Bernie Sanders: We Will Raise Taxes On Anyone Making Over $29,000 To Fund Government Health Care

[Toddsterpatriot]

In free market capitalism when a business fails, it fails right?

In free market capitalism, businesses that make bad decisions fail.

So you approve of widespread bank failures, because you love free market capitalism.

I would prefer they not take the risks and corrupt actions that get them in trouble.

I know, writing and buying mortgages...….crazy!

Because that is what got them in trouble? It had nothing to do with packaging bad loans as good investment?

That is what caused the S&L crises?

Of course writing and buying bad mortgages is what got banks into trouble.

It was in all the papers.

You never explained which regulations would have stopped them from doing that.

I replied to that.

Running away was your reply.

 

[pknopp]

I would prefer they not take the risks and corrupt actions that get them in trouble.

I know, writing and buying mortgages...….crazy!

Because that is what got them in trouble? It had nothing to do with packaging bad loans as good investment?

That is what caused the S&L crises?

Of course writing and buying bad mortgages is what got banks into trouble.

It was in all the papers.

You never explained which regulations would have stopped them from doing that.

I replied to that.

Running away was your reply.

I noted the quid pro quo that caused the problems. It has been discussed endlessly.

 

[dblack]

Don't trip while you're running away.

Right here. Answer my question. In free market capitalism when a business fails, it fails right? It doesn't matter if that is good or bad, it just is, right or not?

In free market capitalism when a business fails, it fails right?

In free market capitalism, businesses that make bad decisions fail.

So you approve of widespread bank failures, because you love free market capitalism.

I would prefer they not take the risks and corrupt actions that get them in trouble.

Does that mean you'd prefer that government make the call instead?

Which call? Whether they fail or not? No.

Don't be coy. You think government should "regulate" the banks decision, right?

 

[LaDairis]

Government needs to "regulate" everything. Nothing should be free. Everything should be cleared by a genuine left wing government "worker."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, writing and buying mortgages...….crazy!

Because that is what got them in trouble? It had nothing to do with packaging bad loans as good investment?

That is what caused the S&L crises?

Of course writing and buying bad mortgages is what got banks into trouble.

It was in all the papers.

You never explained which regulations would have stopped them from doing that.

I replied to that.

Running away was your reply.

I noted the quid pro quo that caused the problems. It has been discussed endlessly.

A quid pro quo caused the mortgage crisis? LOL!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Remember the Capital city in the movie Hunter Games?
That is a world the Hillary/Obama/AOC's of the world really want.
They are elitist, they want to control everything...and act like Gods to "take care of the little people"... meanwhile they live a very different kind of life.

Hunter Games, LOL

AOC has lived a different kind of life? ROFL

Are you slow?
I said that is what they want.
Look at the Obama's... just how fucked up is it that Michelle is calling people out for "white flight"...meanwhile they are buying a $14.85 million estate in the whitest area in the country. Can you say h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e??
Then you look at Bernie... he only owns 3 houses. Poor guy...
That is what they do... look at the last big climate change summit.... all the swells flew in .... and what do we have here???

View attachment 291821

Lookee... an entire fleet of $million jets!!!


Wake up guy!!! They want to live exactly like the $billionaires they hate so much.
Can you say baaaaa...

Are you slow?
I said "Hunter Games, LOL" - both the books and movie are called The Hunger Games, genius
I said "AOC has lived a different kind of life? ROFL" - she hasn't.
And then you only pretend to respond to what I said as though no one could check.
Also, I'm no Democrat. Never voted for Obama.
Wake up. Idiot.

 

[Andylusion]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

Actually, to some small extent, I am mildly impressed he had the balls to be this honest. He now admits, what all the rest of us already knew.... that the poor would have to pay more tax to get health care.

How many dozens on dozens of posts where I had left-wingers saying "He didn't say the poor would have to pay more tax!".

Now at least, they can't live in their fictional utopia where we can get endless government everything, and not pay any tax.

 

[pknopp]

Right here. Answer my question. In free market capitalism when a business fails, it fails right? It doesn't matter if that is good or bad, it just is, right or not?

In free market capitalism when a business fails, it fails right?

In free market capitalism, businesses that make bad decisions fail.

So you approve of widespread bank failures, because you love free market capitalism.

I would prefer they not take the risks and corrupt actions that get them in trouble.

Does that mean you'd prefer that government make the call instead?

Which call? Whether they fail or not? No.

Don't be coy. You think government should "regulate" the banks decision, right?

Which decisions?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Are the too-big-to-fail banks too big or what?

Dodd/Frank made the too big to fail banks even bigger.

Nope.

 

[pknopp]

Because that is what got them in trouble? It had nothing to do with packaging bad loans as good investment?

That is what caused the S&L crises?

Of course writing and buying bad mortgages is what got banks into trouble.

It was in all the papers.

You never explained which regulations would have stopped them from doing that.

I replied to that.

Running away was your reply.

I noted the quid pro quo that caused the problems. It has been discussed endlessly.

A quid pro quo caused the mortgage crisis? LOL!

Absolutely. The government removed restrictions and in return the banks made bad loans for the government's benefit to buy votes.

 

[Andylusion]

Don't trip while you're running away.

Right here. Answer my question. In free market capitalism when a business fails, it fails right? It doesn't matter if that is good or bad, it just is, right or not?

In free market capitalism when a business fails, it fails right?

In free market capitalism, businesses that make bad decisions fail.

So you approve of widespread bank failures, because you love free market capitalism.

I would prefer they not take the risks and corrupt actions that get them in trouble.

I know, writing and buying mortgages...….crazy!

Because that is what got them in trouble? It had nothing to do with packaging bad loans as good investment?

That is what caused the S&L crises?

Sorry for jumping in... but I am not entirely sure what you are talking about.

Do you mean the sub-prime crash of 2007-2009? Because that was almost entirely government caused.

I still disagree with the bailouts (which actually were not a bailout at all), but there is no question it was government caused.

 

[Andylusion]

Of course writing and buying bad mortgages is what got banks into trouble.

It was in all the papers.

You never explained which regulations would have stopped them from doing that.

I replied to that.

Running away was your reply.

I noted the quid pro quo that caused the problems. It has been discussed endlessly.

A quid pro quo caused the mortgage crisis? LOL!

Absolutely. The government removed restrictions and in return the banks made bad loans for the government's benefit to buy votes.

No true. That is factually incorrect. The government removed no restrictions, that had anything to do with the crisis.

 

[pknopp]

Are the too-big-to-fail banks too big or what?

Dodd/Frank made the too big to fail banks even bigger.

Nope.

Yep.

The little banks could not afford the costs of the regulations and the bigger banks gobbled them up.

Fed President: Dodd-Frank Made 'Too Big To Fail' An Even Bigger Problem | HuffPost

The too-big-to-fail problem is getting even bigger

Three Charts That Show How Dodd-Frank Is Killing Small Banks

 

[hjmick]

This thread is the very definition of Fake News.

...One potential tax Sanders listed that has been particularly controversial is a 4% "income-based premium" that households making more than $29,000 per year would pay. He also calls for taxes on employers and greater taxes on high-income households...

The Democratic Debate Over 'Medicare For All' And Middle-Class Taxes, Explained

Page 2:

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file

 

[iamwhatiseem]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

Actually, to some small extent, I am mildly impressed he had the balls to be this honest. He now admits, what all the rest of us already knew.... that the poor would have to pay more tax to get health care.

How many dozens on dozens of posts where I had left-wingers saying "He didn't say the poor would have to pay more tax!".

Now at least, they can't live in their fictional utopia where we can get endless government everything, and not pay any tax.

Ahh.... but at the same time the Bern is quite willing to bankrupt you in order to finance social programs.
Very willing.
Meanwhile he has to decide which of his 3 houses he wants to sleep tonight.
Elitist like Bernie are easy to define... basically they hate people who spent their life working furiously to accumulate wealth. Wants then to give back everything they earned.
Meanwhile... he himself will live like they use to while the government takes it.

You live like this paying 70% tax rates... in government housing:

... while he himself lives like this...

 

[pknopp]

I replied to that.

Running away was your reply.

I noted the quid pro quo that caused the problems. It has been discussed endlessly.

A quid pro quo caused the mortgage crisis? LOL!

Absolutely. The government removed restrictions and in return the banks made bad loans for the government's benefit to buy votes.

No true. That is factually incorrect. The government removed no restrictions, that had anything to do with the crisis.

I can't believe there are still people ignorant of what went on.

Banks could not gamble with depositors money before Graham/Leach/Bliley.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

The good thing is, he won’t be doing anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LaDairis]

The "two year" political cycle of Democrats


1. raise taxes
2. make that money vanish
3. scream that the failure to show any results was because they need MORE TAXES


At some point, a rational person asks.....

WHY would anyone vote for such kleptos???

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

This thread is the very definition of Fake News.

He said it. I watched it. The first 29k will be exempt. This guy should be selling cars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pknopp]

Right here. Answer my question. In free market capitalism when a business fails, it fails right? It doesn't matter if that is good or bad, it just is, right or not?

In free market capitalism when a business fails, it fails right?

In free market capitalism, businesses that make bad decisions fail.

So you approve of widespread bank failures, because you love free market capitalism.

I would prefer they not take the risks and corrupt actions that get them in trouble.

I know, writing and buying mortgages...….crazy!

Because that is what got them in trouble? It had nothing to do with packaging bad loans as good investment?

That is what caused the S&L crises?

Sorry for jumping in... but I am not entirely sure what you are talking about.

Do you mean the sub-prime crash of 2007-2009? Because that was almost entirely government caused.

I still disagree with the bailouts (which actually were not a bailout at all), but there is no question it was government caused.

So you say "almost". We agree there was both sides at fault. Then the only discussion is how much each side is at fault.

Is that really worthy to argue?