2020 Democrat hopefuls

[fried-chicken]

Reminder: the poster above is referring to a guy who calls himself a socialist. He self identifies as one. Yet here is Shook Chicken insisting he’s not.

this is going to be so fun.

“Nationalizing 1/6 of our economy isn’t socialism! It’s reform democratic capitalism or whatever!”

Bernie doesn't call himself a socialist keep trying

 

[UCFKnight85]

Bloomberg is the embodiment of capitalism.

Maybe the socialist in the race who has never held a real job should sell one of his 3 mansions to compete then.

 

[Crazyhole]

Bernie doesn't call himself a socialist keep trying

Amazing. If a man calls himself a woman you are all on board with that. If a man calls himself a socialist literally hundreds of times you deny it. Why is he not able to self-identify his politics?

 

[UCFKnight85]

Amazing. If a man calls himself a woman you are all on board with that. If a man calls himself a socialist literally hundreds of times you deny it. Why is he not able to self-identify his politics?

What we’re seeing is that these people are realizing that this senile lunatic may actually be the nominee and now they’re trying to normalize his 50 years of praising Communists and calling himself a socialist and fan of socialist policies.

It won’t work. Sanders has never had to deal with an actual vetted opposition. When he does everyone will know what a hypocrite moron he is.

 

[Crazyhole]

What we’re seeing is that these people are realizing that this senile lunatic may actually be the nominee and now they’re trying to normalize his 50 years of praising Communists and calling himself a socialist and fan of socialist policies.

It won’t work. Sanders has never had to deal with an actual vetted opposition. When he does everyone will know what a hypocrite moron he is.

It's pretty funny that we currently have the largest budget in the history of this country and for that, trump gets criticized for not balancing it. Bernie is flat out suggesting that we triple it and has no plan on how to pay for it (in his own words) but somehow that makes it better?

I guess at this point I say vote him in and just let the whole thing burn itself down. Maybe then the country would see the idiocy in all of this.

 

[fried-chicken]

Amazing. If a man calls himself a woman you are all on board with that. If a man calls himself a socialist literally hundreds of times you deny it. Why is he not able to self-identify his politics?

He doesn't call himself a socialist... you should be able to easily find a clip if I'm wrong and he's done it hundreds of times.

 

[fried-chicken]

It's pretty funny that we currently have the largest budget in the history of this country and for that, trump gets criticized for not balancing it. Bernie is flat out suggesting that we triple it and has no plan on how to pay for it (in his own words) but somehow that makes it better?

I guess at this point I say vote him in and just let the whole thing burn itself down. Maybe then the country would see the idiocy in all of this.

His plan is to raise taxes that you would pay instead of paying premiums and deductables for your health insurance. You'd end up paying less ober 10 years according to a Koch brothers funded study.

 

[UCFKnight85]

His plan is to raise taxes that you would pay instead of paying premiums and deductables for your health insurance. You'd end up paying less ober 10 years according to a Koch brothers funded study.

No you wouldn’t. How many times are you guys going to roll out this lie about what that study said? I linked to an Emory Economics report just last month that proved this claim of savings exceeding tax increases is patently false and billshit.

You’re clearly choosing to believe in fantasyland socialist utopian propaganda but none of the actual numbers support any of this tax and spend nonsense.

 

[fried-chicken]

No you wouldn’t. How many times are you guys going to roll out this lie about what that study said? I linked to an Emory Economics report just last month that proved this claim of savings exceeding tax increases is patently false and billshit.

You’re clearly choosing to believe in fantasyland socialist utopian propaganda but none of the actual numbers support any of this tax and spend nonsense.

The average study shows Medicare For All would cost 30Trillion over 10 years.

Last year Americans paid 3.2 Trillion. Assuming costs stay exactly the same for 10 years Medicare for all would be 2 trillion cheaper.

However, you know medical costs rise at an alarming rate so the real savings will probably be somewhere around 10 trillion total.

 

[fried-chicken]

And of course youre too dumb to differentiate the "take over 1/6 of the economy" lie. Medicare for all would only take over the health insurance industry, not the doctors surgeons hospitals and clinics. In reality it's probably something like 2% of the economy.

The fact that medical costs have grown to 1/6 of the economy is the exact reason we need to make changes. We can't wait for that number to get to 1/5 then 1/4 then 1/3.

 

[Boosted87]

No you wouldn’t. How many times are you guys going to roll out this lie about what that study said? I linked to an Emory Economics report just last month that proved this claim of savings exceeding tax increases is patently false and billshit.

You’re clearly choosing to believe in fantasyland socialist utopian propaganda but none of the actual numbers support any of this tax and spend nonsense.

Trying to frame this as tax-increase vs insurance-savings is ripe for cherry picking on both ends. The reality is there will be winners and losers on a net-cost basis. Logically, people who are coming out of pocket with large numbers are the ones most likely to see a direct cost benefit. Those who currently have no insurance at all would see a cost increase as some nominal % starts being pulled from their paycheck. And whoever gets stuck with subsidizing the system is going to be the big loser.

Business who provide no health insurance to their employees would be net losers, as they'd now have a 7.5% (or whatever) payroll tax to start paying. Small Businesses who provide health insurance already will be net winners, as the payroll tax rate is going to result in far lower costs than current premiums.

The "winners" will be individuals and small businesses who are currently footing these insane premiums. If you already have highly-subsidized insurance, then you're going to be roughly equal on costs at the end. If you're a multi-national corporation or worth hundreds of millions, you're going to end up paying for the difference.

 

[UCFKnight85]

The average study shows Medicare For All would cost 30Trillion over 10 years.

Last year Americans paid 3.2 Trillion. Assuming costs stay exactly the same for 10 years Medicare for all would be 2 trillion cheaper.

However, you know medical costs rise at an alarming rate so the real savings will probably be somewhere around 10 trillion total.

Let's just settle this lie once and for all:

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...nservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/

Sanders and dolts like you have deliberately cherry picked what he/you wanted from this report, ignoring the fact that the $2T number came from an EXAMPLE that they put forth, assuming every single rosey scenario from his plan was actually brought to fruition, and then arrived at the $2T numbers.

In the actual report, the authors then say that this is highly unlikely since the most positive, rosey outcomes are not remotely a given and very unlikely.

They then ran a second scenario in the same report, the part that Sanders deliberately didn't talk about, that used more realistic expectations of intended cost controls, and found that MFA would actually increase by $3.6 Trillion above current baseline. So instead of saving everyone $2T, this scenario puts everyone on the hook for an extra $3.6 Trillion dollars.

In fact, this claim by people like Sanders and Shook Chicken is such an incredible lie, based upon cherry picked nonsense, that even the ultra liberal WaPo reviewed his claim and rated it 3 Pinnochios

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m-that-medicare-for-all-will-save-2-trillion/

Now, I'm sure you'll repeat this now totally refuted claim again in the future but luckily I just laid out what bullshit it is, and it'll be easy for everyone to continue refuting you and calling your nonsense out when we see it.

 

[Crazyhole]

He doesn't call himself a socialist... you should be able to easily find a clip if I'm wrong and he's done it hundreds of times.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...ie-sanders-socialist-or-democratic-socialist/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-democrats-are-actually-pretty-ok-with-that/

 

[fried-chicken]

The total spent is not a projection. We currently spend 3.2T each year. This is not a guess. This is what actually happened.

The projected cost of these programs over 10 years is 30T.

The math isn't hard and it doesn't require a 1000 word essay like you just wrote.
@UCFKnight85

 

[fried-chicken]

View embedded media

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...ie-sanders-socialist-or-democratic-socialist/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-democrats-are-actually-pretty-ok-with-that/

View embedded media

This 31 year old clip confirms that he's not a member of the socialist party. He is a democratic socialist same as many on the left. They support the principles of capitalism such as private property and individual business ownership. Socialists do not.

 

[Crazyhole]

How will we pay for all of this stuff?

 

[fried-chicken]

View embedded media

How will we pay for all of this stuff?

Taxes.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I own Shook Chicken and instantly destroy his (lie) argument, and he of course deflects without actually addressing any of the information provided.

 

[Crazyhole]

Taxes.

So we currently bring in about 3.6 trillion in tax revenue. Bernie's plan takes the budget up to 10.4 trillion, about half of GDP. What kind of effective tax rate is it going to take for the middle class to get there?

 

[UCFKnight85]

Shook Chicken ignores my links to people that easily refute everything he's claimed thus far.

He then makes the insane comment that consumer spending is 1 for 1 the same as government spending, and you can basically just flip entire privatized portions of our economy to government run industries ……...and spend less!

Incredible! Why don't we just do this for every industry then? We spend $13 Trillion on consumer goods every year amongst private businesses; the government should simply eradicate those businesses, get into the business of making iPhones and tshirts, and we'll save money! I bet the government can do it for $10 Trillion a year and they'd just need a little more in tax revenue - $3 Trillion in savings! wow!

 

[fried-chicken]

Shook Chicken ignores my links to people that easily refute everything he's claimed thus far.

He then makes the insane comment that consumer spending is 1 for 1 the same as government spending, and you can basically just flip entire privatized portions of our economy to government run industries ……...and spend less!

Incredible! Why don't we just do this for every industry then? We spend $13 Trillion on consumer goods every year amongst private businesses; the government should simply eradicate those businesses, get into the business of making iPhones and tshirts, and we'll save money! I bet the government can do it for $10 Trillion a year and they'd just need a little more in tax revenue - $3 Trillion in savings! wow!

We are the richest nation.
We can't afford what poorer nations can.

Hmmmm.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Liz Warren cares so much about climate change that she’s been flying around to campaign on a private jet with 3 other passengers

 

[UCFKnight85]

 

[ChrisKnight06]

View embedded media

This is funny. We can all agree right

 

[btbones]

This is funny. We can all agree right

And its so typical of politicians , all of them

 

[UCFKnight85]

After again inappropriately touching a voter in Iowa and getting killed in the caucus, Joe Dementia Biden is at it in NH and had this to say to a woman who asked a fairly innocuous question about his shitty performance in Iowa.

The dust-up came after the voter asked Biden, “How do you explain the performance in Iowa and why should the voters believe that you can win a national election?”

“You ever been to a caucus?” Biden replied.

After the voter said she indeed had attended a caucus, Biden shot back: “No you haven’t. You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier.”

“You gotta be honest,” he continued. “I’m gonna be honest with you. It was a little bit confusing in Iowa. But let’s assume it was all exactly right.”

 

[btbones]

After again inappropriately touching a voter in Iowa and getting killed in the caucus, Joe Dementia Biden is at it in NH and had this to say to a woman who asked a fairly innocuous question about his shitty performance in Iowa.

The dust-up came after the voter asked Biden, “How do you explain the performance in Iowa and why should the voters believe that you can win a national election?”

“You ever been to a caucus?” Biden replied.

After the voter said she indeed had attended a caucus, Biden shot back: “No you haven’t. You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier.”

“You gotta be honest,” he continued. “I’m gonna be honest with you. It was a little bit confusing in Iowa. But let’s assume it was all exactly right.”

Yikes

 

[UCFWayne]

this man is losing it right in front of the cameras. i think the impeachment proceedings and the threat of an investigation really took its toll. glad the dnc decided to shoot one of their better candidates in the foot for a chance to make trump look bad.

 

[Crazyhole]

So we currently bring in about 3.6 trillion in tax revenue. Bernie's plan takes the budget up to 10.4 trillion, about half of GDP. What kind of effective tax rate is it going to take for the middle class to get there?

Bump. For all of the complaining about people not responding to questions about witnesses I would think those same people would respond to something as important as this is.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Here's Sanders getting testy when being reminded that he advocated for Federal wage controls in the past. (Still does, IM)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) on Sunday refused to discuss his support for a “maximum wage” during his early days in Vermont politics, calling the unearthing of such radical proposals not “productive.”

“Early in your political career, way back in 1974, you said that it should be illegal to earn more money than someone could spend in his or her lifetime,” CNN’s State of the Union anchor Jake Tapper said. “You proposed a maximum wage cap on the highest earners.”

Sanders dismissed the question as irrelevant to his current political views.

 

[Crazyhole]

Here's Sanders getting testy when being reminded that he advocated for Federal wage controls in the past. (Still does, IM)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) on Sunday refused to discuss his support for a “maximum wage” during his early days in Vermont politics, calling the unearthing of such radical proposals not “productive.”

“Early in your political career, way back in 1974, you said that it should be illegal to earn more money than someone could spend in his or her lifetime,” CNN’s State of the Union anchor Jake Tapper said. “You proposed a maximum wage cap on the highest earners.”

Sanders dismissed the question as irrelevant to his current political views.

It's somewhat telling that he wouldn't engage in the conversation. If he changed his mind on it, he should be willing to discuss what exactly happened that led him to change course. Since he deferred, I have to assume he still believes in it.

 

[UCFKnight85]

It's somewhat telling that he wouldn't engage in the conversation. If he changed his mind on it, he should be willing to discuss what exactly happened that led him to change course. Since he deferred, I have to assume he still believes in it.

Still believes in it, but was told by some pollster that reaffirming his deeply held beliefs is bad for convincing people he's not the communist loving socialist that he is.

He also likely doesn't want to disavow it, since it surely excites his far left socialist followers who like him for stuff like this.

 

[UCFWayne]

so what is the time line for the dems? when are the next couple state elections and debates? i think they are in nh right now. there are still alot of dems left, when is the field going to get cut down?

 

[Boosted87]

So we currently bring in about 3.6 trillion in tax revenue. Bernie's plan takes the budget up to 10.4 trillion, about half of GDP. What kind of effective tax rate is it going to take for the middle class to get there?

I'll respond to this since you just pointed out that no one is responding.

I have no idea the answer to your question but they're absolutely going up. Tax revenue as a % of GDP is really low in the US compared to a bunch of other countries. We're somewhere just north of 25% I believe. Countries like Finland, Sweden, and Denmark (who Bernie would point to) are more like 40-50% of GDP. So yea, I think it's totally fair to say that if Bernie Sanders vision for American is realized, we're going to be at tax revenues that are 40-50% of GDP. I think a marginal tax in Finland is only just north of 30%, but it kicks in above $80k. And combined with other taxes, the effective rate is like 50%.

On the other hand, I don't see a world where Bernie Sanders can turn us into Finland in 4 or 8 years, even with a Democrat House and Senate. He'd get one big thing through early in his Presidency (if he's lucky) and everything else would be on the margins. Look at Trump - he couldn't get his own party to go along with the border wall.

Bernie seems pretty pragmatic as a legislator. I wonder how willing he'd be to compromise on things for the sake of incremental progress towards his vision. Reality is that Sanders hard-core supporters would be pretty disappointed about what he's actually able to accomplish for those big ticket items.

 

[Boosted87]

Still believes in it, but was told by some pollster that reaffirming his deeply held beliefs is bad for convincing people he's not the communist loving socialist that he is.

He also likely doesn't want to disavow it, since it surely excites his far left socialist followers who like him for stuff like this.

My opinion - Bernie should have disavowed the democratic socialist label back in 2016 for something more capitalist friendly. That said, he's got a really good answer for this question when he argued that Trump is also a socialist, it's just that Bernie's policies favor working families while Trump's favor corporations and billionaires. Once you get past the labels, that will be a politically persuasive argument to a critical part of the electorate.

In an election where the right is going to call the left socialists no matter who they nominate, the dynamic is far different if the nominee says "yea well so what - so are you. But i'm on the side of working families and you're on the side of corporations" vs trying to argue labels. No idea if it works but Bernie's the only Dem that will respond in that manner.

 

[UCFKnight85]

My opinion - Bernie should have disavowed the democratic socialist label back in 2016 for something more capitalist friendly. That said, he's got a really good answer for this question when he argued that Trump is also a socialist, it's just that Bernie's policies favor working families while Trump's favor corporations and billionaires. Once you get past the labels, that will be a politically persuasive argument to a critical part of the electorate.

In an election where the right is going to call the left socialists no matter who they nominate, the dynamic is far different if the nominee says "yea well so what - so are you. But i'm on the side of working families and you're on the side of corporations" vs trying to argue labels. No idea if it works but Bernie's the only Dem that will respond in that manner.

Why would he ditch the label when basically nothing he's ever said suggests he even supports the basic tenants of capitalism? He's always be a socialist; he only recently threw in "Democratic" and started talking about Scandinavia, since he knew it'd look weird when people realized that he's spent most of his life visiting the USSR, Latin America communist regimes, Cuba, and advocating for policies straight out of their playbook.

As for Bernie's answer, it's only a good answer to people uninformed enough to believe it. Trying to claim that a reduction in marginal tax rates is "socialism" is just laughable. It's actually insane. I'm sure he'll try to spin and use this over and over but eventually people will realize that this is in fact no remotely true.

If you don't believe, just look at every other Democrat now finally coming out to denounce socialism and Sanders. It's not just Republicans saying it.

 

[fried-chicken]

It's somewhat telling that he wouldn't engage in the conversation. If he changed his mind on it, he should be willing to discuss what exactly happened that led him to change course. Since he deferred, I have to assume he still believes in it.

I have to agree. Since Trump wouldn't specifically say it's not ok to grab women by the pussies then I have to assume he still believes it is ok.

 

[UCFWayne]

I have to agree. Since Trump wouldn't specifically say it's not ok to grab women by the pussies then I have to assume he still believes it is ok.

the women want him to do it

 

[UCFKnight85]

Shook Chicken is soooooooooooo offended by private lewd discussions yet wanted to make a guy First Husband who has been credibly accused of rape by a woman since 1982 and flew on Epstein's jet 28 times that we know of.

 

[Crazyhole]

I'll respond to this since you just pointed out that no one is responding.

I have no idea the answer to your question but they're absolutely going up. Tax revenue as a % of GDP is really low in the US compared to a bunch of other countries. We're somewhere just north of 25% I believe. Countries like Finland, Sweden, and Denmark (who Bernie would point to) are more like 40-50% of GDP. So yea, I think it's totally fair to say that if Bernie Sanders vision for American is realized, we're going to be at tax revenues that are 40-50% of GDP. I think a marginal tax in Finland is only just north of 30%, but it kicks in above $80k. And combined with other taxes, the effective rate is like 50%.

On the other hand, I don't see a world where Bernie Sanders can turn us into Finland in 4 or 8 years, even with a Democrat House and Senate. He'd get one big thing through early in his Presidency (if he's lucky) and everything else would be on the margins. Look at Trump - he couldn't get his own party to go along with the border wall.

Bernie seems pretty pragmatic as a legislator. I wonder how willing he'd be to compromise on things for the sake of incremental progress towards his vision. Reality is that Sanders hard-core supporters would be pretty disappointed about what he's actually able to accomplish for those big ticket items.

Since I find it highly unlikely that people who currently arent paying taxes will suddenly be forced to start under Bernie's plan, here's what I think it would look like:

Anybody making beteen 50 and 70k would end up paying an effective tax rate of 40-45%. People between 70k and 100k would pay an effective rate of 55-65%. People making between 100 and 250k would pay 75%. Over 250k would land in the 85-90% range. Keep in mind, this isn't a progressive tax scale, its effective rate. Basically, everybody gets to take home between 25-50,000 dollars a year unless they are in the top 1%.