Republicans: admit you are afraid of Bernie Sanders

[thereisnospoon]

He is drawing in more crowds than any candidate on both sides of the aisle. 29,000 in Portand is his highest number so far. That kind of rally support is unprecedented this early in campaign season. The reason why he hasn't surpassed Hillary in the polls is because he is not as well known as she is across the U.S. He lacks her name recognition. That will soon change of course. Oh, and unlike Trump, he didn't have to hire people to come to his early rallies. Let's also not forget that Sanders is proposing actual policy ideas unlike Trump. Apparently all a republican has to do to win in the polls is be a total drama queen.

Polls already show that most Americans favor a wide range of progressive issues. In fact, most of what Sanders is running on, most Americans already support. As this race goes on, don't you think he poses a huge threat to republicans?

More like amused...
Look, sanders is a threat to both Hillary Clinton and the democrat ticket.
If he is so inclined, he may very well run as an independent. Thus splitting the left wing vote.

He won't. Only Trump is dumb enough to run as an independent.

So you say...Based on WHAT?

 

[peach174]

Maggie never said a bad word against socialized medicine, did she?

Yes she did;
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money".

UNDER SOCIALISM ALL THE MONEY BELONGS TO THE STATE.


.

The Brits love their medical care...it didn't change under Thatcher.

Not according to this report

NHS Socialized Medicine In Britain: Unmitigated Failure
Britain's much vaunted public medical system, accountable for 82% of all health care spending, according to the OECD, is in shambles.

A warning shot was fired a few months ago when one hospital, Mid-Staffordshire, was found to be a veritable death trap of neglect, misspent funds and starved investment. Now a new report on 14 NHS trusts, released by government-appointed Prof. Sir Bruce Keogh this week, finds that neglect and "needless" deaths are pretty much a characteristic of the entire system.

I wonder why Thatcher didn't fix it.

She did try
Thatcher Tries To Cure Ailing Health System

 

[thereisnospoon]

You're welcome to explain why I am wrong. This is a forum after all. We express opinions with facts here.

Not need to explain something YOU made up in your head.
Sanders is a fringe candidate. A far left wing marginalized radical.
Unless 2/3rd's of registered democrats drop dead or simply refuse to vote, Sanders has NO chance.
Here's how it will work.....
Sanders keeps his delegates from the Primaries. The DNC cajoles and persuades him to throw them the Clinton.
He then may run as an Independent.
Sanders keeps his delegates and tells the DNC to go pound sand.
Either way, Clinton and/or the democrat party loses.

I gave you no information in this thread that is factually wrong. My opinion is guided by facts and yours isn't.

Keep telling yourself that...You haven't offered a single fact. Only your opinions....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sanders has grand plans but can't explain how he will pay for the grand plans.

tax the rich

duh

They gots money and wes cans take it and not have to makes moneys

Racist ^^^. No wonder, the father of racism is ignorance.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I said he hates capitalism

and his policies will destroy America just like it's destroyed every other country.

but you will vote for him anyway, b/c like the sheep you are, you think the bad shit that happens everyfuckinggoddamntime wont happen here.

it's ignorant people like you that have taken us down this road.

Why would you think he hates capitalism? His policies and speeches do not reflect such a thing. What policies exactly do you think would destroy America? Be specific.

he wants to increase taxes on the wealthy, the people that create jobs.
he wants to use tax dollars to pay for more stuff

that answers both questions.

Contrary to what you repubs would like to believe, the driving force of the economy is not the wealthy - its the middle class. this is a consumption based economy. It depends on consumer spending. Where does most of the consumer spending come from? The middle class. Bernie is running on saving the middle class and stopping all of the income gains from going to the top 1% of earners. Shifting the tax burden to the wealthy is about being able to pay for our government's expenses. Do you not want to see our debt get any higher? Then support the wealthy paying more in taxes. That is the first step in reducing our deficit. And yes, the other is cutting spending which is what Bernie plans to do with our bloated defense budget.

No. Our economy is based on production and productivity. Work.
Without work in all it's forms being accomplished, there is not economy...
BTW, wealthy people don't spend?....
Hey genius. I have been to wealthy people's homes. Their front doors on their house cost more than my car is worth.
Don't claim the wealthy don't spend money....
The federal government could tax the so called 1% at a rate of 100% and it would not even put a dent in the debt or the deficit.
Confiscatory taxation will only dramatically increase the debt government runs up because while in the short term there would be an uptick in revenue. However as those being crushed by taxes pull their money out of the economy buy cutting spending and investment and then spread it around to keep it out of Uncle Sam's grubby overspending paws, revenue would collapse.
No nation in the history of modern civilization has ever been able to tax its way into prosperity.
Sanders is a typical elitist far left winger.

Yes obviously productivity is vital, but what ultimately matters is the profit that is made off it. Without consumer spending, there is no profit. Once again, supply means jack shit if you don't have the demand to match it.

Yes, obviously rich people spend money, but you need to understand how many people in this country people actually are rich. It isn't very many. Sure the rich make extravagant purchases from time to time, but their daily/monthly spending is really no different from what the middle class spends each week/monthly. The wealthy and middle class spend about the same amount of money on basic essentials like food. That doesn't differ. the reason why the middle class is the driving force of consumer spending and not the wealthy is because there are many more middle class people than there are rich people. It's that volume that matters. The rich like sitting on most of their money. That's how we get billionaires.

Ok Captain Obvious...I just got through expressing that. No need to for you to repeat it unless you are trying to appear profound.
BTW genius...Without productivity( supply), there is no need for demand. To put it in simple terms. If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it.
The primary motivator is the idea. Ideas which if accepted, are produced as a good or service.....
There are 9.3 million people in the US that have a net worth of $1 million.....That's primarily liquid assets or intangibles...
There are most likely ten times that who have wealth in excess of $100,000 that they can access.....
So let's look at your assumption......"There aren't that many( wealthy people).....Based on that, what makes you think that jacking up taxes on the wealthy is going to have significant effect on government debt/deficit?
Secondly....ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people.
And here we go...."The rich are sitting on most of their money".......And how is this the business of anyone else? And what difference does it make?
It is THEIR money. And lastly. You cannot prove it. So stop regurgitating this worn out progressive narrative talking point.
The middle class is for the most part doing fine. It could be better if not for the Obama economy( Taxes, Obamacare)...

 

[Billy000]

He is drawing in more crowds than any candidate on both sides of the aisle. 29,000 in Portand is his highest number so far. That kind of rally support is unprecedented this early in campaign season. The reason why he hasn't surpassed Hillary in the polls is because he is not as well known as she is across the U.S. He lacks her name recognition. That will soon change of course. Oh, and unlike Trump, he didn't have to hire people to come to his early rallies. Let's also not forget that Sanders is proposing actual policy ideas unlike Trump. Apparently all a republican has to do to win in the polls is be a total drama queen.

Polls already show that most Americans favor a wide range of progressive issues. In fact, most of what Sanders is running on, most Americans already support. As this race goes on, don't you think he poses a huge threat to republicans?

More like amused...
Look, sanders is a threat to both Hillary Clinton and the democrat ticket.
If he is so inclined, he may very well run as an independent. Thus splitting the left wing vote.

He won't. Only Trump is dumb enough to run as an independent.

So you say...Based on WHAT?

Um because Trump has actually hinted that he could depending on how his fellow candidates "treat him". Sanders has given no indication he ever will.

 

[Billy000]

Why would you think he hates capitalism? His policies and speeches do not reflect such a thing. What policies exactly do you think would destroy America? Be specific.

he wants to increase taxes on the wealthy, the people that create jobs.
he wants to use tax dollars to pay for more stuff

that answers both questions.

Contrary to what you repubs would like to believe, the driving force of the economy is not the wealthy - its the middle class. this is a consumption based economy. It depends on consumer spending. Where does most of the consumer spending come from? The middle class. Bernie is running on saving the middle class and stopping all of the income gains from going to the top 1% of earners. Shifting the tax burden to the wealthy is about being able to pay for our government's expenses. Do you not want to see our debt get any higher? Then support the wealthy paying more in taxes. That is the first step in reducing our deficit. And yes, the other is cutting spending which is what Bernie plans to do with our bloated defense budget.

No. Our economy is based on production and productivity. Work.
Without work in all it's forms being accomplished, there is not economy...
BTW, wealthy people don't spend?....
Hey genius. I have been to wealthy people's homes. Their front doors on their house cost more than my car is worth.
Don't claim the wealthy don't spend money....
The federal government could tax the so called 1% at a rate of 100% and it would not even put a dent in the debt or the deficit.
Confiscatory taxation will only dramatically increase the debt government runs up because while in the short term there would be an uptick in revenue. However as those being crushed by taxes pull their money out of the economy buy cutting spending and investment and then spread it around to keep it out of Uncle Sam's grubby overspending paws, revenue would collapse.
No nation in the history of modern civilization has ever been able to tax its way into prosperity.
Sanders is a typical elitist far left winger.

Yes obviously productivity is vital, but what ultimately matters is the profit that is made off it. Without consumer spending, there is no profit. Once again, supply means jack shit if you don't have the demand to match it.

Yes, obviously rich people spend money, but you need to understand how many people in this country people actually are rich. It isn't very many. Sure the rich make extravagant purchases from time to time, but their daily/monthly spending is really no different from what the middle class spends each week/monthly. The wealthy and middle class spend about the same amount of money on basic essentials like food. That doesn't differ. the reason why the middle class is the driving force of consumer spending and not the wealthy is because there are many more middle class people than there are rich people. It's that volume that matters. The rich like sitting on most of their money. That's how we get billionaires.

Ok Captain Obvious...I just got through expressing that. No need to for you to repeat it unless you are trying to appear profound.
BTW genius...Without productivity( supply), there is no need for demand. To put it in simple terms. If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it.
The primary motivator is the idea. Ideas which if accepted, are produced as a good or service.....
There are 9.3 million people in the US that have a net worth of $1 million.....That's primarily liquid assets or intangibles...
There are most likely ten times that who have wealth in excess of $100,000 that they can access.....
So let's look at your assumption......"There aren't that many( wealthy people).....Based on that, what makes you think that jacking up taxes on the wealthy is going to have significant effect on government debt/deficit?
Secondly....ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people.
And here we go...."The rich are sitting on most of their money".......And how is this the business of anyone else? And what difference does it make?
It is THEIR money. And lastly. You cannot prove it. So stop regurgitating this worn out progressive narrative talking point.
The middle class is for the most part doing fine. It could be better if not for the Obama economy( Taxes, Obamacare)...

1) "If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it."

Yeah that is exactly my point. It's profit resulting from consumption that drives the economy. Some supply has the potential to end up invaluable. Consumption (demand) is always valuable.

2) Why wouldn't taxing the wealthy reduce the deficit? The higher the capital, the higher the revenue. This significant impact of course would need to stretch out over several years. You certainly could put more tax burden on the middle class but you would be hurting consumer spending. Yes there are few wealthy Americans but consider the ridiculous amount of wealth the top earners own. It's staggering.

3) "ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people."

Only every once in a while on something extravagant, not regularly. They spend the same on something in high demand like food. The extravagant purchases do jack shit to help the economy at large.

Think of it this way: which company is more successful: Wal-Mart or Gucci? The answer is Wal-Mart. Why? Because it has huge consumer demand. EVERYONE can find something they need at Wal-Mart. Millions of people shop there. Gucci, while very expensive and profitable, has a narrow market. Millions of people don't shop at Gucci. Only rich people do. That means in terms of consumer spending, the wealthy contribute very little in comparison. The massive capital retailers like Wal Mart make help the economy at large. Gucci doesn't do jack shit for the economy at large.

4) I never said there was anything wrong with the rich sitting on their money. I'm simply stating that they do. As a result, they don't contribute much in terms of consumer spending. I still think rich people are important. Their contribution to the supply side of the economy is very important.

 

[The Rabbi]

he wants to increase taxes on the wealthy, the people that create jobs.
he wants to use tax dollars to pay for more stuff

that answers both questions.

Contrary to what you repubs would like to believe, the driving force of the economy is not the wealthy - its the middle class. this is a consumption based economy. It depends on consumer spending. Where does most of the consumer spending come from? The middle class. Bernie is running on saving the middle class and stopping all of the income gains from going to the top 1% of earners. Shifting the tax burden to the wealthy is about being able to pay for our government's expenses. Do you not want to see our debt get any higher? Then support the wealthy paying more in taxes. That is the first step in reducing our deficit. And yes, the other is cutting spending which is what Bernie plans to do with our bloated defense budget.

No. Our economy is based on production and productivity. Work.
Without work in all it's forms being accomplished, there is not economy...
BTW, wealthy people don't spend?....
Hey genius. I have been to wealthy people's homes. Their front doors on their house cost more than my car is worth.
Don't claim the wealthy don't spend money....
The federal government could tax the so called 1% at a rate of 100% and it would not even put a dent in the debt or the deficit.
Confiscatory taxation will only dramatically increase the debt government runs up because while in the short term there would be an uptick in revenue. However as those being crushed by taxes pull their money out of the economy buy cutting spending and investment and then spread it around to keep it out of Uncle Sam's grubby overspending paws, revenue would collapse.
No nation in the history of modern civilization has ever been able to tax its way into prosperity.
Sanders is a typical elitist far left winger.

Yes obviously productivity is vital, but what ultimately matters is the profit that is made off it. Without consumer spending, there is no profit. Once again, supply means jack shit if you don't have the demand to match it.

Yes, obviously rich people spend money, but you need to understand how many people in this country people actually are rich. It isn't very many. Sure the rich make extravagant purchases from time to time, but their daily/monthly spending is really no different from what the middle class spends each week/monthly. The wealthy and middle class spend about the same amount of money on basic essentials like food. That doesn't differ. the reason why the middle class is the driving force of consumer spending and not the wealthy is because there are many more middle class people than there are rich people. It's that volume that matters. The rich like sitting on most of their money. That's how we get billionaires.

Ok Captain Obvious...I just got through expressing that. No need to for you to repeat it unless you are trying to appear profound.
BTW genius...Without productivity( supply), there is no need for demand. To put it in simple terms. If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it.
The primary motivator is the idea. Ideas which if accepted, are produced as a good or service.....
There are 9.3 million people in the US that have a net worth of $1 million.....That's primarily liquid assets or intangibles...
There are most likely ten times that who have wealth in excess of $100,000 that they can access.....
So let's look at your assumption......"There aren't that many( wealthy people).....Based on that, what makes you think that jacking up taxes on the wealthy is going to have significant effect on government debt/deficit?
Secondly....ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people.
And here we go...."The rich are sitting on most of their money".......And how is this the business of anyone else? And what difference does it make?
It is THEIR money. And lastly. You cannot prove it. So stop regurgitating this worn out progressive narrative talking point.
The middle class is for the most part doing fine. It could be better if not for the Obama economy( Taxes, Obamacare)...

1) "If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it."

Yeah that is exactly my point. It's profit resulting from consumption that drives the economy. Some supply has the potential to end up invaluable. Consumption (demand) is always valuable.

2) Why wouldn't taxing the wealthy reduce the deficit? The higher the capital, the higher the revenue. This significant impact of course would need to stretch out over several years. You certainly could put more tax burden on the middle class but you would be hurting consumer spending. Yes there are few wealthy Americans but consider the ridiculous amount of wealth the top earners own. It's staggering.

3) "ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people."

Only every once in a while on something extravagant, not regularly. They spend the same on something in high demand like food. The extravagant purchases do jack shit to help the economy at large.

Think of it this way: which company is more successful: Wal-Mart or Gucci? The answer is Wal-Mart. Why? Because it has huge consumer demand. EVERYONE can find something they need at Wal-Mart. Millions of people shop there. Gucci, while very expensive and profitable, has a narrow market. Millions of people don't shop at Gucci. Only rich people do. That means in terms of consumer spending, the wealthy contribute very little in comparison. The massive capital retailers like Wal Mart make help the economy at large. Gucci doesn't do jack shit for the economy at large.

4) I never said there was anything wrong with the rich sitting on their money. I'm simply stating that they do. As a result, they don't contribute much in terms of consumer spending. I still think rich people are important. Their contribution to the supply side of the economy is very important.

Another Billy Triple Fail post.
Hey, Billy. You think the rich "sit on their money"? Like they stuff cash into the sofa cushions or something? And that isnt even the worst part.

 

[Billy000]

Contrary to what you repubs would like to believe, the driving force of the economy is not the wealthy - its the middle class. this is a consumption based economy. It depends on consumer spending. Where does most of the consumer spending come from? The middle class. Bernie is running on saving the middle class and stopping all of the income gains from going to the top 1% of earners. Shifting the tax burden to the wealthy is about being able to pay for our government's expenses. Do you not want to see our debt get any higher? Then support the wealthy paying more in taxes. That is the first step in reducing our deficit. And yes, the other is cutting spending which is what Bernie plans to do with our bloated defense budget.

No. Our economy is based on production and productivity. Work.
Without work in all it's forms being accomplished, there is not economy...
BTW, wealthy people don't spend?....
Hey genius. I have been to wealthy people's homes. Their front doors on their house cost more than my car is worth.
Don't claim the wealthy don't spend money....
The federal government could tax the so called 1% at a rate of 100% and it would not even put a dent in the debt or the deficit.
Confiscatory taxation will only dramatically increase the debt government runs up because while in the short term there would be an uptick in revenue. However as those being crushed by taxes pull their money out of the economy buy cutting spending and investment and then spread it around to keep it out of Uncle Sam's grubby overspending paws, revenue would collapse.
No nation in the history of modern civilization has ever been able to tax its way into prosperity.
Sanders is a typical elitist far left winger.

Yes obviously productivity is vital, but what ultimately matters is the profit that is made off it. Without consumer spending, there is no profit. Once again, supply means jack shit if you don't have the demand to match it.

Yes, obviously rich people spend money, but you need to understand how many people in this country people actually are rich. It isn't very many. Sure the rich make extravagant purchases from time to time, but their daily/monthly spending is really no different from what the middle class spends each week/monthly. The wealthy and middle class spend about the same amount of money on basic essentials like food. That doesn't differ. the reason why the middle class is the driving force of consumer spending and not the wealthy is because there are many more middle class people than there are rich people. It's that volume that matters. The rich like sitting on most of their money. That's how we get billionaires.

Ok Captain Obvious...I just got through expressing that. No need to for you to repeat it unless you are trying to appear profound.
BTW genius...Without productivity( supply), there is no need for demand. To put it in simple terms. If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it.
The primary motivator is the idea. Ideas which if accepted, are produced as a good or service.....
There are 9.3 million people in the US that have a net worth of $1 million.....That's primarily liquid assets or intangibles...
There are most likely ten times that who have wealth in excess of $100,000 that they can access.....
So let's look at your assumption......"There aren't that many( wealthy people).....Based on that, what makes you think that jacking up taxes on the wealthy is going to have significant effect on government debt/deficit?
Secondly....ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people.
And here we go...."The rich are sitting on most of their money".......And how is this the business of anyone else? And what difference does it make?
It is THEIR money. And lastly. You cannot prove it. So stop regurgitating this worn out progressive narrative talking point.
The middle class is for the most part doing fine. It could be better if not for the Obama economy( Taxes, Obamacare)...

1) "If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it."

Yeah that is exactly my point. It's profit resulting from consumption that drives the economy. Some supply has the potential to end up invaluable. Consumption (demand) is always valuable.

2) Why wouldn't taxing the wealthy reduce the deficit? The higher the capital, the higher the revenue. This significant impact of course would need to stretch out over several years. You certainly could put more tax burden on the middle class but you would be hurting consumer spending. Yes there are few wealthy Americans but consider the ridiculous amount of wealth the top earners own. It's staggering.

3) "ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people."

Only every once in a while on something extravagant, not regularly. They spend the same on something in high demand like food. The extravagant purchases do jack shit to help the economy at large.

Think of it this way: which company is more successful: Wal-Mart or Gucci? The answer is Wal-Mart. Why? Because it has huge consumer demand. EVERYONE can find something they need at Wal-Mart. Millions of people shop there. Gucci, while very expensive and profitable, has a narrow market. Millions of people don't shop at Gucci. Only rich people do. That means in terms of consumer spending, the wealthy contribute very little in comparison. The massive capital retailers like Wal Mart make help the economy at large. Gucci doesn't do jack shit for the economy at large.

4) I never said there was anything wrong with the rich sitting on their money. I'm simply stating that they do. As a result, they don't contribute much in terms of consumer spending. I still think rich people are important. Their contribution to the supply side of the economy is very important.

Another Billy Triple Fail post.
Hey, Billy. You think the rich "sit on their money"? Like they stuff cash into the sofa cushions or something? And that isnt even the worst part.

You're an idiot. Of course they sit on most of their money. How else do we get billionaires?

 

[The Rabbi]

No. Our economy is based on production and productivity. Work.
Without work in all it's forms being accomplished, there is not economy...
BTW, wealthy people don't spend?....
Hey genius. I have been to wealthy people's homes. Their front doors on their house cost more than my car is worth.
Don't claim the wealthy don't spend money....
The federal government could tax the so called 1% at a rate of 100% and it would not even put a dent in the debt or the deficit.
Confiscatory taxation will only dramatically increase the debt government runs up because while in the short term there would be an uptick in revenue. However as those being crushed by taxes pull their money out of the economy buy cutting spending and investment and then spread it around to keep it out of Uncle Sam's grubby overspending paws, revenue would collapse.
No nation in the history of modern civilization has ever been able to tax its way into prosperity.
Sanders is a typical elitist far left winger.

Yes obviously productivity is vital, but what ultimately matters is the profit that is made off it. Without consumer spending, there is no profit. Once again, supply means jack shit if you don't have the demand to match it.

Yes, obviously rich people spend money, but you need to understand how many people in this country people actually are rich. It isn't very many. Sure the rich make extravagant purchases from time to time, but their daily/monthly spending is really no different from what the middle class spends each week/monthly. The wealthy and middle class spend about the same amount of money on basic essentials like food. That doesn't differ. the reason why the middle class is the driving force of consumer spending and not the wealthy is because there are many more middle class people than there are rich people. It's that volume that matters. The rich like sitting on most of their money. That's how we get billionaires.

Ok Captain Obvious...I just got through expressing that. No need to for you to repeat it unless you are trying to appear profound.
BTW genius...Without productivity( supply), there is no need for demand. To put it in simple terms. If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it.
The primary motivator is the idea. Ideas which if accepted, are produced as a good or service.....
There are 9.3 million people in the US that have a net worth of $1 million.....That's primarily liquid assets or intangibles...
There are most likely ten times that who have wealth in excess of $100,000 that they can access.....
So let's look at your assumption......"There aren't that many( wealthy people).....Based on that, what makes you think that jacking up taxes on the wealthy is going to have significant effect on government debt/deficit?
Secondly....ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people.
And here we go...."The rich are sitting on most of their money".......And how is this the business of anyone else? And what difference does it make?
It is THEIR money. And lastly. You cannot prove it. So stop regurgitating this worn out progressive narrative talking point.
The middle class is for the most part doing fine. It could be better if not for the Obama economy( Taxes, Obamacare)...

1) "If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it."

Yeah that is exactly my point. It's profit resulting from consumption that drives the economy. Some supply has the potential to end up invaluable. Consumption (demand) is always valuable.

2) Why wouldn't taxing the wealthy reduce the deficit? The higher the capital, the higher the revenue. This significant impact of course would need to stretch out over several years. You certainly could put more tax burden on the middle class but you would be hurting consumer spending. Yes there are few wealthy Americans but consider the ridiculous amount of wealth the top earners own. It's staggering.

3) "ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people."

Only every once in a while on something extravagant, not regularly. They spend the same on something in high demand like food. The extravagant purchases do jack shit to help the economy at large.

Think of it this way: which company is more successful: Wal-Mart or Gucci? The answer is Wal-Mart. Why? Because it has huge consumer demand. EVERYONE can find something they need at Wal-Mart. Millions of people shop there. Gucci, while very expensive and profitable, has a narrow market. Millions of people don't shop at Gucci. Only rich people do. That means in terms of consumer spending, the wealthy contribute very little in comparison. The massive capital retailers like Wal Mart make help the economy at large. Gucci doesn't do jack shit for the economy at large.

4) I never said there was anything wrong with the rich sitting on their money. I'm simply stating that they do. As a result, they don't contribute much in terms of consumer spending. I still think rich people are important. Their contribution to the supply side of the economy is very important.

Another Billy Triple Fail post.
Hey, Billy. You think the rich "sit on their money"? Like they stuff cash into the sofa cushions or something? And that isnt even the worst part.

You're an idiot. Of course they sit on most of their money. How else do we get billionaires?

People become billionaires by sitting on their money? I dunno, Billy. I've been sitting on the $35 in my wallet for the last hour or so and I dont feel richer.

 

[Billy000]

Yes obviously productivity is vital, but what ultimately matters is the profit that is made off it. Without consumer spending, there is no profit. Once again, supply means jack shit if you don't have the demand to match it.

Yes, obviously rich people spend money, but you need to understand how many people in this country people actually are rich. It isn't very many. Sure the rich make extravagant purchases from time to time, but their daily/monthly spending is really no different from what the middle class spends each week/monthly. The wealthy and middle class spend about the same amount of money on basic essentials like food. That doesn't differ. the reason why the middle class is the driving force of consumer spending and not the wealthy is because there are many more middle class people than there are rich people. It's that volume that matters. The rich like sitting on most of their money. That's how we get billionaires.

Ok Captain Obvious...I just got through expressing that. No need to for you to repeat it unless you are trying to appear profound.
BTW genius...Without productivity( supply), there is no need for demand. To put it in simple terms. If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it.
The primary motivator is the idea. Ideas which if accepted, are produced as a good or service.....
There are 9.3 million people in the US that have a net worth of $1 million.....That's primarily liquid assets or intangibles...
There are most likely ten times that who have wealth in excess of $100,000 that they can access.....
So let's look at your assumption......"There aren't that many( wealthy people).....Based on that, what makes you think that jacking up taxes on the wealthy is going to have significant effect on government debt/deficit?
Secondly....ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people.
And here we go...."The rich are sitting on most of their money".......And how is this the business of anyone else? And what difference does it make?
It is THEIR money. And lastly. You cannot prove it. So stop regurgitating this worn out progressive narrative talking point.
The middle class is for the most part doing fine. It could be better if not for the Obama economy( Taxes, Obamacare)...

1) "If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it."

Yeah that is exactly my point. It's profit resulting from consumption that drives the economy. Some supply has the potential to end up invaluable. Consumption (demand) is always valuable.

2) Why wouldn't taxing the wealthy reduce the deficit? The higher the capital, the higher the revenue. This significant impact of course would need to stretch out over several years. You certainly could put more tax burden on the middle class but you would be hurting consumer spending. Yes there are few wealthy Americans but consider the ridiculous amount of wealth the top earners own. It's staggering.

3) "ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people."

Only every once in a while on something extravagant, not regularly. They spend the same on something in high demand like food. The extravagant purchases do jack shit to help the economy at large.

Think of it this way: which company is more successful: Wal-Mart or Gucci? The answer is Wal-Mart. Why? Because it has huge consumer demand. EVERYONE can find something they need at Wal-Mart. Millions of people shop there. Gucci, while very expensive and profitable, has a narrow market. Millions of people don't shop at Gucci. Only rich people do. That means in terms of consumer spending, the wealthy contribute very little in comparison. The massive capital retailers like Wal Mart make help the economy at large. Gucci doesn't do jack shit for the economy at large.

4) I never said there was anything wrong with the rich sitting on their money. I'm simply stating that they do. As a result, they don't contribute much in terms of consumer spending. I still think rich people are important. Their contribution to the supply side of the economy is very important.

Another Billy Triple Fail post.
Hey, Billy. You think the rich "sit on their money"? Like they stuff cash into the sofa cushions or something? And that isnt even the worst part.

You're an idiot. Of course they sit on most of their money. How else do we get billionaires?

People become billionaires by sitting on their money? I dunno, Billy. I've been sitting on the $35 in my wallet for the last hour or so and I dont feel richer.

Any idiot can surmise that isn't the only way they become billionaires.

 

[Clementine]

He is drawing in more crowds than any candidate on both sides of the aisle. 29,000 in Portand is his highest number so far. That kind of rally support is unprecedented this early in campaign season. The reason why he hasn't surpassed Hillary in the polls is because he is not as well known as she is across the U.S. He lacks her name recognition. That will soon change of course. Oh, and unlike Trump, he didn't have to hire people to come to his early rallies. Let's also not forget that Sanders is proposing actual policy ideas unlike Trump. Apparently all a republican has to do to win in the polls is be a total drama queen.

Polls already show that most Americans favor a wide range of progressive issues. In fact, most of what Sanders is running on, most Americans already support. As this race goes on, don't you think he poses a huge threat to republicans?

Afraid of what he'd do to this country. Any sane person would be.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No. Our economy is based on production and productivity. Work.
Without work in all it's forms being accomplished, there is not economy...
BTW, wealthy people don't spend?....
Hey genius. I have been to wealthy people's homes. Their front doors on their house cost more than my car is worth.
Don't claim the wealthy don't spend money....
The federal government could tax the so called 1% at a rate of 100% and it would not even put a dent in the debt or the deficit.
Confiscatory taxation will only dramatically increase the debt government runs up because while in the short term there would be an uptick in revenue. However as those being crushed by taxes pull their money out of the economy buy cutting spending and investment and then spread it around to keep it out of Uncle Sam's grubby overspending paws, revenue would collapse.
No nation in the history of modern civilization has ever been able to tax its way into prosperity.
Sanders is a typical elitist far left winger.

Yes obviously productivity is vital, but what ultimately matters is the profit that is made off it. Without consumer spending, there is no profit. Once again, supply means jack shit if you don't have the demand to match it.

Yes, obviously rich people spend money, but you need to understand how many people in this country people actually are rich. It isn't very many. Sure the rich make extravagant purchases from time to time, but their daily/monthly spending is really no different from what the middle class spends each week/monthly. The wealthy and middle class spend about the same amount of money on basic essentials like food. That doesn't differ. the reason why the middle class is the driving force of consumer spending and not the wealthy is because there are many more middle class people than there are rich people. It's that volume that matters. The rich like sitting on most of their money. That's how we get billionaires.

Ok Captain Obvious...I just got through expressing that. No need to for you to repeat it unless you are trying to appear profound.
BTW genius...Without productivity( supply), there is no need for demand. To put it in simple terms. If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it.
The primary motivator is the idea. Ideas which if accepted, are produced as a good or service.....
There are 9.3 million people in the US that have a net worth of $1 million.....That's primarily liquid assets or intangibles...
There are most likely ten times that who have wealth in excess of $100,000 that they can access.....
So let's look at your assumption......"There aren't that many( wealthy people).....Based on that, what makes you think that jacking up taxes on the wealthy is going to have significant effect on government debt/deficit?
Secondly....ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people.
And here we go...."The rich are sitting on most of their money".......And how is this the business of anyone else? And what difference does it make?
It is THEIR money. And lastly. You cannot prove it. So stop regurgitating this worn out progressive narrative talking point.
The middle class is for the most part doing fine. It could be better if not for the Obama economy( Taxes, Obamacare)...

1) "If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it."

Yeah that is exactly my point. It's profit resulting from consumption that drives the economy. Some supply has the potential to end up invaluable. Consumption (demand) is always valuable.

2) Why wouldn't taxing the wealthy reduce the deficit? The higher the capital, the higher the revenue. This significant impact of course would need to stretch out over several years. You certainly could put more tax burden on the middle class but you would be hurting consumer spending. Yes there are few wealthy Americans but consider the ridiculous amount of wealth the top earners own. It's staggering.

3) "ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people."

Only every once in a while on something extravagant, not regularly. They spend the same on something in high demand like food. The extravagant purchases do jack shit to help the economy at large.

Think of it this way: which company is more successful: Wal-Mart or Gucci? The answer is Wal-Mart. Why? Because it has huge consumer demand. EVERYONE can find something they need at Wal-Mart. Millions of people shop there. Gucci, while very expensive and profitable, has a narrow market. Millions of people don't shop at Gucci. Only rich people do. That means in terms of consumer spending, the wealthy contribute very little in comparison. The massive capital retailers like Wal Mart make help the economy at large. Gucci doesn't do jack shit for the economy at large.

4) I never said there was anything wrong with the rich sitting on their money. I'm simply stating that they do. As a result, they don't contribute much in terms of consumer spending. I still think rich people are important. Their contribution to the supply side of the economy is very important.

Another Billy Triple Fail post.
Hey, Billy. You think the rich "sit on their money"? Like they stuff cash into the sofa cushions or something? And that isnt even the worst part.

You're an idiot. Of course they sit on most of their money. How else do we get billionaires?

That post does not rise to the level of stupid....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ok Captain Obvious...I just got through expressing that. No need to for you to repeat it unless you are trying to appear profound.
BTW genius...Without productivity( supply), there is no need for demand. To put it in simple terms. If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it.
The primary motivator is the idea. Ideas which if accepted, are produced as a good or service.....
There are 9.3 million people in the US that have a net worth of $1 million.....That's primarily liquid assets or intangibles...
There are most likely ten times that who have wealth in excess of $100,000 that they can access.....
So let's look at your assumption......"There aren't that many( wealthy people).....Based on that, what makes you think that jacking up taxes on the wealthy is going to have significant effect on government debt/deficit?
Secondly....ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people.
And here we go...."The rich are sitting on most of their money".......And how is this the business of anyone else? And what difference does it make?
It is THEIR money. And lastly. You cannot prove it. So stop regurgitating this worn out progressive narrative talking point.
The middle class is for the most part doing fine. It could be better if not for the Obama economy( Taxes, Obamacare)...

1) "If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it."

Yeah that is exactly my point. It's profit resulting from consumption that drives the economy. Some supply has the potential to end up invaluable. Consumption (demand) is always valuable.

2) Why wouldn't taxing the wealthy reduce the deficit? The higher the capital, the higher the revenue. This significant impact of course would need to stretch out over several years. You certainly could put more tax burden on the middle class but you would be hurting consumer spending. Yes there are few wealthy Americans but consider the ridiculous amount of wealth the top earners own. It's staggering.

3) "ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people."

Only every once in a while on something extravagant, not regularly. They spend the same on something in high demand like food. The extravagant purchases do jack shit to help the economy at large.

Think of it this way: which company is more successful: Wal-Mart or Gucci? The answer is Wal-Mart. Why? Because it has huge consumer demand. EVERYONE can find something they need at Wal-Mart. Millions of people shop there. Gucci, while very expensive and profitable, has a narrow market. Millions of people don't shop at Gucci. Only rich people do. That means in terms of consumer spending, the wealthy contribute very little in comparison. The massive capital retailers like Wal Mart make help the economy at large. Gucci doesn't do jack shit for the economy at large.

4) I never said there was anything wrong with the rich sitting on their money. I'm simply stating that they do. As a result, they don't contribute much in terms of consumer spending. I still think rich people are important. Their contribution to the supply side of the economy is very important.

Another Billy Triple Fail post.
Hey, Billy. You think the rich "sit on their money"? Like they stuff cash into the sofa cushions or something? And that isnt even the worst part.

You're an idiot. Of course they sit on most of their money. How else do we get billionaires?

People become billionaires by sitting on their money? I dunno, Billy. I've been sitting on the $35 in my wallet for the last hour or so and I dont feel richer.

Any idiot can surmise that isn't the only way they become billionaires.

NO SIR....You claim they "sit on their money"...Now you want to back pedal from that?
You don't get to have it both ways.

 

[Billy000]

1) "If there is no market for a product or service, there is no need for it."

Yeah that is exactly my point. It's profit resulting from consumption that drives the economy. Some supply has the potential to end up invaluable. Consumption (demand) is always valuable.

2) Why wouldn't taxing the wealthy reduce the deficit? The higher the capital, the higher the revenue. This significant impact of course would need to stretch out over several years. You certainly could put more tax burden on the middle class but you would be hurting consumer spending. Yes there are few wealthy Americans but consider the ridiculous amount of wealth the top earners own. It's staggering.

3) "ONE wealthy person spends the equivalent of some 20 to 50 middle class people."

Only every once in a while on something extravagant, not regularly. They spend the same on something in high demand like food. The extravagant purchases do jack shit to help the economy at large.

Think of it this way: which company is more successful: Wal-Mart or Gucci? The answer is Wal-Mart. Why? Because it has huge consumer demand. EVERYONE can find something they need at Wal-Mart. Millions of people shop there. Gucci, while very expensive and profitable, has a narrow market. Millions of people don't shop at Gucci. Only rich people do. That means in terms of consumer spending, the wealthy contribute very little in comparison. The massive capital retailers like Wal Mart make help the economy at large. Gucci doesn't do jack shit for the economy at large.

4) I never said there was anything wrong with the rich sitting on their money. I'm simply stating that they do. As a result, they don't contribute much in terms of consumer spending. I still think rich people are important. Their contribution to the supply side of the economy is very important.

Another Billy Triple Fail post.
Hey, Billy. You think the rich "sit on their money"? Like they stuff cash into the sofa cushions or something? And that isnt even the worst part.

You're an idiot. Of course they sit on most of their money. How else do we get billionaires?

People become billionaires by sitting on their money? I dunno, Billy. I've been sitting on the $35 in my wallet for the last hour or so and I dont feel richer.

Any idiot can surmise that isn't the only way they become billionaires.

NO SIR....You claim they "sit on their money"...Now you want to back pedal from that?
You don't get to have it both ways.

For Christ's sakes. Obviously I meant sitting on their money was only partly how they become billionaires. It doesn't take much rationale to figure that out.

 

[Billy000]

Lol, Bernie Sanders

How is anything Bernie is saying about subsidizing poverty?

 

[The Rabbi]

Another Billy Triple Fail post.
Hey, Billy. You think the rich "sit on their money"? Like they stuff cash into the sofa cushions or something? And that isnt even the worst part.

You're an idiot. Of course they sit on most of their money. How else do we get billionaires?

People become billionaires by sitting on their money? I dunno, Billy. I've been sitting on the $35 in my wallet for the last hour or so and I dont feel richer.

Any idiot can surmise that isn't the only way they become billionaires.

NO SIR....You claim they "sit on their money"...Now you want to back pedal from that?
You don't get to have it both ways.

For Christ's sakes. Obviously I meant sitting on their money was only partly how they become billionaires. It doesn't take much rationale to figure that out.

How does one become a billionaire by sitting on money?

The level of ignorance and stupidity here is so high it reaches literally incredible proportions. I literally do not believe people are this stupid.

 

[Billy000]

You're an idiot. Of course they sit on most of their money. How else do we get billionaires?

People become billionaires by sitting on their money? I dunno, Billy. I've been sitting on the $35 in my wallet for the last hour or so and I dont feel richer.

Any idiot can surmise that isn't the only way they become billionaires.

NO SIR....You claim they "sit on their money"...Now you want to back pedal from that?
You don't get to have it both ways.

For Christ's sakes. Obviously I meant sitting on their money was only partly how they become billionaires. It doesn't take much rationale to figure that out.

How does one become a billionaire by sitting on money?

The level of ignorance and stupidity here is so high it reaches literally incredible proportions. I literally do not believe people are this stupid.

You are such an idiot. How does anyone accumulate wealth? They save their money retard. Saving money is sitting on it. God youre dumb.

 

[The Rabbi]

People become billionaires by sitting on their money? I dunno, Billy. I've been sitting on the $35 in my wallet for the last hour or so and I dont feel richer.

Any idiot can surmise that isn't the only way they become billionaires.

NO SIR....You claim they "sit on their money"...Now you want to back pedal from that?
You don't get to have it both ways.

For Christ's sakes. Obviously I meant sitting on their money was only partly how they become billionaires. It doesn't take much rationale to figure that out.

How does one become a billionaire by sitting on money?

The level of ignorance and stupidity here is so high it reaches literally incredible proportions. I literally do not believe people are this stupid.

You are such an idiot. How does anyone accumulate wealth? They save their money retard. Saving money is sitting on it. God youre dumb.

No, BIlly. You dont become rich by saving money.
Geez. Yoyu are truly the biggest moron on this site.

 

[Billy000]

Any idiot can surmise that isn't the only way they become billionaires.

NO SIR....You claim they "sit on their money"...Now you want to back pedal from that?
You don't get to have it both ways.

For Christ's sakes. Obviously I meant sitting on their money was only partly how they become billionaires. It doesn't take much rationale to figure that out.

How does one become a billionaire by sitting on money?

The level of ignorance and stupidity here is so high it reaches literally incredible proportions. I literally do not believe people are this stupid.

You are such an idiot. How does anyone accumulate wealth? They save their money retard. Saving money is sitting on it. God youre dumb.

No, BIlly. You dont become rich by saving money.
Geez. Yoyu are truly the biggest moron on this site.

How are you this dumb? Yes obviously more is involved with becoming wealthy you dipshit, but saving money would obviously have to be part of it. A person worth 1 million dollars doesn't blow it on an 800,000 house. My god I feel like I am talking to a 5 year old.