Interesting Points Made By Bernie Sanders

[mkr]

So true Thor!

[Chris Santee]

Governor Douglas Issues Statement on Tax Compromise
Montpelier, Vt. – Governor Jim Douglas this morning spoke with the White House regarding the tax compromise reached by President Obama and Congressional Republicans.  He issued the following statement in support of the compromise:

“Vermonters and all Americans are looking for Washington to produce results.  If we are to address our country’s challenges, Republicans and Democrats can no longer take an all-or-nothing approach to governing. 

“The compromise reached between President Obama and Republicans is a reasonable approach to helping the American people during this difficult time, while ensuring that tax increases do not burden the recovery.  I hope leaders in Washington can build on this collaboration to address the most critical issue facing our nation’s long-term economic health, the national debt.”

[cedarman]

"none of them (except a couple, I will give the benefit of the doubt) seem to know what that document is all about. "

unfortunately, I think this also applies to the average, under-educated American (some with advanced university degrees) also.

[Chris Santee]

Bernie has been filibustering now for over four hours on the Senate floor,
blaming the entire recession on the Bush tax cuts.

I agree with mirjo, that his heart is in the right place,
it's the location of his head I have a problem with.

He just stated we have more poverty here than anywhere else in the world.
I think some folks in Haiti might disagree with him too.

[Stand Alone Defense]

he is still going over 6 hours LOL

[mirjo]

Chris--in the spirit of Devil's Advocacy:

I think Reagan's presidency has been canonized since his death from Alzheimer's Disease, because I don't honestly recall his policy's being lauded quite as much when he was in office, actually I heard quite a lot of grumbling about the trickle-down economics theory (and honestly, I was too young to really know a lot about it, I wasn't paying attention to politics)

I'm a little too ignorant about economics to fully understand it all on a national or even state level, but as far as the simple example you give about your ads, I don't get the comparison to the current tax argument.

Wal-Mart does the same thing--it's about volume. Most people understand the concept, you attract more flies with honey, the honey in this case being lower prices, if you have something at a lower price than your competitor, you're going to sell more and still be able to make a profit or break even whatever the case may be.

I read the Joint Economic Committee report from 1996 you had the link to, maybe it's accurate, maybe it's not. In today's political mosh pit, I think anything that comes out of DC is highly suspect, personally.

If this is really suppose to help, then why hasn't it thus far? These are not new tax cuts coming down the pike, this is an argument to keep taxes the SAME. So it really begs the question, if keeping taxes lower for millionaires+ is so important, why hasn't it helped in the past couple of years that things have been circling the drain???

Is it because these mega wage earners don't put their money back into the domestic economy in a way that is helpful like is being said from the left of center or what is it? Is there another answer? I keep hearing that these are people who won't be investing in job growth or whatever the catch phrase of the day is and that seems to be at least one of the arguments. So, why hasn't their tax break helped yet? Why is it going to be so magical going forward? Shouldn't it have prevent so many job losses in the first place--many of which started in 2008?

This is why I don't get the justification--these tax laws have been in effect for a decade and after 7 years we were in a huge mess (not necessarily b/c of the tax cuts), but it has been 2 years since things went to hell in a hand basket and the first stimulus was sent to Wall Street (Nov. 2008) and these tax rates have been in place...So, again I ask, why is it now suddenly a magic bullet? It smacks of something very partisan for that reason alone.

There is SO much rhetoric it's difficult to keep it all straight. But I think the  reality is, is that these people don't really pay as much in taxes as it appears any way so this is all just a big hullaballoo about squat. The uber rich have and find more loopholes/shelters etc. when it comes to taxes that when all is said and done the secretary to a highly paid millionaire CEO pays more taxes than the boss does.

I think there should be tax incentives for those who are going to invest in some kind of job creation or whatever in the U.S. I don't know how this would work and i doubt DC can be trusted to figure it out, but unless there is something truly compelling that points to the greater good if the uber rich maintain their current tax rates, I'm not on board. Maybe the absence of that revenue won't add to the decifit, I don't know for certain and it almost doesn't matter.If someone doesn't take a vested interest soon (our leaders), well... We're this close to being the United States of China anyway.

As it stands, the majority of people can only barely afford the goods that WM sells--all from China, who we owe a fortune to and who seem to be plotting a surreptitious takeover. But we're all so busy with the infighting, no one is noticing. Our dubious leaders are also still stuck in the 'We're the greatest' mode w/o even realizing they're letting it slip away. We're not invincible, we will crash very freakin hard if someone doesn't pull up and fly straight SOON. I don't know if the answer is to continue the 'Bush Era' tax cuts or not. All  I have seen and heard is a lot of partisan opinions on the subject and I don't have enough economic education to discern what seems most plausible or to know what really works in this type of problem. At this point I'm not convinced that anyone does.

He just stated we have more poverty here than anywhere else in the world.
I think some folks in Haiti might disagree with him too.

I'm going to disagree on this--I don't know if we have more than anywhere else, but we certainly have a lot that is ignored and we are on par with many places, but we hide it wery, wery well. As for Haiti, it's the size of RI and I'm sure  we have several RI size pockets of poverty scattered about the country. We really tend to forget just how vast this nation is compared to most (all?) of the others in the world. I think we tend to view poverty as the naked black people in third world countries, with names we can't pronounce, that we see celebrities championing on the news or something, but there is plenty of urban and rural poverty in this country (and other developed countries as well) that simply gets ignored, because it's shameful.

I don't have numbers or statistics, but I would guess that in NYC alone, there is nearly as much poverty as there is/has been in Haiti (earthquake, not withstanding). That's just one large city. There are about 8 million people who live there and they aren't all wealthy. Every large city in the US has a large poverty population and there is plenty more in the rural areas.

I don't think Bernie was totally off the mark with that comment, although it  was probably blown out of proportion in the heat of his argument, but more to the point--the majority in this country I think prefer to turn a blind eye to the amount of poverty there is here, because it makes us look really bad. It's supposed to be the "land of plenty" and you're supposed to be able to support yourself and your family with nothing more than hard work and determination (aka, 'the American Dream'), but I think there is a huge subset that have found it doesn't exist or work that way.

I highly recommend reading Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich for anyone who doesn't believe that there is a working poor class out there.

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and Good Luck to all!

[Thor]

Mirjo,

So, if the current tax rates aren't having a profound effect on the current economic situation.... why change them? Why are you so "down" on milliionaires? The truth is, they could increase all of our tax rates to 100% and it still would not be enough to claw our way out of this hole. (it would provide the Progressives / Socialists exactly what they are after though!) Why not leave the uber rich alone; I am pretty sure many of them earned it, or inherited it. Is it a crime to be successful or extremely successful? Not all millionaires are bad people, or don't put back into the system. Your doing your "over-generalization" again. Remember how you "enlightened" me that not all people on the welfare system were a drain on the system? Same probably applies to the rich.

And you nailed it on the Stimulus. It had no effect, other than to protect and prop up the already criminally negligent banking system. This allowed the banks with extremely close ties to the Federal Reserve (Cedarman; there is that name again... the Fed) to make a huge profit by buying up the banks that were not as revered by the Fed Reserve Board. Anyway, they continually babble about how much tax revenue we are going to lose if the taxes dont go up, well what about how much money it is going to cost to provide unending unemployment. At what point does it become easier to sit at home and collect a check instead of going out and finding work? But don't worry, because if QE2 doesn't work, Bernanke has another plan! If QE2 doesn't make the dollar worthless, his QE3 & 4 will. And I don't think you have to worry quite yet about becoming the United States of China. China is not going to want to inherit another 300 million needy. They may be pissed they got screwed on their "investment", but I doubt they will want any part of our broken system.

It ain't the taxing part of our system, that is broken. It is the spending part! But the elected officials, who are always in their "campaign mode" regardless of whether or not it is election season, just keep telling us what "we want" to hear. All in the name of getting re-elected, without really having to do anything.

Couldn't agree more on the poverty situation. I have always said that we should be pulling back from all of our overseas assistance. That doesn't mean we don't provide something, but not the millions of dollars that we currently donate. That is what charitable organizations are for. Our money should be spent here first, on our people. The $300 million we spent in Darfur last year, could probably have helped out here a great deal. Let the Red Cross and the Red Crescent and UNICEF and every other "do good" organization take on that effort.

[mirjo]

I don't think you know what you're saying  about this whole thing anymore than I know what I'm saying,  at this point. It has gotten that skewed  whether you think so or not.

The bottom line is this--I am no more right than you are. None of us here are right or wrong, it's just a bunch of opinions, that mostly don't matter and aren't heard, as sad as that is.

As for the state of the nation, it is what it is. Maybe someone who knows how to fix things will come along.

As for politics, it's a bunch of opinions--and everybody's got one. We  usually hear the loudest ones. I have a loud opinion too and that's why I jump in to these things, but I recognize that's all it is. I don't feel right or entitled or anything. I think political parties are a sham and should be abolished. They do more harm than good.

I think there are too many opinions out there about what's right or wrong, to really be able to discern  what's right from what's wrong. It seems that if there is a system that is working well (somewhere), then perhaps we should be emulating it instead of believing that we know everything, when in fact we are hanging by a thread.

You asked me about millionaires et-al. I don't have anything against anyone who is smart/lucky  enough to earn a fortune. I have a huge issue with greed. I'm all for capitalism  and people making profits, I just don't believe that anyone needs to create a situation that puts a huge gap between him/her self and everyone else or makes the cost of goods so high it's difficult for people to live.

I don't agree with it or believe in it and doubt I ever will. And as for the tax situation or any economic situation this country is facing, without a degree in Economics (or even with one), I'm not qualified to make suggestions or even begin to think I know what the  right answer is. I'm merely b*%*ching like everyone else and that is nothing more than a colossal waste of time.

I think it's wonderfully philanthropic of us as a nation to lend a hand to places in need; however, it seems like we're able to give millions to these places, but can't do anything for our own poverty stricken rat-infested inner cities. I really don't get it. It's completely fupped.

Thanks for the arguments, it's always appreciated. Have a Merry, Merry Christmas.

[Thor]

"Political parties are a sham"... yea, but we need them or else we would get the unilateral "bills rammed down our throats" for "the good of the people". Those knuckleheads in charge are trying to do it again as we speak. And political discussion may be just "opinions" between us, but politics (or totally "fupped" politicians) are driving this train at full speed and the bridge is out!

"As for the state of the nation, maybe someone who knows how to fix things will come along". About the best guy I've seen in the recent past is Ron Paul. But the liberals could never possibly vote for a guy who says, enough of these ridiculous entitlement programs. Maybe you want to listen to him a bit about the future of the U.S. I don't agree with him on everything, but if you want to have a country to give to your kids, everyone better at least listen to him concerning fiscal responsibility.

Rich people don't drive up the price of goods. Our assinine politicians and their totally "fupped" fiscal responsibility do that with great help from The Fed and Bernanke. These idiots don't realize that by devaluing the dollar, we average Americans lose money (what you have in your pocket and in the bank) and the inflation associated with it drives up costs. We cannot monetize our way out of debt. We have to quit spending so much. Which means everyone needs to tighten their belt. Everyone, not just the rich.

I don't have a degree in economics, in fact I don't have a degree at all. I barely got out of high school. But I am smart enough to read the "writing on the wall". If we really want to live in a free market society, then we have to get the gov't out of business. They are destroying us. If a business is run so poorly (bank or automaker or anything else) and it is failing, we should let it fail. Someone else will come along that offers a better product at a better price and will win that corner of the market over.
But you cannot spend your way out of debt. I know that, you know that, but the idiots in charge don't seem to get it. They may know it, but they don't care. They have all made their money and are now writing laws to protect themselves, and piss on the average American.

I don't think any of this going back and forth is a collosal waste of time. Sharing opinions. The more information I listen to and read, only makes me more informed. But I don't get frustrated here on this thread. My frustrations lie with the complete incompetence we have in power at all levels (state and federal). And the criminally negligent Federal Reserve. They should all be tarred and feathered, pitchforked, drawn and quartered, hung and then put the pieces in prison so they cannot continue to ruin this country.





   

[Carolyn Branagan]

wow..........

[Thor]

Some very good news for the future, unless you're Ben Bernanke. Ron Paul is going to chair the House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy. As I have previously stated, I don't agree with him on all of his policies, but one I do agree with him on is Ending the Fed, and getting full disclosure from them. Personally I hope he is successful in two things; 1) absolutely crushing Bernanke and his insane fiscal dealings and 2) Ending the Fed or at least getting a full audit and making it mandatory for full disclosure in their dealings.

[slpott]

I think it is simple. Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes. Why tax the wealthy more than the other guy. He has a right to make as much as he wants to. Why penalize him and make him pay more. I do not understand this. He pays more taxes as it is. 5% on a million is a lot more than 5% on 50 K. Since when is it anyone's business how much someone makes. Let me see, I work 15 hours a day and make 100K a year. You work 8 hours a day and make 50K. Just because I work harder does not mean it is my responsibility to bridge the gap. Will someone please enlighten me. Don't forget that the person making 100K also pays more taxes for a bigger house and more taxes on a nicer car. I don't get it.