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

[Andylusion]

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?

Well yes, because I would say 99% was government, and the main "fault" of the banks as it were, was trusting government.

Government was suing banks to make bad loans.
Government was pushing banks to make bad loans.
Government incentivized banks to make bad loans.
Government even required banks to make bad loans in order to get merger approvals.
Government even guaranteed sub-prime loans.

And the problem is, with all this concerted effort to push banks to make bad loans, then you want to point at the banks and say they should not have done that. Well.... while technically true, that is entirely unfair.

Without government intervention, the sub-prime crash would never have happened. Because prior to 1997, the government didn't make any direct overt moves to push sub-prime loans, and before 1997, they were a niche market.

Prior to 1997, sub-prime loans were tiny, and the market was flat. There was no real significant growth, until the government got involved in 1997.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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...

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.

Funny how 16 years of Clinton/Obama made things worse.

 

[Andylusion]

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

Well let me ask you this...... if you save for retirement, are you exempt from paying into social security for those who refused to save for retirement?

Like all socialism.... it doesn't work, unless you have no choice.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Stop the lying, libertards. From Bernie's actual plan:

An employer’s first $2 million in payroll would be exempt from this premium protecting small businesses throughout the country. 4 percent income-based premium paid by households Revenue raised: $3.5 trillion over ten years. The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan. Last year the typical working family paid an average of $5,277 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All – just $844 a year – saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.

..saving the entire $5,277/yr ("tax") they now spend "on average."

Poor, small employers, middle class - all SAVE compared to the current robbery bigtime. The wealthy begin paying their fair share because, duh, they can easily afford to.

Making $150,000 to $200,000 a year will put you squarely in the top 5 percent of American wage-earners.

In other words, well above "middle class" income. The plan's progressive tax increase table doesn't even begin until earnings at least $250,000/yr.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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...

Even blacks are buying $15M mansions on the beach!

 

[Andylusion]

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.

I disagree. I see no evidence that anything in washington is broken.

The only thing broken, is that people keep voting for bad politicians. It does not matter what "washington apparatus" we have, when the public votes in bad people.

Take Maxine Waters. Waters has been voted one of the most corrupt members of congress for years. Maybe a decade. Yet they keep voting her in.

There is no system you can invent, where you can vote in corrupt people, and somehow end up with a non-corrupt government.

There is nothing broken about the system. Just broken people.

Our system of government is perfectly fine. Get rid of the bad people, and the system will straighten out.

 

[Andylusion]

Stop the lying, libertards. From Bernie's actual plan:

An employer’s first $2 million in payroll would be exempt from this premium protecting small businesses throughout the country. 4 percent income-based premium paid by households Revenue raised: $3.5 trillion over ten years. The typical middle class family would save over $4,400 under this plan. Last year the typical working family paid an average of $5,277 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All – just $844 a year – saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.

..saving the entire $4,400/yr ("tax") they now spend on average.

Poor, small employers, middle class - all SAVE compared to the current robbery bigtime. The wealthy begin paying their fair share because, duh, they can easily afford to.

Making $150,000 to $200,000 a year will put you squarely in the top 5 percent of American wage-earners.

In other words, well above "middle class" income. The plan's progressive tax increase table doesn't even begin until earnings at least $250,000/yr.

Hmm... Nah. Sorry, but I head the same BS crap when Obama's plan came out, about how ObamaCare would "save the typical family".... and where did that BS crap go? What happen to all their mythological savings?

So no, I don't buy it. Bernie is the one lying.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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...

Funny how $14/hr is now considered wealthy and suitable for tax hikes.

 

[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.

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.

Right now it's impossible.... because all the regulations make it impossible.

No, regulations does not prevent stealing from a charity. AOC was using campaign money, funneled through a front company, to her boyfriend. Why didn't the regulations prevent that?

Franklin Raines was cooking the books at Fannie Mae, and fabricated a profit where there was none, so that they could trigger executive bonuses.

Enron, Bernie Madoff... the list of examples where people engaged in fraud and money laundering while under heavy regulation is endless.

Nothing can somehow "prevent" crime. What you can do is have laws against fraud.... and then punish people caught engaging in fraud.

I'm all in favor of more law enforcement. 100% support more law enforcement.

However, regulations do not prevent crime. All they do, is allow the rich to hold down the poor. That's it. No regulation anywhere has ever stopped a crime.

 

[pknopp]

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."

The government can not make the corrupt calls for them. That's the venue of the corrupt.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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

Well let me ask you this...... if you save for retirement, are you exempt from paying into social security for those who refused to save for retirement?

Like all socialism.... it doesn't work, unless you have no choice.

You still get your SS checks... Don't see rich people returning them to the Treasury. Record popular still regardless of income. Therefore, like it or not, cry us a river... IT WORKS!

 

[pknopp]

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.

The problem was that banks were allowed to gamble with money that was not theirs. They were restrained from doing that with Glass/Steagal. The investment side and loan sides were separate.

Is it possible the banks could have still been corrupt without investing depositers money? Absolutely. The thing then though is when the bets went bad they only lose their money, not the money of the depositers. They get their money and the bank goes under.

 

[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.

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

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

 

[pknopp]

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?

Weren't they? It was good mortgages that blew up?

 

[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?

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?

Well yes, because I would say 99% was government, and the main "fault" of the banks as it were, was trusting government.

Government was suing banks to make bad loans.
Government was pushing banks to make bad loans.
Government incentivized banks to make bad loans.
Government even required banks to make bad loans in order to get merger approvals.
Government even guaranteed sub-prime loans.

And the problem is, with all this concerted effort to push banks to make bad loans, then you want to point at the banks and say they should not have done that. Well.... while technically true, that is entirely unfair.

Without government intervention, the sub-prime crash would never have happened. Because prior to 1997, the government didn't make any direct overt moves to push sub-prime loans, and before 1997, they were a niche market.

Prior to 1997, sub-prime loans were tiny, and the market was flat. There was no real significant growth, until the government got involved in 1997.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.

 

[DOTR]

This thread is the very definition of Fake News.

except here he is saying it.

 

[DOTR]

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

Wow, a website created in cooperation by the health insurance industry and lobbyists railing against the termination of their cash cow with Fake News propaganda.

And you idiots lap it up.

Except here he is saying it.

 

[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.

Right now it's impossible.... because all the regulations make it impossible.

No, regulations does not prevent stealing from a charity. AOC was using campaign money, funneled through a front company, to her boyfriend. Why didn't the regulations prevent that?

Franklin Raines was cooking the books at Fannie Mae, and fabricated a profit where there was none, so that they could trigger executive bonuses.

Enron, Bernie Madoff... the list of examples where people engaged in fraud and money laundering while under heavy regulation is endless.

Nothing can somehow "prevent" crime. What you can do is have laws against fraud.... and then punish people caught engaging in fraud.

I'm all in favor of more law enforcement. 100% support more law enforcement.

However, regulations do not prevent crime. All they do, is allow the rich to hold down the poor. That's it. No regulation anywhere has ever stopped a crime.

No regulations do not stop corruption. There wi always be people who think they can get by with it.

Regulations allow the oversite that catches the corruption.

 

[DOTR]

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

Who is this "we" Bernie is speaking of?

his fellow millionaires.

 

[DOTR]

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

You post more bulls**t

Oy vey but you and Sanders are two of a kind aren’t you?