 3 times as much for healthcare as a young person because of my age....i mean if i had known my entire life that my govt would expect that maybe i could of planned for it but....

anyways i am not going to change your mind or you mine

[Kalidurga]

67. And what percent of your income do you pay for

- health insurance
-set aside for your children's education
-time off of work for family issues
-how much would it cost you to cover four years of being unemployed
-daycare
-care for an elderly parent

[Karma13612]

71. my guess this also includes a real comfy retirement. I know at least one country in Europe

taxes very high, but this includes everything that would be considered a social safety net. Medical care, retirement, education, child care, etc.

Unless you want to itemize what is included in the 56.9%, I still hold that Bernie has no intention of taxing the middle-class at 70%.

[McKim]

95. We Stop the Wars and the Money for our Own People is There

I's very simple just stop the damn wars and the military bases we have all over the world. Let's spend the money helping our OWN people! Your tax dollars went down the war hole. There is plenty of money for spending on the right things. Our health care, education, infrastructure building and repair to create jobs, culture, libraries and etc. As Mick Jaeger in "Ruby Tuesday" said:
"Loose your dreams and you will loose your mind".

Have those mean Republicans made us give up our dreams? They want you to think that another world is not possible. They want you to hate others that don't look like you. They want us to keep allowing our govt. to spend most of our wealth on fulfilling the goals of international corporations who are doing a massive resource grab all over this world. They want us to pay for our gigantic army to protect their interests.

[dreamnightwind]

102. + trillions

[senz]

49. That's a Republican argument.

It's also illogical. Do you understand how the top marginal tax rate works?

The top rate applies only to the part of your income that meets or exceeds the top margin. For most Americans, that's none of their income. Do you understand that?

During the 40s, 50s, and 60s, the top marginal tax rate was more than twice what it is now. And in the average household, one adult worked while the other stayed home with the kids.

Republicans and conservadems are either illogical or dishonest.

[Betty Karlson]

54. Tone-deaf and dismissive.

Clinton put you in charge of her slogans, did she?

[Bjornsdotter]

63. How do I factor in?

I own a business, I'm 55, I'm a woman,I have two college degrees, and I support Bernie.

[Scootaloo]

78. Sounds like the shit I was hearing from Republicans back in 2008

You remember that video they were slinging around, "Obama gonna pay my gas!" You can look it up to refresh your memory, i'm not gonna put it up here.

[Indydem]

81. There is a difference.

First, Obama never made a promise of free gas. Or free mortgages. Or any of the other things that some people were led to believe he had promised.

Sanders, on the other hand, IS promising free college, free health care, 9 weeks of paid leave, and a unicorn.

[Scootaloo]

82. No, there's really no difference. You're arguing from the same point.

[progressoid]

79. There were a lot of non-youth at the rally I went to at a local college.

The biggest cheers weren't for free college either.

[shawn703]

107. Nobody will be paying 70% of their income in tax

But I'm sure you knew that already. If you didn't, suggest you review the principles of the progressive income tax, and how business expenses and other deductions such as those associated with caring for children reduce gross income and the effective tax rate.

[senz]

51. To all the rightwingers who have posted on this thead.

Get some education. Start by actually looking at this graph. Yes, READ IT.

[senz]

53. To all the non-rightwingers who posted on this thread.

Arguing with DINOs (conservaDems, Third Wayers) is like arguing with Republicans.

[Cal33]

57. You've beaten me to the punch. So I've noticed!

[senz]

65. I'm beginning to think they're just not worth the time and effort.

[djean111]

66. And - no matter how much they argue here, those young voters are still going to vote for Bernie. :-)

[senz]

69. Thank you, djean.

You have restored my faith in human nature.

[Karma13612]

73. and gives ya a headache.!! I guess I'm going to learn how to set

some DU's on ignore. Othewise I need to find some ibuprofen.

thanks for this comment. #FeeltheBern!

[senz]

74. You're more than welcome, Karma13612

I used to think all "Democrats" thought like Democrats.

Then I learned that some "Democrats" think like Republicans, even though they call themselves DLC/Third Way "Democrats."

And then I learned that many "Independents" think like Democrats of old - like FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter.

The times they have a-changed. Now we must look to see what's beneath the label.

[Karma13612]

77. for sure! eom

[Scootaloo]

80. I wouldn't say that. I've had useful talks with Republicans

Talking to Semicrats is much more like talking to Libertarians. It's just not worth the effort to try to hammer through that shell of self-deception they both huddle under.

[senz]

104. I've had useful talks w/Republicans too.

"Republican" covers a broad spectrum. Libertarians I can figure out, sort of, because they're true believers, in love with a theory that hasn't been disproved because it's never been tried. They seem unrealistic. But Semicrats (good term) don't make sense. There is something dishonest and manipulative in their willingness to condone economic exploitation and oppression while affirming everyone's racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual equality. I can't find a common core, an underlying value, that makes them believable and coherent.

[Scootaloo]

105. I've consistently found libertarians to be the worst

But then when I say "Libertarian" I'm talking about people who revere "The Invisible Hand" like a religion, maintain that taxation is state violence, and hail social darwinism as the natural state of mankind. Kind of a different sort than the so-called "left libertarians" who are - for the most part - liberal potheads who use the phrase "left-libertarian" because it sounds cooler than "liberal"

[Gothmog]

75. As a former high school and college debater, good luck with this demographic

Remember that Carnival Cruz was a good college debater and will have some appeal in this demographic. As a former debater, I found this article amusing.

[1monster]

85. In my years of working in the schools of our district, I have found that kids

generally tend to like the same candidates that their parents like. The areas where the students who liked one candidate tended to vote for that candidate.

If this trend continues (and I see no reason it would change), then I find good reason to believe that Bernie's support is much stronger than we have led to believe and he will be the nominee (sans political and elections chicanery) for the Democratic Party for election 2016.