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

[DOTR]

People pay a ton for health care now. People seem to forget that. So if it costs you $650 a month now or $450 in higher taxes you are ahead.

here’s where you explain that Sanders isn’t *really* a socialist but that paying for your own medical care is actually socialism for real.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

Can they add that savings to the $2500 a year Obama already saved them?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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???

Exactly true. Public education at one time was the solution to everything. Now, we spend the most per capita than any industrialized nation on earth. When problems arise, the first thing the Democrats say is we need to throw more money at it.

If anybody thinks healthcare will be different, they are kidding themselves.

 

[DOTR]

Dem policies are so awesome and popular they have to punish people with taxes and threaten them with laws to force people to OBEY!

Bravo! How about a Democrat plan that was so good people could voluntarily opt in while people who think less of it could opt out ? Wouldn’t that be novel?

The fact is they must use force to coerce the majority into supporting their voters.

 

[pknopp]

People pay a ton for health care now. People seem to forget that. So if it costs you $650 a month now or $450 in higher taxes you are ahead.

here’s where you explain that Sanders isn’t *really* a socialist but that paying for your own medical care is actually socialism for real.

Trump. Bail outs. We only have a choice of what Socialism we want.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The problem was that banks were allowed to gamble with money that was not theirs.

By writing mortgages. Just awful!

They were restrained from doing that with Glass/Steagal.

No, they could write mortgages under Glass-Steagall.

Is it possible the banks could have still been corrupt without investing depositers money?

I see your ignorance isn't limited to pharma.

when the bets went bad they only lose their money, not the money of the depositers.

"Their money"? Share just what it is you feel banks did with deposits....under Glass-Steagall.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bank failures are good or bad for the little guy?

Irrelevant to my question. I have no obligation to address your irrelevant question when you avoid my actual question.

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.

Banks are regulated heavily by the government. If you want to sell off your loans to the market, you have to be in compliance with their demands.

The banks didn't come up with 0% down and no credit checks, the government did.

 

[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.

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

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

You think banks have 2 separate pots of money they lend?

One pot is "customer money", what's the second one?

 

[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

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.

I think it pays out, according to what you paid in. If not, then maybe I should have been a bum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[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.

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!

Yeah, except it won't.

The problem with all socialism, is not that it doesn't initially work. All socialism initially works. The problem is when you run out of other people's money to spend.

The soviet union worked.... until it ran out of money, and people were killing their neighbors and eating them.
Venezuela socialism worked... until it ran out of money, and people were eating the family pet and rummaging through trash cans.
Cuban socialism worked... until the Soviets could not prop them up anymore, and people were risking death to swim to Miami.
Greece pensions and health care worked... until they couldn't borrow money and the system imploded, and people were burning sticks to survive the winter.

Yes, social security has worked, because we haven't run out of other people's money just yet. But the facts are already documented.....

Examining the interest rate paradox
Entitlement Liabilities Are a Graver Threat to the Next Generation of Americans Than Climate Change | John Phelan
https://nypost.com/2019/11/16/uncle-sams-debt-explosion/
If boomers 'actually have the money,' why do millennials owe them Social Security?

Here's the problem with people like you.... Greece in the 90s and the 2000s, had people in Greece saying over and over, that they couldn't pay for these problems, the systems needed reformed, the money wasn't there, and the debt was too much.

And every single time anyone tried to address the coming crisis, the public would act, pretty much like you... and scream that "IT WORKS!".

And look what happened to them.

Mass riots and protests

Banks and hospitals closed

Break down of law and order...

And by the way, the cuts to Greek pensions is still ongoing, just last year an 18% cut in pensions across Greece.

Greece’s pensioners protest further pension cuts of up to 18% - Keep Talking Greece

This is the reality. Socialism works just fine... just fantastic... until you run out of other people's money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Were mortgages restricted by Glass-Steagall or not?

 

[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?

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.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan.

Baloney. That's how Obama got his start....organizing his community.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

We just covered this.

Indymac was not an investment bank. It was retail bank. Only a retail bank. If GLB Act, had never existed..... if Glass Steagall was still enforced 100%...... Indymac would not have been affected by this at all.

They were not doing both investment and loans. Same with Countrywide. Same with Lehman. Same with Bear Stearns.

Moreover, the entire rest of the world, never had the regulations you are talking about. If what you claimed was the problem... .if the big problem was "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."

if that was the problem, then why didn't the sub-prime crash originate in Europe, or the UK, or Canada, where they have NEVER HAD any such restriction?

And lastly, the sub-prime bubble started in 1997. GLB Act was passed in 1999. How did a policy enacted in 1999, cause a bubble to form in 1997?

 

[pknopp]

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.

The problem was that banks were allowed to gamble with money that was not theirs.

By writing mortgages. Just awful!

They were restrained from doing that with Glass/Steagal.

No, they could write mortgages under Glass-Steagall.

Is it possible the banks could have still been corrupt without investing depositers money?

I see your ignorance isn't limited to pharma.

when the bets went bad they only lose their money, not the money of the depositers.

"Their money"? Share just what it is you feel banks did with deposits....under Glass-Steagall.

You can ignore what happened if you wish.

 

[pknopp]

Irrelevant to my question. I have no obligation to address your irrelevant question when you avoid my actual question.

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.

Banks are regulated heavily by the government. If you want to sell off your loans to the market, you have to be in compliance with their demands.

The banks didn't come up with 0% down and no credit checks, the government did.

The government didn't make the loans. The banks did. It was a pay back for removing regulations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The problem was that banks were allowed to gamble with money that was not theirs.

By writing mortgages. Just awful!

They were restrained from doing that with Glass/Steagal.

No, they could write mortgages under Glass-Steagall.

Is it possible the banks could have still been corrupt without investing depositers money?

I see your ignorance isn't limited to pharma.

when the bets went bad they only lose their money, not the money of the depositers.

"Their money"? Share just what it is you feel banks did with deposits....under Glass-Steagall.

You can ignore what happened if you wish.

I won't ignore your moronic posts.

 

[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.

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

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

You think banks have 2 separate pots of money they lend?

One pot is "customer money", what's the second one?

Investors money. But you know this.

 

[pknopp]

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?

Were mortgages restricted by Glass-Steagall or not?

No, investing was.

 

[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?

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.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan.

Baloney. That's how Obama got his start....organizing his community.

Who did Obama sue?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

You think banks have 2 separate pots of money they lend?

One pot is "customer money", what's the second one?

Investors money. But you know this.

You think that if I buy Bank of America stock, they segregate loans made with my money from loans made with deposits?

That's honestly the funniest thing I've heard all day.