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

[Butch_Coolidge]

You might pay more in taxes, but you would pay $20,000 a year less for health insurance.

Health Insurance Costs Surpass $20,000 Per Year, Hitting a Record

What if you have a job, with benefits already? Are you exempt from paying taxes for bums?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dblack]

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?

Heh. No, I'm not going to chase you around the mulberry bush.

 

[pknopp]

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?

Heh. No, I'm not going to chase you around the mulberry bush.

I'm suppose to know what "regulate the banks decisions" is suppose to mean? It could mean a hundred things.

 

[Andylusion]

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

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

That's kind of our point. No amount of regulations, is going to solve anything. In fact, regulations generally make the problem worse, which you pointed out.

Regulations inherently make the companies they are created to supposedly reign in... larger and more out of control.

Allow me to explain....

Regulations are very expensive, and at the same time, they reduce the ability of the companies to create new products.

So I'm a big mega-bank. You are a smaller bank. Between the two of us, which one has the money to spend in order to meet the regulations? I do. I have hundreds of billions. You are a small bank chain, and likely don't have billions to spend meeting regulations.

Additionally, between the two of us, which one needs to create diverse new products to attract customers? You do. I do not. I'm a mega bank. Customers will come to me on name brand alone. You are the one who has to attract customers with new products.

The regulations will both harm your ability to create new products, and will cost you tons of money you don't have in order to be compliant.

So you facing these huge costs and challenges, may just determine to sell out to me. You sell off to me, and I become larger and more profitable, because now there is less competition.

And you can see this throughout the entire economy. In states that have the tightest regulations, you often see the fewest insurance companies, for example.

When they passed the net neutrality regulations, the first thing that happened was a wave of mergers across the country. Comcast today is vastly larger than they were before those regulations passed.

Indeed, every time there is a wave of regulations, what follows is a decline in public choices as companies sell out and merge. Go look at the auto industry before the regulations of the 1970s. There were many separate companies. By the 1990s, it was just GM, Ford and Chrysler.

The solution to having these massive banks, is actually to deregulate, and allow more free competition. Competitors will rise up where the large banks fail, and the market will end up more diverse.

 

[basquebromance]

He’s not there for Wall Street. He’s not there for Hollywood. He’s not there for big oil, or big pharma or big anybody. Just Big Us. And I’m good with Big Us.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

He’s not there for Wall Street. He’s not there for Hollywood. He’s not there for big oil, or big pharma or big anybody. Just Big Us. And I’m good with Big Us.

Big US ==> People who make less than 29,000 ???

 

[pknopp]

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

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

That's kind of our point. No amount of regulations, is going to solve anything. In fact, regulations generally make the problem worse, which you pointed out.

Regulations inherently make the companies they are created to supposedly reign in... larger and more out of control.

Allow me to explain....

Regulations are very expensive, and at the same time, they reduce the ability of the companies to create new products.

So I'm a big mega-bank. You are a smaller bank. Between the two of us, which one has the money to spend in order to meet the regulations? I do. I have hundreds of billions. You are a small bank chain, and likely don't have billions to spend meeting regulations.

Additionally, between the two of us, which one needs to create diverse new products to attract customers? You do. I do not. I'm a mega bank. Customers will come to me on name brand alone. You are the one who has to attract customers with new products.

The regulations will both harm your ability to create new products, and will cost you tons of money you don't have in order to be compliant.

So you facing these huge costs and challenges, may just determine to sell out to me. You sell off to me, and I become larger and more profitable, because now there is less competition.

And you can see this throughout the entire economy. In states that have the tightest regulations, you often see the fewest insurance companies, for example.

When they passed the net neutrality regulations, the first thing that happened was a wave of mergers across the country. Comcast today is vastly larger than they were before those regulations passed.

Indeed, every time there is a wave of regulations, what follows is a decline in public choices as companies sell out and merge. Go look at the auto industry before the regulations of the 1970s. There were many separate companies. By the 1990s, it was just GM, Ford and Chrysler.

The solution to having these massive banks, is actually to deregulate, and allow more free competition. Competitors will rise up where the large banks fail, and the market will end up more diverse.

Bull. Without regulations and oversite Trump would still be stealing from his charity.

A competitor can't rise up to compete with Goldman Sachs. Impossible.

 

[basquebromance]

Bernie has pledged not to "raise taxes on the middle class by one penny." i take him at his word

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol.....anybody who thinks Sanders is electable has a plate in their head

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

It’s like they want Trump to win.

 

[dblack]

I'm suppose to know what "regulate the banks decisions" is suppose to mean? It could mean a hundred things.

The decisions you were referring to when you said: "I would prefer they not take the risks and corrupt actions that get them in trouble."

 

[Weatherman2020]

Lol.....anybody who thinks Sanders is electable has a plate in their head

It’s right here, Clark.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Bernie has pledged not to "raise taxes on the middle class by one penny." i take him at his word

Like when Willie said 3 days after being elected for his 1st term said looks like it’s worse than we thought, gotta raise taxes!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Bernie has pledged not to "raise taxes on the middle class by one penny." i take him at his word

Apparently, the middle class ends at 29,000.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

You are talking about the separation of retail, commercial banks, and insurance.

Couple of problems with trying to blame the GLB Act, for the sub-prime crash.

First, the sub-prime bubble started in 1997, and the GLB act was passed in 1999.

So as you can see, the boom in housing prices clearly started in 1997.
The idea that somehow the GLB Act in 1999, somehow retroactively caused a housing bubble that started in 1997, seems unlikely.

Second, no other country had such a prohibition on Commercial and Retail banking. There was no comparable Glass-Steagall Act in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere in Europe, the UK, Japan, or anywhere else.

Yet the problem originated in the US, nowhere else that never had such regulations.

Third, the vast majority of all the banks that failed, were not, and would not, have been affected by these regulations.

Indymac. Retail bank only. Glass-Steagall would not have affected it.
Countrywide Financial. Commercial mortgage bank only.
WaMu, retail only.
Lehman Bro. Commercial only.

And the list of banks that were all single purpose banks, and failed, is large.
Very few banks would have been affected by Glass-Steagall. In fact, I only know of one specific bank that would have been affected, namely Citigroup.
There was one other bank that qualified as far as I know, and that bank did not fail.

So as I said, there is no regulations that were repealed, that had anything to do with the sub-prime crash.

If GLB Act had never happened, Countrywide Financial would not have been affected, and still would have failed. Same with Indymac, WaMu, Lehman Bro, and Bear Stearns. None of those banks were affected at all by the passing of GLB Act, nor if the GLB Act had never happened.

 

[francoHFW]

Leftists absolutely hate the poor and lower middle class. They have to keep them down.
This comes as no surprise.

funny how the last 30 years of GOP control of tax rates and policy, we now have the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever anywhere in the modern world. Great job, super duper. You may get taxed a tiny bit but your health care will be free dumbass lol. The rich are going to pay for this mainly. Right now we have a flat tax system, the height of greed and stupidity...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

You agree, none of the restrictions would have stopped bad mortgages.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

Mortgages were gambling?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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???

Well just sayin... voting for Republican hasn't changed anything either.
The more all of us wrap our brains around the fact the ENTIRE Washington apparatus is hopelessly broken, deeply corrupt and has been diligently working to turn the world into one massive money crop for themselves and the investment class - we might, just might have a chance to get back a semblance of what we once had.
It isn't about Democrats and Republicans.
It is about Globalism/Elitism/Corporatism and how they have managed to take over absolutely everything in the past 30 years.
BOTH SIDES.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

You are talking about the separation of retail, commercial banks, and insurance.

Couple of problems with trying to blame the GLB Act, for the sub-prime crash.

First, the sub-prime bubble started in 1997, and the GLB act was passed in 1999.

So as you can see, the boom in housing prices clearly started in 1997.
The idea that somehow the GLB Act in 1999, somehow retroactively caused a housing bubble that started in 1997, seems unlikely.

Second, no other country had such a prohibition on Commercial and Retail banking. There was no comparable Glass-Steagall Act in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere in Europe, the UK, Japan, or anywhere else.

Yet the problem originated in the US, nowhere else that never had such regulations.

Third, the vast majority of all the banks that failed, were not, and would not, have been affected by these regulations.

Indymac. Retail bank only. Glass-Steagall would not have affected it.
Countrywide Financial. Commercial mortgage bank only.
WaMu, retail only.
Lehman Bro. Commercial only.

And the list of banks that were all single purpose banks, and failed, is large.
Very few banks would have been affected by Glass-Steagall. In fact, I only know of one specific bank that would have been affected, namely Citigroup.
There was one other bank that qualified as far as I know, and that bank did not fail.

So as I said, there is no regulations that were repealed, that had anything to do with the sub-prime crash.

If GLB Act had never happened, Countrywide Financial would not have been affected, and still would have failed. Same with Indymac, WaMu, Lehman Bro, and Bear Stearns. None of those banks were affected at all by the passing of GLB Act, nor if the GLB Act had never happened.

Couple of problems with trying to blame the GLB Act, for the sub-prime crash.

Not to mention GLB had fuck all to do with Clinton mandating Fannie and Freddie make half their mortgage
purchases subprime mortgages.