« First « Previous Comments 36 - 75 of 84 Next » Last » Search these comments
He has 100's of business ventures and decided to make a good business decision and close 4 casinos that were doing badly in liberal controlled Atlantic City using current legal methods. That's, at minimum, of a 96% success rate.
Yes--that was after he declared bankruptcy multiple times.
You avoided answering my questions again. Why?
Because I decide which questions of your are worth answering, and this one is basically rhetorical. So, being a dumb question, like most of your questions, I just left it be.
Unlike you, I don't worship "job creators" that use their Daddy's money to build hotels. And screw over their investors by declaring bankruptcy repeatedly. Nothing wrong with it--just not particularly admirable from my point of view.
Getting rid of the Department of Education, will be the best thing that ever happened to education in this country.
Which, like the Department of Energy, never produced a barrel of oil or MCF of gas, never "educated" one person.
You're safe there too, if Bernie doesn't start/own any businesses, and instead, lives off of the public tit, there's no money he needs to borrow to grow his non-existent businesses and create non-existent jobs. Sounds like just the guy I want running the country with all that experience.
I thought you were for a smaller government--so you don't want a job creator as President then, right? That would just be more people living off of the public tit, as you so eloquently put it.
This has probably been pointed out, but that shows the increases in taxes. It doesn't show the increases in services, which lead to less expenses for all. Universal health care would be a great idea for the simple reason that our current system is a hugely expensive mess. It would require new taxes, but would save everybody lots of money in the long run. It would also be a shift of burden from poor and middle class people to wealthier people. It would be interesting to see a transparent and detailed account of the financial impact of Bernie's policy suggestions on people in each income bracket.
One of the biggest differences between a Bernie Tax plan and a Trump (or any GOP) tax plan, is that because of gerrymandered congressional districts, republican will almost surely dominate congress, therefore republican POTUS candidate tax plans will likely be enacted. Democrats won't.
With Trump or any of the others GOP candidates, the rich will get richer and the govt and the rest of us will be fucked.
http://fortune.com/2015/12/23/donald-trump-plan-tax-policy-center/
With Bernie he MIGHT, just MIGHT, prevent the taxes on rich going down, and he might get ever so slight changes in the direction he wants (but doubtful).
This isn't rocket science folks.
Universal health care would be a great idea for the simple reason that our current system is a hugely expensive mess. It would require new taxes, but would save everybody lots of money
YEs. Ironically it would be a huge boost to corporations.
We need a PRIVATE job creator President, NOT a Government PUBLIC job creator President. Can't you tell those two apart?
lol--how does a President create private jobs exactly?
lol--how does a President create private jobs exactly?
By getting the fuck out of the way
I don't worship "job creators" that use their Daddy's money to build hotels. And screw over their investors
You're right. Screwing over the taxpayers is much more admirable.
You're right. Screwing over the taxpayers is much more admirable.
How about we find someone that doesn't screw over either?
How about we find someone that doesn't screw over either?
Trump used the existing laws to legally restructure businesses that weren't profitable. Investors take risks when they make an investment. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. They know that going in and they make the choice accordingly. Fast forward to the bailouts/bail-ins... We, as taxpayers, were forced to invest in businesses that were failing. New laws were created to make this possible. We had no say. We were not granted the choice of whether the investment was one worth making. Our elected officials decided for us. They gambled with taxpayer money... Money that was taken by force. I don't even see how you can compare the two.
By having experience working in the private sector, knowing what it takes to create jobs, before becoming president..... Duhh..
Really? Do tell me more. How exactly will that experience help one create private sector jobs as President?
Then Bernie isn't your boy.
Actually Bernie is my man. He's not screwing taxpayers--he' wants to implement policies that will restore the health of the US economy.
Actually Bernie is my man. He's not screwing taxpayers--he' wants to implement policies that will restore the health of the US economy.
The sad thing is that Tat is in the majority if not with Sanders then will Clinton.
Once again, your LACK of knowledge of how business operates comes through clear as a bell.
I figure--it was really a rhetorical question because everyone knows you aren't going to answer it. Because you can't. There is pretty much nothing that building a hotel will teach Trump that will help him create jobs as President.
Trump used the existing laws to legally restructure businesses that weren't profitable
Yep--nobody said he broke the law. There are a lot of activities that aren't illegal but may not represent things we want our future President to engage in.
We, as taxpayers, were forced to invest in businesses that were failing. New laws were created to make this possible. We had no say. We were not granted the choice of whether the investment was one worth making. Our elected officials decided for us. They gambled with taxpayer money... Money that was taken by force. I don't even see how you can compare the two
That's how a republic works. Your elected officials must make those decisions. Who made the comparison? Certainly not me.
But, fyi--the government actually make a profit on the bailouts.
Good---when you have to break out the stupid Internet memes, that means you've pretty much given up.
There is pretty much nothing that building a hotel will teach Trump that will help him create jobs as President.
"building a hotel"...
Do some reading, you might learn something:
Sorry, I take it back. He also builds golf courses.
That's how a republic works. Your elected officials must make those decisions.
Sure, when they are making decisions that represent the will of the people. When they go rogue, it's more like a hostile takeover. What a shock, voters have since mutinied.
So, tell us, old wise one, if Trump doesn't have the knowledge to create private sector jobs, how does Bernie accomplish this wish list with all HIS past ability?
Not surprisingly, you have completely misunderstood the point. The President doesn't create private sector jobs. All he can do is allocate Federal m money to programs that will employ people and/or improve the economy so that there is more demand. Bernie will do both. Making taxes more progressive, increasing cap gains, and the inheritance taxes will reduce inequality, increase demand, and create private sector jobs. He will also allocate Federal money to programs that hire people--creating jobs.
My point wasn't that Trump couldn't or wouldn't create jobs--just that building hotels doesn't give him any great insight.
This is where the mutts get confused with all the Keynesian gibberish.
The true factors are Says Law and the Hayekian triangle. IOW production comes 1st in the sequence, production creates the demand NOT the other way around.
Not that bullshit again.
Just because you disagree does not mean it is not true. The key is objective rather than the subjective gibberish you subscribe to.
production creates the demand NOT the other way around.
What if no one wants what you are producing?
Just because you disagree does not mean it is not true. The key is objective rather than the subjective gibberish you subscribe to.
I love a guy who puts a priori logic over data, observation, quantification, and general empiricism, talk about subjective vs. objective.
What if no one wants what you are producing?
Then you have to change your name to "government".
The key to success in the economy is choosing to produce a product/service that is wanted. E.G. A GP in the flyover part of the country makes way less than a plastic surgeon in Hollywood. Another example is over-investment where many people were fooled by low interest rates into investing in oil fracking. Oil is always valuable was the assumption. In this situation the entrepreneurs then have to reevaluate what is valuable.
I love a guy who puts a priori logic over data, observation, quantification, and general empiricism, talk about subjective vs. objective.
Back at ya. Got any of that data to prove your contention?
My point wasn't that Trump couldn't or wouldn't create jobs--just that building hotels doesn't give him any great insight.
Trump is much more likely to be great president who could make economy go. Sanders or Hillary can't do it, they don't know how it even works. Sanders is just smarter than Hillary, because he learned that to win Democratic nominee you have to go all the way to the left and scream for communistic ideology.
Reality check the only Prez who really got out of the way was the GREAT Coolidge. We need another Coolidge the only one close would have been Ron (not Rand) Paul.
We need another Coolidge
Along with the wonderful music. Everything is the 20's was memorialized in music, including Coolidge's famous statement--I've heard that Spike Jones (born in 1911) was greatly influenced as a young man in his late teens in the late 20's by the madcap antics of Harry Reser's Six Jumping Jacks.
Trump is much more likely to be great president who could make economy go. Sanders or Hillary can't do it, they don't know how it even works. Sanders is just smarter than Hillary, because he learned that to win Democratic nominee you have to go all the way to the left and scream for communistic ideology
I think Trump has some good ideas w.r.t. international trade and H1Bs But building a hotel or golf course didn't give any great insight.
You're being ridiculous about Sanders--unlike Clinton, he hasn't moved left for the primaries. He's stayed true to himself
choosing to produce a product/service that is wanted
So if demand influences production, how can production create demand?
Thanks, that is what I call High Fidelity, and the music isn't bad either.
I'm STILL waiting for you to tell me what he's actually accomplished in his past 3 decades in Congress. You know, PAST proof, facts and results, not FUTURE promises.
Past performance usually gives you good insight in Future accomplishments.
Just like looking at investment funds. Do you buy them based on "sales pitches" or based on past performance?
Here's the thing--you're trying to penalize Sanders for having idiots in Congress with him. He voted against the Iraq War. He voted to break up the banks. He led the fight to get rid of NAFTA.
It's not his fault that the other Congressman and woman value campaign contributions over their constituents.
So if demand influences production, how can production create demand?
The way I think of this is to think of a barter economy. In this situation the seller has to produce something that someone will buy before there is any demand. I.E. you can't say I want to trade for this if you don't have anything to trade.
To prove my point Japan has made money easier and easier to get for over 20 years yet their economy still languishes.
Another example is in this country, the Fed had QE for 7 or 8 years with the velocity of money (DEFINITION of 'Velocity Of Money' The rate at which money is exchanged from one transaction to another, and how much a unit of currency is used in a given period of time.) is at historic lows.
BTW this is where the mutts get confused because Keynesian economics says demand is everything. This is why Japan has tried to create economic growth for over 2 decades without success as has this country since the housing bust.
No, I'm trying to penalize him for BEING an idiot
Well, you're doing a piss poor job. I just provide 3 key pieces of legislation that he was 100% correct on and his colleagues were 100% wrong. If Sanders were President and could have vetoed them, the country would be a helluva lot better off.
You're missing the point.... again..
I don't want to hear about legislation he piggy backed on and was a FOLLOWER..
I want you to provide proof of something HE proposed and got passed, there's a BIG difference.
No, I'm not. I'm saying bills he proposed didn't get passed because of the other idiots in Congress. And looking back, he was right.
Cop out..
They didn't get passed because they were poorly written bills.
If a bill has wide sweeping benefits to ALL the American people (not just a D or R), do you really think they don't get passed?
I'll repeat it again, what bills did he sponsor that had benefits to ALL were signed into law during his 3 decade career in Congress?
Give me a break. You think Republicans would have voted for Glass Steagall if the bill had been written better??? Are you kidding me?
Back at ya. Got any of that data to prove your contention?
Nah, not in the mood. I'll spend fifteen minutes to half an hour putting shit up like I always do. Then I'll realize I've already done it 10x with you and the other Austrian on this board. Then you'll dismiss it by referring to Thomas Aquinas or some Thomas Woods XIII bullshit.
« First « Previous Comments 36 - 75 of 84 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates