|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 09 2015 01:59 Bagration wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 01:43 Bagration wrote:So we had a few people discussing the Sanders candidacy. Here's an interesting piece regarding Sanders' odds from Politico While Sen. Bernie Sanders has taken the first step in any successful liberal insurgency, striking a nerve with a faction of voters, he appears to be on the verge of bumping up against his natural ceiling. To go from having his 15 minutes to being a true contender, the Vermonter is going to have to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe lay off the single-payer health care, drop the trillion-dollar price tag on his jobs bill or even *gasp* start a Super PAC Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-elections-119809.html#ixzz3fJqXJ8WTSource Typical piece on Bernie from a Clinton supporter. He's well over 250,000 people who have donated (more than anyone else) and raised more money than many Republicans. Plus him not begging the billionaire class is much of his appeal. Hillary needs Bernie to do what she does so he loses his appeal, it's actually pretty funny, considering a month earlier the same guy was saying he wasn't progressive enough. I am curious to see if Bernie will adapt his views as the campaign goes on. I think the article does make a good point that some of his views are not sustainable. In a general election, his opponent would simply cherry pick his most liberal positions and hit him repeatedly. As an aside on the general state of US politics, I think there's been too much emphasis recently on candidates sticking to their "values" and not compromising, and not enough emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility. We need more bi-partisanship in this country.
"Bi-partisanship" is just a code word for doing what Business interests want at this point. Let his opponent try to hammer him on positions that the People agree with.
|
On July 09 2015 04:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 03:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 03:46 Acrofales wrote:On July 09 2015 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 03:32 dAPhREAk wrote:interesting story coming out of my backyard, San Francisco. cant wait to see the wrongful death lawsuit against San Francisco. San Francisco Murder Case Exposes Lapses in Immigration Enforcement The case of a Mexican laborer with a lengthy criminal record who was charged on Tuesday in the fatal shooting of an American woman on a pier in San Francisco has exposed a gulf of mistrust and failed communication between the federal authorities and the police in California over immigration enforcement.
The man, most recently known as Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, 56, pleaded not guilty in Superior Court in San Francisco in the murder of Kathryn Steinle, 32, who was strolling last Wednesday with her father and a friend on Pier 14 near the Ferry Building when she was struck in what the police described as a random shooting. Mr. Lopez-Sanchez, whose criminal record includes seven felony convictions, had been deported from the United States five times, raising questions about why he was in the United States.
Questions were also raised late Tuesday about the gun used in the killing. A law enforcement official confirmed local media reports that the serial number showed the gun belonged to a federal agent. The official declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak publicly.
The case immediately became fodder in the polarized debate over immigration. Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, who has been under fire for comments about Mexican immigrants, pointed to the killing as “yet another example of why we must secure our border immediately.” On Tuesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic presidential contender, said San Francisco had “made a mistake.” And Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, also a Democrat, called on the city to restore its cooperation with the Obama administration in enforcing immigration laws.
The lapse in the case of Mr. Lopez-Sanchez — also known as José Inez García Zarate and several other names — did not occur at the border, legal records show. After being deported in June 2009, he tried to return three months later but was stopped by agents at the crossing in Eagle Pass, Tex. He was then prosecuted for a felony of illegal entry and served almost four years in a federal prison in California.
When he finished his sentence, the prison sent him to San Francisco on March 27, based on a warrant for a 20-year-old felony marijuana charge. Within a day, a local court dismissed the charges. Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi of San Francisco said Mr. Lopez-Sanchez stayed in jail for three weeks so the authorities could verify that he was eligible for release. He was freed April 15.
At that point, communications between San Francisco and federal authorities broke down.
Federal officials say that as soon as they learned of Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s transfer from federal prison to San Francisco, they issued a request to Sheriff Mirkarimi to notify them when he would be released. An order for his deportation was ready.
“We are just asking for a heads-up, a phone call,” said Gillian Christensen, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE. “We did not hear anything until the day this young woman was killed.”
A San Francisco ordinance, passed in 2013, broadly restricts the police from cooperating with immigration agents. City officials say the so-called sanctuary law has helped law enforcement by enhancing trust between the police and residents who are immigrants without documents.
Sheriff Mirkarimi said the city’s ordinance allowed him to respond to the federal authorities only when he had a court order or warrant.
“They had his rap sheet and they were well aware of our policies,” the sheriff said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “The natural question is, why wouldn’t they follow through with a warrant for this suspect?”
He said Ms. Steinle’s killing was “a horrible and senseless act that requires ICE to really work with local governments in a way that comports with local law.”
The Obama administration has long struggled to shape an enforcement strategy to deport convicted criminals like Mr. Lopez-Sanchez but avoid the deportation of undocumented immigrants arrested by the police for low-level offenses. In November, President Obama said he would abandon a nationwide program known as Secure Communities, which connected federal agents with local police. Officials announced a new, less aggressive program, but they have been slow to explain it to the police.
All but a few California counties have adopted laws restricting cooperation with federal agents, and the state enacted a law in 2014 — although it would not have applied to Mr. Lopez-Sanchez because of his criminal record.
In a halting, often incoherent interview from the jailhouse on Monday with KGO-TV in San Francisco, Mr. Lopez-Sanchez said that he had found a gun wrapped in a T-shirt under a bench on the pier, and that when he picked it up, it had fired three shots.
Speaking in Spanish, he said he did not remember the events well because he had taken sleeping pills. But he said, “When I go to the court, I am going to plead guilty,” and added, “I want to have the punishment I deserve as quickly as possible.”
Ms. Steinle was “the most amazing, loving, outgoing person,” her brother Brad Steinle told Anderson Cooper on CNN. He cautioned against rancor over the killing. It would be “easy for us to hate and be angry, but Kate wouldn’t want that,” he said. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/us/san-francisco-murder-case-exposes-lapses-in-immigration-enforcement.html?_r=0 Just going to be a lot of finger pointing and a settlement. I am curious how the hell he got a federal agents gun. Seems pretty sketchy to me. In a halting, often incoherent interview from the jailhouse on Monday with KGO-TV in San Francisco, Mr. Lopez-Sanchez said that he had found a gun wrapped in a T-shirt under a bench on the pier, and that when he picked it up, it had fired three shots.
Speaking in Spanish, he said he did not remember the events well because he had taken sleeping pills. But he said, “When I go to the court, I am going to plead guilty,” and added, “I want to have the punishment I deserve as quickly as possible.” Presumably the same way you get any other gun illegally? It got stolen, fenced, shipped around a bit, until eventually nobody even knew it was a federal gun, sold in some dodgy back alley trade and presto, Sanchez has a federal gun. I honestly don't see why this is the point you focus on. That's not how you get any other gun illegally, gun show parking lots are a lot easier. He shouldn't have even been sent to San Francisco, not to mention it's pretty dumb to punish someone illegally crossing the border by paying $20k a year to house him in prison. well, that didnt take you very long to ignore the issue and go off on a tangent. What is the issue I am ignoring? Answering what is sketchy about the gun being from a federal agent. And the simple answer to that is that it was stolen and only turned up now.
I don't know whether he did find it on the pier or not but I'm still curious about how the gun was stolen in the first place. Who told who what, when, and who did their job poorly wont be hashed out for a while.
Immigration is a shit show, which is hardly news, no one disagrees with that. Seems like this guy doesn't even know why he did what he doesn't really remember doing with a gun that so far has a peculiar procurement.
That the government does a poor job of communicating between agencies isn't abnormal, someone who wants to admit to a murder they don't really remember with a gun that was anomalously procured, is far more unusual than the breakdown of communication and poorly written laws.
|
|
|
On July 09 2015 04:11 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 01:59 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 01:43 Bagration wrote:So we had a few people discussing the Sanders candidacy. Here's an interesting piece regarding Sanders' odds from Politico While Sen. Bernie Sanders has taken the first step in any successful liberal insurgency, striking a nerve with a faction of voters, he appears to be on the verge of bumping up against his natural ceiling. To go from having his 15 minutes to being a true contender, the Vermonter is going to have to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe lay off the single-payer health care, drop the trillion-dollar price tag on his jobs bill or even *gasp* start a Super PAC Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-elections-119809.html#ixzz3fJqXJ8WTSource Typical piece on Bernie from a Clinton supporter. He's well over 250,000 people who have donated (more than anyone else) and raised more money than many Republicans. Plus him not begging the billionaire class is much of his appeal. Hillary needs Bernie to do what she does so he loses his appeal, it's actually pretty funny, considering a month earlier the same guy was saying he wasn't progressive enough. I am curious to see if Bernie will adapt his views as the campaign goes on. I think the article does make a good point that some of his views are not sustainable. In a general election, his opponent would simply cherry pick his most liberal positions and hit him repeatedly. As an aside on the general state of US politics, I think there's been too much emphasis recently on candidates sticking to their "values" and not compromising, and not enough emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility. We need more bi-partisanship in this country. "Bi-partisanship" is just a code word for doing what Business interests want at this point. Let his opponent try to hammer him on positions that the People agree with.
It doesn't matter if people agree with 50% of his ideas - his opponents will only attack him on the 50% of ideas that he has that are too radical for most Americans to stomach. Sanders will be forced on the defensive, and the campaign narrative focuses on his weaker ideas. And because he doesn't accept Super PAC money, his campaign will be strapped for resources to defend these attacks, much less launch counter-attacks on the opponent.
And don't try to tell me that the people all agree with 100% of his policies. He's either going to have to raise taxes or increase national debt even more. Campaign promises are always brighter than reality.
|
On July 09 2015 06:52 Bagration wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 04:11 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2015 01:59 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 01:43 Bagration wrote:So we had a few people discussing the Sanders candidacy. Here's an interesting piece regarding Sanders' odds from Politico While Sen. Bernie Sanders has taken the first step in any successful liberal insurgency, striking a nerve with a faction of voters, he appears to be on the verge of bumping up against his natural ceiling. To go from having his 15 minutes to being a true contender, the Vermonter is going to have to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe lay off the single-payer health care, drop the trillion-dollar price tag on his jobs bill or even *gasp* start a Super PAC Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-elections-119809.html#ixzz3fJqXJ8WTSource Typical piece on Bernie from a Clinton supporter. He's well over 250,000 people who have donated (more than anyone else) and raised more money than many Republicans. Plus him not begging the billionaire class is much of his appeal. Hillary needs Bernie to do what she does so he loses his appeal, it's actually pretty funny, considering a month earlier the same guy was saying he wasn't progressive enough. I am curious to see if Bernie will adapt his views as the campaign goes on. I think the article does make a good point that some of his views are not sustainable. In a general election, his opponent would simply cherry pick his most liberal positions and hit him repeatedly. As an aside on the general state of US politics, I think there's been too much emphasis recently on candidates sticking to their "values" and not compromising, and not enough emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility. We need more bi-partisanship in this country. "Bi-partisanship" is just a code word for doing what Business interests want at this point. Let his opponent try to hammer him on positions that the People agree with. It doesn't matter if people agree with 50% of his ideas - his opponents will only attack him on the 50% of ideas that he has that are too radical for most Americans to stomach. Sanders will be forced on the defensive, and the campaign narrative focuses on his weaker ideas. And because he doesn't accept Super PAC money, his campaign will be strapped for resources to defend these attacks, much less launch counter-attacks on the opponent.
Which of his ideas are too radical for most Americans to stomach?
|
On July 09 2015 06:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:52 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 04:11 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2015 01:59 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 01:43 Bagration wrote:So we had a few people discussing the Sanders candidacy. Here's an interesting piece regarding Sanders' odds from Politico While Sen. Bernie Sanders has taken the first step in any successful liberal insurgency, striking a nerve with a faction of voters, he appears to be on the verge of bumping up against his natural ceiling. To go from having his 15 minutes to being a true contender, the Vermonter is going to have to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe lay off the single-payer health care, drop the trillion-dollar price tag on his jobs bill or even *gasp* start a Super PAC Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-elections-119809.html#ixzz3fJqXJ8WTSource Typical piece on Bernie from a Clinton supporter. He's well over 250,000 people who have donated (more than anyone else) and raised more money than many Republicans. Plus him not begging the billionaire class is much of his appeal. Hillary needs Bernie to do what she does so he loses his appeal, it's actually pretty funny, considering a month earlier the same guy was saying he wasn't progressive enough. I am curious to see if Bernie will adapt his views as the campaign goes on. I think the article does make a good point that some of his views are not sustainable. In a general election, his opponent would simply cherry pick his most liberal positions and hit him repeatedly. As an aside on the general state of US politics, I think there's been too much emphasis recently on candidates sticking to their "values" and not compromising, and not enough emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility. We need more bi-partisanship in this country. "Bi-partisanship" is just a code word for doing what Business interests want at this point. Let his opponent try to hammer him on positions that the People agree with. It doesn't matter if people agree with 50% of his ideas - his opponents will only attack him on the 50% of ideas that he has that are too radical for most Americans to stomach. Sanders will be forced on the defensive, and the campaign narrative focuses on his weaker ideas. And because he doesn't accept Super PAC money, his campaign will be strapped for resources to defend these attacks, much less launch counter-attacks on the opponent. Which of his ideas are too radical for most Americans to stomach?
Taxes will go up, or the debt will increase. You can't have spending without raising taxes, and you aren't gonna get $1 trillion for infrastructure simply by raising taxes on billionaires and corporations, unless you raise them dramatically. Ideas like nation-wide single payer healthcare are massive ideas that sound great, but nearly impossible to implement.
I believe he proposed a 50% tax for top income earners, yet from the politico poll showed at only single digit percentage of Americans support that.
Think about this - if his positions were overwhelmingly supported by a majority of Americans, why wouldn't more candidates adopt them and cruise to easy electoral victory?
|
United States41991 Posts
On July 09 2015 06:52 Bagration wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 04:11 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2015 01:59 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 01:43 Bagration wrote:So we had a few people discussing the Sanders candidacy. Here's an interesting piece regarding Sanders' odds from Politico While Sen. Bernie Sanders has taken the first step in any successful liberal insurgency, striking a nerve with a faction of voters, he appears to be on the verge of bumping up against his natural ceiling. To go from having his 15 minutes to being a true contender, the Vermonter is going to have to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe lay off the single-payer health care, drop the trillion-dollar price tag on his jobs bill or even *gasp* start a Super PAC Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-elections-119809.html#ixzz3fJqXJ8WTSource Typical piece on Bernie from a Clinton supporter. He's well over 250,000 people who have donated (more than anyone else) and raised more money than many Republicans. Plus him not begging the billionaire class is much of his appeal. Hillary needs Bernie to do what she does so he loses his appeal, it's actually pretty funny, considering a month earlier the same guy was saying he wasn't progressive enough. I am curious to see if Bernie will adapt his views as the campaign goes on. I think the article does make a good point that some of his views are not sustainable. In a general election, his opponent would simply cherry pick his most liberal positions and hit him repeatedly. As an aside on the general state of US politics, I think there's been too much emphasis recently on candidates sticking to their "values" and not compromising, and not enough emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility. We need more bi-partisanship in this country. "Bi-partisanship" is just a code word for doing what Business interests want at this point. Let his opponent try to hammer him on positions that the People agree with. It doesn't matter if people agree with 50% of his ideas - his opponents will only attack him on the 50% of ideas that he has that are too radical for most Americans to stomach. Sanders will be forced on the defensive, and the campaign narrative focuses on his weaker ideas. And because he doesn't accept Super PAC money, his campaign will be strapped for resources to defend these attacks, much less launch counter-attacks on the opponent. And don't try to tell me that the people all agree with 100% of his policies. He's either going to have to raise taxes or increase national debt even more. Campaign promises are always brighter than reality.
He already proposed a 0.5% sales tax on stocks (which was apparently obscenely high because, you know, rich people need their stocks, not like poor people with their 7% sales tax on bread). He's not just proposing the things people cheer for, he's proposing the things they don't like too.
|
On July 09 2015 06:57 Bagration wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:52 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 04:11 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2015 01:59 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 01:43 Bagration wrote:So we had a few people discussing the Sanders candidacy. Here's an interesting piece regarding Sanders' odds from Politico While Sen. Bernie Sanders has taken the first step in any successful liberal insurgency, striking a nerve with a faction of voters, he appears to be on the verge of bumping up against his natural ceiling. To go from having his 15 minutes to being a true contender, the Vermonter is going to have to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe lay off the single-payer health care, drop the trillion-dollar price tag on his jobs bill or even *gasp* start a Super PAC Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-elections-119809.html#ixzz3fJqXJ8WTSource Typical piece on Bernie from a Clinton supporter. He's well over 250,000 people who have donated (more than anyone else) and raised more money than many Republicans. Plus him not begging the billionaire class is much of his appeal. Hillary needs Bernie to do what she does so he loses his appeal, it's actually pretty funny, considering a month earlier the same guy was saying he wasn't progressive enough. I am curious to see if Bernie will adapt his views as the campaign goes on. I think the article does make a good point that some of his views are not sustainable. In a general election, his opponent would simply cherry pick his most liberal positions and hit him repeatedly. As an aside on the general state of US politics, I think there's been too much emphasis recently on candidates sticking to their "values" and not compromising, and not enough emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility. We need more bi-partisanship in this country. "Bi-partisanship" is just a code word for doing what Business interests want at this point. Let his opponent try to hammer him on positions that the People agree with. It doesn't matter if people agree with 50% of his ideas - his opponents will only attack him on the 50% of ideas that he has that are too radical for most Americans to stomach. Sanders will be forced on the defensive, and the campaign narrative focuses on his weaker ideas. And because he doesn't accept Super PAC money, his campaign will be strapped for resources to defend these attacks, much less launch counter-attacks on the opponent. Which of his ideas are too radical for most Americans to stomach? Taxes will go up, or the debt will increase. You can't have spending without raising taxes, and you aren't gonna get $1 trillion for infrastructure simply by raising taxes on billionaires and corporations, unless you raise them dramatically. Ideas like nation-wide single payer healthcare are massive ideas that sound great, but nearly impossible to implement. I believe he proposed a 50% tax for top income earners, yet from the politico poll showed at only single digit percentage of Americans support that. Think about this - if his positions were overwhelmingly supported by a majority of Americans, why wouldn't more candidates adopt them and cruise to easy electoral victory?
It is an uphill battle explaining that "top income earners" are a small fraction.
But statistics like:
"99% of new income is going to the top 1%"
Or
"Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America (over 40,000,000 families)"
help reduce it to a place where average people start to say "well hell, nothing wrong with taxing that"
|
On July 09 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:52 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 04:11 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2015 01:59 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 01:43 Bagration wrote:So we had a few people discussing the Sanders candidacy. Here's an interesting piece regarding Sanders' odds from Politico While Sen. Bernie Sanders has taken the first step in any successful liberal insurgency, striking a nerve with a faction of voters, he appears to be on the verge of bumping up against his natural ceiling. To go from having his 15 minutes to being a true contender, the Vermonter is going to have to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe lay off the single-payer health care, drop the trillion-dollar price tag on his jobs bill or even *gasp* start a Super PAC Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-elections-119809.html#ixzz3fJqXJ8WTSource Typical piece on Bernie from a Clinton supporter. He's well over 250,000 people who have donated (more than anyone else) and raised more money than many Republicans. Plus him not begging the billionaire class is much of his appeal. Hillary needs Bernie to do what she does so he loses his appeal, it's actually pretty funny, considering a month earlier the same guy was saying he wasn't progressive enough. I am curious to see if Bernie will adapt his views as the campaign goes on. I think the article does make a good point that some of his views are not sustainable. In a general election, his opponent would simply cherry pick his most liberal positions and hit him repeatedly. As an aside on the general state of US politics, I think there's been too much emphasis recently on candidates sticking to their "values" and not compromising, and not enough emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility. We need more bi-partisanship in this country. "Bi-partisanship" is just a code word for doing what Business interests want at this point. Let his opponent try to hammer him on positions that the People agree with. It doesn't matter if people agree with 50% of his ideas - his opponents will only attack him on the 50% of ideas that he has that are too radical for most Americans to stomach. Sanders will be forced on the defensive, and the campaign narrative focuses on his weaker ideas. And because he doesn't accept Super PAC money, his campaign will be strapped for resources to defend these attacks, much less launch counter-attacks on the opponent. And don't try to tell me that the people all agree with 100% of his policies. He's either going to have to raise taxes or increase national debt even more. Campaign promises are always brighter than reality. He already proposed a 0.5% sales tax on stocks (which was apparently obscenely high because, you know, rich people need their stocks, not like poor people with their 7% sales tax on bread). He's not just proposing the things people cheer for, he's proposing the things they don't like too.
He proposed a .5% financial transactions tax. Which is different than stocks, since the capital markets are several times larger than the stock market, and most transactions have less than a .5% margin. His tax would make America's banking system into the 2008 banking system on a near-permanent basis.
On July 09 2015 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
help reduce it to a place where average people start to say "well hell, nothing wrong with taxing that"
As long as you recognize those kind of taxes don't actually raise much revenue. The way to finance the European-style state is through a national sales tax or VAT. We know this because the richest % of Americans already pay a higher percentage of taxes than do their European counterparts, even accounting for their share of the national income.
|
WASHINGTON -- Physicians would be paid to discuss end-of-life options with Medicare patients who want their wishes spelled out in advance under a regulation proposed by the federal government Wednesday.
Medical societies and seniors' groups like the AARP have long supported so-called advance care planning as a way for patients to consider whether they want intensive medical care in the event of a life-threatening illness near the close of their lives, and to make their preferences known to their loved ones in writing. But Medicare has never had a mechanism with which to pay doctors for this counseling, except during a physical exam when beneficiaries first enroll in the program.
“Today’s proposal supports individuals and families who wish to have the opportunity to discuss advance care planning with their physician and care team, as part of coordinated, patient- and family-centered care," Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Chief Medical Officer Patrick Conway said in a statement. "CMS looks forward to gathering public input on this proposal.”
An early version of the legislation that became the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama's health care reform law, would have established a way for Medicare to pay physicians who discuss end-of-life options with patients. The plan was derailed, however, when ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, falsely labeled these voluntary counseling sessions as "death panels" that would cut off medical care to older Americans against their wills.
Source
|
On July 09 2015 07:16 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:On July 09 2015 06:52 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 04:11 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2015 01:59 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 01:43 Bagration wrote:So we had a few people discussing the Sanders candidacy. Here's an interesting piece regarding Sanders' odds from Politico While Sen. Bernie Sanders has taken the first step in any successful liberal insurgency, striking a nerve with a faction of voters, he appears to be on the verge of bumping up against his natural ceiling. To go from having his 15 minutes to being a true contender, the Vermonter is going to have to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe lay off the single-payer health care, drop the trillion-dollar price tag on his jobs bill or even *gasp* start a Super PAC Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-elections-119809.html#ixzz3fJqXJ8WTSource Typical piece on Bernie from a Clinton supporter. He's well over 250,000 people who have donated (more than anyone else) and raised more money than many Republicans. Plus him not begging the billionaire class is much of his appeal. Hillary needs Bernie to do what she does so he loses his appeal, it's actually pretty funny, considering a month earlier the same guy was saying he wasn't progressive enough. I am curious to see if Bernie will adapt his views as the campaign goes on. I think the article does make a good point that some of his views are not sustainable. In a general election, his opponent would simply cherry pick his most liberal positions and hit him repeatedly. As an aside on the general state of US politics, I think there's been too much emphasis recently on candidates sticking to their "values" and not compromising, and not enough emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility. We need more bi-partisanship in this country. "Bi-partisanship" is just a code word for doing what Business interests want at this point. Let his opponent try to hammer him on positions that the People agree with. It doesn't matter if people agree with 50% of his ideas - his opponents will only attack him on the 50% of ideas that he has that are too radical for most Americans to stomach. Sanders will be forced on the defensive, and the campaign narrative focuses on his weaker ideas. And because he doesn't accept Super PAC money, his campaign will be strapped for resources to defend these attacks, much less launch counter-attacks on the opponent. And don't try to tell me that the people all agree with 100% of his policies. He's either going to have to raise taxes or increase national debt even more. Campaign promises are always brighter than reality. He already proposed a 0.5% sales tax on stocks (which was apparently obscenely high because, you know, rich people need their stocks, not like poor people with their 7% sales tax on bread). He's not just proposing the things people cheer for, he's proposing the things they don't like too. He proposed a .5% financial transactions tax. Which is different than stocks, since the capital markets are several times larger than the stock market, and most transactions have less than a .5% margin. His tax would make America's banking system into the 2008 banking system on a near-permanent basis. Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
help reduce it to a place where average people start to say "well hell, nothing wrong with taxing that"
As long as you recognize those kind of taxes don't actually raise much revenue. The way to finance the European-style state is through a national sales tax or VAT. We know this because the richest % of Americans already pay a higher percentage of taxes than do their European counterparts, even accounting for their share of the national income.
Really I'd prefer businesses just stop being so short sighted and realize a booming middle class means more money for everyone instead of trying to squeeze the middle class so it can trickle back down on them. Cutting taxes for the wealthiest doesn't help the middle class, Kansas being a prime example.
|
On July 09 2015 07:16 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:On July 09 2015 06:52 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 04:11 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2015 01:59 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 01:43 Bagration wrote:So we had a few people discussing the Sanders candidacy. Here's an interesting piece regarding Sanders' odds from Politico While Sen. Bernie Sanders has taken the first step in any successful liberal insurgency, striking a nerve with a faction of voters, he appears to be on the verge of bumping up against his natural ceiling. To go from having his 15 minutes to being a true contender, the Vermonter is going to have to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe lay off the single-payer health care, drop the trillion-dollar price tag on his jobs bill or even *gasp* start a Super PAC Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-elections-119809.html#ixzz3fJqXJ8WTSource Typical piece on Bernie from a Clinton supporter. He's well over 250,000 people who have donated (more than anyone else) and raised more money than many Republicans. Plus him not begging the billionaire class is much of his appeal. Hillary needs Bernie to do what she does so he loses his appeal, it's actually pretty funny, considering a month earlier the same guy was saying he wasn't progressive enough. I am curious to see if Bernie will adapt his views as the campaign goes on. I think the article does make a good point that some of his views are not sustainable. In a general election, his opponent would simply cherry pick his most liberal positions and hit him repeatedly. As an aside on the general state of US politics, I think there's been too much emphasis recently on candidates sticking to their "values" and not compromising, and not enough emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility. We need more bi-partisanship in this country. "Bi-partisanship" is just a code word for doing what Business interests want at this point. Let his opponent try to hammer him on positions that the People agree with. It doesn't matter if people agree with 50% of his ideas - his opponents will only attack him on the 50% of ideas that he has that are too radical for most Americans to stomach. Sanders will be forced on the defensive, and the campaign narrative focuses on his weaker ideas. And because he doesn't accept Super PAC money, his campaign will be strapped for resources to defend these attacks, much less launch counter-attacks on the opponent. And don't try to tell me that the people all agree with 100% of his policies. He's either going to have to raise taxes or increase national debt even more. Campaign promises are always brighter than reality. He already proposed a 0.5% sales tax on stocks (which was apparently obscenely high because, you know, rich people need their stocks, not like poor people with their 7% sales tax on bread). He's not just proposing the things people cheer for, he's proposing the things they don't like too. He proposed a .5% financial transactions tax. Which is different than stocks, since the capital markets are several times larger than the stock market, and most transactions have less than a .5% margin. His tax would make America's banking system into the 2008 banking system on a near-permanent basis. Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
help reduce it to a place where average people start to say "well hell, nothing wrong with taxing that"
As long as you recognize those kind of taxes don't actually raise much revenue. The way to finance the European-style state is through a national sales tax or VAT. We know this because the richest % of Americans already pay a higher percentage of taxes than do their European counterparts, even accounting for their share of the national income.
What do you mean it would make the banking system into the "2008 banking system on a near-permanent basis?" You mean no one would make any transactions?
@ Bagration
Yeah taxes will have to be raised. That's something the American public needs to hear.
|
United States41991 Posts
On July 09 2015 07:16 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:On July 09 2015 06:52 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 04:11 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2015 01:59 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 01:43 Bagration wrote:So we had a few people discussing the Sanders candidacy. Here's an interesting piece regarding Sanders' odds from Politico While Sen. Bernie Sanders has taken the first step in any successful liberal insurgency, striking a nerve with a faction of voters, he appears to be on the verge of bumping up against his natural ceiling. To go from having his 15 minutes to being a true contender, the Vermonter is going to have to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe lay off the single-payer health care, drop the trillion-dollar price tag on his jobs bill or even *gasp* start a Super PAC Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-elections-119809.html#ixzz3fJqXJ8WTSource Typical piece on Bernie from a Clinton supporter. He's well over 250,000 people who have donated (more than anyone else) and raised more money than many Republicans. Plus him not begging the billionaire class is much of his appeal. Hillary needs Bernie to do what she does so he loses his appeal, it's actually pretty funny, considering a month earlier the same guy was saying he wasn't progressive enough. I am curious to see if Bernie will adapt his views as the campaign goes on. I think the article does make a good point that some of his views are not sustainable. In a general election, his opponent would simply cherry pick his most liberal positions and hit him repeatedly. As an aside on the general state of US politics, I think there's been too much emphasis recently on candidates sticking to their "values" and not compromising, and not enough emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility. We need more bi-partisanship in this country. "Bi-partisanship" is just a code word for doing what Business interests want at this point. Let his opponent try to hammer him on positions that the People agree with. It doesn't matter if people agree with 50% of his ideas - his opponents will only attack him on the 50% of ideas that he has that are too radical for most Americans to stomach. Sanders will be forced on the defensive, and the campaign narrative focuses on his weaker ideas. And because he doesn't accept Super PAC money, his campaign will be strapped for resources to defend these attacks, much less launch counter-attacks on the opponent. And don't try to tell me that the people all agree with 100% of his policies. He's either going to have to raise taxes or increase national debt even more. Campaign promises are always brighter than reality. He already proposed a 0.5% sales tax on stocks (which was apparently obscenely high because, you know, rich people need their stocks, not like poor people with their 7% sales tax on bread). He's not just proposing the things people cheer for, he's proposing the things they don't like too. He proposed a .5% financial transactions tax. Which is different than stocks, since the capital markets are several times larger than the stock market, and most transactions have less than a .5% margin. His tax would make America's banking system into the 2008 banking system on a near-permanent basis.
https://www.gov.uk/tax-buy-shares/overview
The unworkable tax you refer to has been around in the UK for quite a while now. Pretty sure London is still the financial capital of Europe and one of the biggest financial hubs in the world. It turns out that .5% isn't actually very much if you plan to hold the shares for more than a few nanoseconds. American Exceptionalism hard at work, it absolutely couldn't work, mustn't work and if it has been shown to work then firstly that doesn't make any sense because America is always on the cutting edge so everything proposed there is always new and secondly it probably wouldn't apply to a country as free as America.
When buying stocks the questions ought to be "Is this a productive company? How much are their assets worth? How much profit are they making? How much could they make in the future?" and with that and some other factors you decide how much it's worth to you. If someone will sell for that, you buy. If they won't then you won't buy. If someone is offering to buy it for more than that then you sell them what you have. In that context, and with equities growing at around 7% a year, 0.5% really isn't a big hit. A 0.5% hit on a mutual fund that makes 7% on average a year is about the first 3 weeks of your profit. Now obviously if you intended to sell immediately because you didn't give a shit what the company made or how they were doing but thought you could flip it then obviously 0.5% is much more of a hit. Not all trades are the productive assessments of the valuation of stocks that we need for a working stock market. An awful lot of them are effectively white noise. Warren Buffet has written a lot of pretty interesting stuff on this oddly enough.
Anyway, basically a 0.5% hit is meaningless to an actual investor but also a pretty effective spam filter. That's a good thing. If anything it would have helped limit the ballooning pyramid of endlessly traded debts pre 2008.
|
On July 09 2015 08:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 07:16 cLutZ wrote:On July 09 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:On July 09 2015 06:52 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 04:11 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2015 01:59 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 01:43 Bagration wrote:So we had a few people discussing the Sanders candidacy. Here's an interesting piece regarding Sanders' odds from Politico While Sen. Bernie Sanders has taken the first step in any successful liberal insurgency, striking a nerve with a faction of voters, he appears to be on the verge of bumping up against his natural ceiling. To go from having his 15 minutes to being a true contender, the Vermonter is going to have to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe lay off the single-payer health care, drop the trillion-dollar price tag on his jobs bill or even *gasp* start a Super PAC Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-elections-119809.html#ixzz3fJqXJ8WTSource Typical piece on Bernie from a Clinton supporter. He's well over 250,000 people who have donated (more than anyone else) and raised more money than many Republicans. Plus him not begging the billionaire class is much of his appeal. Hillary needs Bernie to do what she does so he loses his appeal, it's actually pretty funny, considering a month earlier the same guy was saying he wasn't progressive enough. I am curious to see if Bernie will adapt his views as the campaign goes on. I think the article does make a good point that some of his views are not sustainable. In a general election, his opponent would simply cherry pick his most liberal positions and hit him repeatedly. As an aside on the general state of US politics, I think there's been too much emphasis recently on candidates sticking to their "values" and not compromising, and not enough emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility. We need more bi-partisanship in this country. "Bi-partisanship" is just a code word for doing what Business interests want at this point. Let his opponent try to hammer him on positions that the People agree with. It doesn't matter if people agree with 50% of his ideas - his opponents will only attack him on the 50% of ideas that he has that are too radical for most Americans to stomach. Sanders will be forced on the defensive, and the campaign narrative focuses on his weaker ideas. And because he doesn't accept Super PAC money, his campaign will be strapped for resources to defend these attacks, much less launch counter-attacks on the opponent. And don't try to tell me that the people all agree with 100% of his policies. He's either going to have to raise taxes or increase national debt even more. Campaign promises are always brighter than reality. He already proposed a 0.5% sales tax on stocks (which was apparently obscenely high because, you know, rich people need their stocks, not like poor people with their 7% sales tax on bread). He's not just proposing the things people cheer for, he's proposing the things they don't like too. He proposed a .5% financial transactions tax. Which is different than stocks, since the capital markets are several times larger than the stock market, and most transactions have less than a .5% margin. His tax would make America's banking system into the 2008 banking system on a near-permanent basis. On July 09 2015 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
help reduce it to a place where average people start to say "well hell, nothing wrong with taxing that"
As long as you recognize those kind of taxes don't actually raise much revenue. The way to finance the European-style state is through a national sales tax or VAT. We know this because the richest % of Americans already pay a higher percentage of taxes than do their European counterparts, even accounting for their share of the national income. What do you mean it would make the banking system into the "2008 banking system on a near-permanent basis?" You mean no one would make any transactions? @ Bagration Yeah taxes will have to be raised. That's something the American public needs to hear.
Yes, I think that tax revenues need to go up as well. There isn't enough discretionary spending to cut.
|
On July 09 2015 08:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 07:16 cLutZ wrote:On July 09 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:On July 09 2015 06:52 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 04:11 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2015 01:59 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 01:43 Bagration wrote:So we had a few people discussing the Sanders candidacy. Here's an interesting piece regarding Sanders' odds from Politico While Sen. Bernie Sanders has taken the first step in any successful liberal insurgency, striking a nerve with a faction of voters, he appears to be on the verge of bumping up against his natural ceiling. To go from having his 15 minutes to being a true contender, the Vermonter is going to have to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe lay off the single-payer health care, drop the trillion-dollar price tag on his jobs bill or even *gasp* start a Super PAC Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-elections-119809.html#ixzz3fJqXJ8WTSource Typical piece on Bernie from a Clinton supporter. He's well over 250,000 people who have donated (more than anyone else) and raised more money than many Republicans. Plus him not begging the billionaire class is much of his appeal. Hillary needs Bernie to do what she does so he loses his appeal, it's actually pretty funny, considering a month earlier the same guy was saying he wasn't progressive enough. I am curious to see if Bernie will adapt his views as the campaign goes on. I think the article does make a good point that some of his views are not sustainable. In a general election, his opponent would simply cherry pick his most liberal positions and hit him repeatedly. As an aside on the general state of US politics, I think there's been too much emphasis recently on candidates sticking to their "values" and not compromising, and not enough emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility. We need more bi-partisanship in this country. "Bi-partisanship" is just a code word for doing what Business interests want at this point. Let his opponent try to hammer him on positions that the People agree with. It doesn't matter if people agree with 50% of his ideas - his opponents will only attack him on the 50% of ideas that he has that are too radical for most Americans to stomach. Sanders will be forced on the defensive, and the campaign narrative focuses on his weaker ideas. And because he doesn't accept Super PAC money, his campaign will be strapped for resources to defend these attacks, much less launch counter-attacks on the opponent. And don't try to tell me that the people all agree with 100% of his policies. He's either going to have to raise taxes or increase national debt even more. Campaign promises are always brighter than reality. He already proposed a 0.5% sales tax on stocks (which was apparently obscenely high because, you know, rich people need their stocks, not like poor people with their 7% sales tax on bread). He's not just proposing the things people cheer for, he's proposing the things they don't like too. He proposed a .5% financial transactions tax. Which is different than stocks, since the capital markets are several times larger than the stock market, and most transactions have less than a .5% margin. His tax would make America's banking system into the 2008 banking system on a near-permanent basis. On July 09 2015 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
help reduce it to a place where average people start to say "well hell, nothing wrong with taxing that"
As long as you recognize those kind of taxes don't actually raise much revenue. The way to finance the European-style state is through a national sales tax or VAT. We know this because the richest % of Americans already pay a higher percentage of taxes than do their European counterparts, even accounting for their share of the national income. What do you mean it would make the banking system into the "2008 banking system on a near-permanent basis?" You mean no one would make any transactions? @ Bagration Yeah taxes will have to be raised. That's something the American public needs to hear.
Correct. Overnight repo is just one such financial transaction and is about $15 Trillion per year in transactions. You might think that .5% of that would fund a lot of things, but it would fund almost nothing because those agreements are done for typically less than 5 basis points (.05%). To make up for this companies will have to hold much higher cash reserves instead of holding a safe, interest bearing security.
On July 09 2015 09:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 07:16 cLutZ wrote:On July 09 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:On July 09 2015 06:52 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 04:11 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2015 01:59 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 01:43 Bagration wrote:So we had a few people discussing the Sanders candidacy. Here's an interesting piece regarding Sanders' odds from Politico While Sen. Bernie Sanders has taken the first step in any successful liberal insurgency, striking a nerve with a faction of voters, he appears to be on the verge of bumping up against his natural ceiling. To go from having his 15 minutes to being a true contender, the Vermonter is going to have to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe lay off the single-payer health care, drop the trillion-dollar price tag on his jobs bill or even *gasp* start a Super PAC Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-elections-119809.html#ixzz3fJqXJ8WTSource Typical piece on Bernie from a Clinton supporter. He's well over 250,000 people who have donated (more than anyone else) and raised more money than many Republicans. Plus him not begging the billionaire class is much of his appeal. Hillary needs Bernie to do what she does so he loses his appeal, it's actually pretty funny, considering a month earlier the same guy was saying he wasn't progressive enough. I am curious to see if Bernie will adapt his views as the campaign goes on. I think the article does make a good point that some of his views are not sustainable. In a general election, his opponent would simply cherry pick his most liberal positions and hit him repeatedly. As an aside on the general state of US politics, I think there's been too much emphasis recently on candidates sticking to their "values" and not compromising, and not enough emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility. We need more bi-partisanship in this country. "Bi-partisanship" is just a code word for doing what Business interests want at this point. Let his opponent try to hammer him on positions that the People agree with. It doesn't matter if people agree with 50% of his ideas - his opponents will only attack him on the 50% of ideas that he has that are too radical for most Americans to stomach. Sanders will be forced on the defensive, and the campaign narrative focuses on his weaker ideas. And because he doesn't accept Super PAC money, his campaign will be strapped for resources to defend these attacks, much less launch counter-attacks on the opponent. And don't try to tell me that the people all agree with 100% of his policies. He's either going to have to raise taxes or increase national debt even more. Campaign promises are always brighter than reality. He already proposed a 0.5% sales tax on stocks (which was apparently obscenely high because, you know, rich people need their stocks, not like poor people with their 7% sales tax on bread). He's not just proposing the things people cheer for, he's proposing the things they don't like too. He proposed a .5% financial transactions tax. Which is different than stocks, since the capital markets are several times larger than the stock market, and most transactions have less than a .5% margin. His tax would make America's banking system into the 2008 banking system on a near-permanent basis. https://www.gov.uk/tax-buy-shares/overviewThe unworkable tax you refer to has been around in the UK for quite a while now. Pretty sure London is still the financial capital of Europe and one of the biggest financial hubs in the world. It turns out that .5% isn't actually very much if you plan to hold the shares for more than a few nanoseconds. American Exceptionalism hard at work, it absolutely couldn't work, mustn't work and if it has been shown to work then firstly that doesn't make any sense because America is always on the cutting edge so everything proposed there is always new and secondly it probably wouldn't apply to a country as free as America. When buying stocks the questions ought to be "Is this a productive company? How much are their assets worth? How much profit are they making? How much could they make in the future?" and with that and some other factors you decide how much it's worth to you. If someone will sell for that, you buy. If they won't then you won't buy. If someone is offering to buy it for more than that then you sell them what you have. In that context, and with equities growing at around 7% a year, 0.5% really isn't a big hit. A 0.5% hit on a mutual fund that makes 7% on average a year is about the first 3 weeks of your profit. Now obviously if you intended to sell immediately because you didn't give a shit what the company made or how they were doing but thought you could flip it then obviously 0.5% is much more of a hit. Not all trades are the productive assessments of the valuation of stocks that we need for a working stock market. An awful lot of them are effectively white noise. Warren Buffet has written a lot of pretty interesting stuff on this oddly enough. Anyway, basically a 0.5% hit is meaningless to an actual investor a pretty effective spam filter. That's a good thing. If anything it would have helped limit the ballooning pyramid of endlessly traded debts pre 2008.
I've debunked this before. That is a tax only on stock transactions, and does not apply to clearinghouses such that over 70% of stock transactions are exempt. The tax you are talking about is not a cash cow, and is really just a veiled wealth tax that generates less than 1% of Britain's yearly tax receipts.
|
United States41991 Posts
On July 09 2015 09:51 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 08:54 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2015 07:16 cLutZ wrote:On July 09 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:On July 09 2015 06:52 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 04:11 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2015 01:59 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 01:43 Bagration wrote:So we had a few people discussing the Sanders candidacy. Here's an interesting piece regarding Sanders' odds from Politico While Sen. Bernie Sanders has taken the first step in any successful liberal insurgency, striking a nerve with a faction of voters, he appears to be on the verge of bumping up against his natural ceiling. To go from having his 15 minutes to being a true contender, the Vermonter is going to have to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe lay off the single-payer health care, drop the trillion-dollar price tag on his jobs bill or even *gasp* start a Super PAC Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-elections-119809.html#ixzz3fJqXJ8WTSource Typical piece on Bernie from a Clinton supporter. He's well over 250,000 people who have donated (more than anyone else) and raised more money than many Republicans. Plus him not begging the billionaire class is much of his appeal. Hillary needs Bernie to do what she does so he loses his appeal, it's actually pretty funny, considering a month earlier the same guy was saying he wasn't progressive enough. I am curious to see if Bernie will adapt his views as the campaign goes on. I think the article does make a good point that some of his views are not sustainable. In a general election, his opponent would simply cherry pick his most liberal positions and hit him repeatedly. As an aside on the general state of US politics, I think there's been too much emphasis recently on candidates sticking to their "values" and not compromising, and not enough emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility. We need more bi-partisanship in this country. "Bi-partisanship" is just a code word for doing what Business interests want at this point. Let his opponent try to hammer him on positions that the People agree with. It doesn't matter if people agree with 50% of his ideas - his opponents will only attack him on the 50% of ideas that he has that are too radical for most Americans to stomach. Sanders will be forced on the defensive, and the campaign narrative focuses on his weaker ideas. And because he doesn't accept Super PAC money, his campaign will be strapped for resources to defend these attacks, much less launch counter-attacks on the opponent. And don't try to tell me that the people all agree with 100% of his policies. He's either going to have to raise taxes or increase national debt even more. Campaign promises are always brighter than reality. He already proposed a 0.5% sales tax on stocks (which was apparently obscenely high because, you know, rich people need their stocks, not like poor people with their 7% sales tax on bread). He's not just proposing the things people cheer for, he's proposing the things they don't like too. He proposed a .5% financial transactions tax. Which is different than stocks, since the capital markets are several times larger than the stock market, and most transactions have less than a .5% margin. His tax would make America's banking system into the 2008 banking system on a near-permanent basis. On July 09 2015 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
help reduce it to a place where average people start to say "well hell, nothing wrong with taxing that"
As long as you recognize those kind of taxes don't actually raise much revenue. The way to finance the European-style state is through a national sales tax or VAT. We know this because the richest % of Americans already pay a higher percentage of taxes than do their European counterparts, even accounting for their share of the national income. What do you mean it would make the banking system into the "2008 banking system on a near-permanent basis?" You mean no one would make any transactions? @ Bagration Yeah taxes will have to be raised. That's something the American public needs to hear. Correct. Overnight repo is just one such financial transaction and is about $15 Trillion per year in transactions. You might think that .5% of that would fund a lot of things, but it would fund almost nothing because those agreements are done for typically less than 5 basis points (.05%). Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 09:26 KwarK wrote:On July 09 2015 07:16 cLutZ wrote:On July 09 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:On July 09 2015 06:52 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 04:11 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2015 01:59 Bagration wrote:On July 09 2015 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 01:43 Bagration wrote:So we had a few people discussing the Sanders candidacy. Here's an interesting piece regarding Sanders' odds from Politico While Sen. Bernie Sanders has taken the first step in any successful liberal insurgency, striking a nerve with a faction of voters, he appears to be on the verge of bumping up against his natural ceiling. To go from having his 15 minutes to being a true contender, the Vermonter is going to have to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe lay off the single-payer health care, drop the trillion-dollar price tag on his jobs bill or even *gasp* start a Super PAC Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-2016-elections-119809.html#ixzz3fJqXJ8WTSource Typical piece on Bernie from a Clinton supporter. He's well over 250,000 people who have donated (more than anyone else) and raised more money than many Republicans. Plus him not begging the billionaire class is much of his appeal. Hillary needs Bernie to do what she does so he loses his appeal, it's actually pretty funny, considering a month earlier the same guy was saying he wasn't progressive enough. I am curious to see if Bernie will adapt his views as the campaign goes on. I think the article does make a good point that some of his views are not sustainable. In a general election, his opponent would simply cherry pick his most liberal positions and hit him repeatedly. As an aside on the general state of US politics, I think there's been too much emphasis recently on candidates sticking to their "values" and not compromising, and not enough emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility. We need more bi-partisanship in this country. "Bi-partisanship" is just a code word for doing what Business interests want at this point. Let his opponent try to hammer him on positions that the People agree with. It doesn't matter if people agree with 50% of his ideas - his opponents will only attack him on the 50% of ideas that he has that are too radical for most Americans to stomach. Sanders will be forced on the defensive, and the campaign narrative focuses on his weaker ideas. And because he doesn't accept Super PAC money, his campaign will be strapped for resources to defend these attacks, much less launch counter-attacks on the opponent. And don't try to tell me that the people all agree with 100% of his policies. He's either going to have to raise taxes or increase national debt even more. Campaign promises are always brighter than reality. He already proposed a 0.5% sales tax on stocks (which was apparently obscenely high because, you know, rich people need their stocks, not like poor people with their 7% sales tax on bread). He's not just proposing the things people cheer for, he's proposing the things they don't like too. He proposed a .5% financial transactions tax. Which is different than stocks, since the capital markets are several times larger than the stock market, and most transactions have less than a .5% margin. His tax would make America's banking system into the 2008 banking system on a near-permanent basis. https://www.gov.uk/tax-buy-shares/overviewThe unworkable tax you refer to has been around in the UK for quite a while now. Pretty sure London is still the financial capital of Europe and one of the biggest financial hubs in the world. It turns out that .5% isn't actually very much if you plan to hold the shares for more than a few nanoseconds. American Exceptionalism hard at work, it absolutely couldn't work, mustn't work and if it has been shown to work then firstly that doesn't make any sense because America is always on the cutting edge so everything proposed there is always new and secondly it probably wouldn't apply to a country as free as America. When buying stocks the questions ought to be "Is this a productive company? How much are their assets worth? How much profit are they making? How much could they make in the future?" and with that and some other factors you decide how much it's worth to you. If someone will sell for that, you buy. If they won't then you won't buy. If someone is offering to buy it for more than that then you sell them what you have. In that context, and with equities growing at around 7% a year, 0.5% really isn't a big hit. A 0.5% hit on a mutual fund that makes 7% on average a year is about the first 3 weeks of your profit. Now obviously if you intended to sell immediately because you didn't give a shit what the company made or how they were doing but thought you could flip it then obviously 0.5% is much more of a hit. Not all trades are the productive assessments of the valuation of stocks that we need for a working stock market. An awful lot of them are effectively white noise. Warren Buffet has written a lot of pretty interesting stuff on this oddly enough. Anyway, basically a 0.5% hit is meaningless to an actual investor a pretty effective spam filter. That's a good thing. If anything it would have helped limit the ballooning pyramid of endlessly traded debts pre 2008. I've debunked this before. That is a tax only on stock transactions, and does not apply to clearinghouses such that over 70% of stock transactions are exempt. The tax you are talking about is not a cash cow, and is really just a veiled wealth tax that generates less than 1% of Britain's yearly tax receipts.
Except that a loaf of bread has 7% sales tax in my city. How can a proposed 0.5% tax on stocks be a veiled wealth tax while simultaneously a 7% sales tax on a loaf of bread not be an open assault on the poor? Put it another way, poor people are forced to spend a far larger amount of their income on necessary expenses with a much smaller proportion left over to invest in things that actually generate income and yet pay a far larger tax rate on the things they are forced to buy and consume than the tax rate the rich pay on a luxury that generates value.
What it comes down to is basically that 7% on something the poor literally need to buy if they want to live is fine. 0.5% on a luxury the rich buy because it is a liquid asset that generates future wealth exponentially is not. The only possible explanation for that level of bullshit is "well yeah, but I'm rich". It's criminal.
|
NBC interview with Donald Trump, for a half hour, and I think the interviewer (Katy Tur) got demolished. As much as I think Trump is an asshole and would be an awful president, I think he came off really well here. Katy was unprepared, intimidated, and came off as explicitly trying to put down Trump over and over again with seemingly biased questions, with nothing really sticking.
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-the-full-unedited-donald-trump-interview-480244291643
|
On July 09 2015 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:NBC interview with Donald Trump, for a half hour, and I think the interviewer (Katy Tur) got demolished. As much as I think Trump is an asshole and would be an awful president, I think he came off really well here. Katy was unprepared, intimidated, and came off as explicitly trying to put down Trump over and over again with seemingly biased questions, with nothing really sticking. http://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-the-full-unedited-donald-trump-interview-480244291643
You don't get as far as Trump has by being a dumbass. Sending the B-team to interrogate him is not going to end well.
|
On July 09 2015 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:NBC interview with Donald Trump, for a half hour, and I think the interviewer (Katy Tur) got demolished. As much as I think Trump is an asshole and would be an awful president, I think he came off really well here. Katy was unprepared, intimidated, and came off as explicitly trying to put down Trump over and over again with seemingly biased questions, with nothing really sticking. http://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-the-full-unedited-donald-trump-interview-480244291643
Yeah I thought the same thing, he's good at what he does, I would let him negotiate some stuff for sure. Just give him his bottom line and let the guy do his thing.
I thought it was pretty funny when she made him admit he is still a birther though.
|
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Wednesday proposed a blunt solution for economic troubles: “People should work longer hours,” drawing negative reactions from critics who suggested the last thing Americans need is to work more.
The GOP presidential contender made his suggestion during an interview with the conservative New Hampshire newspaper, The Union Leader, on Wednesday to address a variety of issues, including a tax reform agenda that Americans could expect under his administration, ABC News reported.
Bush said, “My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/jeb-bush-people-should-work-longer-hours-119884.html#ixzz3fMS1cZy1
Oh boy, this could be some ammunition against Bush. The guy already has more baggage than Romney did, and his opponents could easily paint him as an out-of-touch rich guy just like Romney was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
