Col Sanders

[Indus]

I think he may be.. everyone was saying Obama has no shot.. America does not put black guys in the Oval Office.. well we saw what happened..

There are 4 things to consider:
1. Hildabeast will say anything to win an election.
2. The Middle Class is slowing becoming the Working Poor who need stuff to get by.
3. The Asians and Hispanics and African Americans and Bi-racials feel mistreated by the GOP as the purge on immigrants continues while Bernie is the only one who actually has a plan for Black Lives Matter
4. The 2-3 nominees on the Democrat side are way way better than any of the insane candidates on the GOP side.

So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I think it might be another very long primary for the Dems.

 

[cubby1223]

Just ask France how their socialism is working out for the best interest of the commoners.

 

[Bitek]

Not a Sanders voter, but those numbers look like crap. What is that, over a decade? "Free infrastructure" what does that mean? Stupid socialist assholes and their fancy "roads" and "bridges"?

Shall we compare any of the tax plans from the GOP and the trillions they want to shower in unpaid for taxcuts to the wealthy and see who is more irresponsible?

 

[John Connor]

Shall we compare any of the tax plans from the GOP and the trillions they want to shower in unpaid for taxcuts to the wealthy and see who is more irresponsible?

I take it you never heard or read Trump's tax plan? Not that I support Trump all that much. Personally I think he's irate and I don't think I trust him with the nuclear football. My money is on Carson at this juncture.

 

[John Connor]

 

[Bitek]

I take it you never heard or read Trump's tax plan? Not that I support Trump all that much. Personally I think he's irate and I don't think I trust him with the nuclear football. My money is on Carson at this juncture.

What, the $10T giveaway that will produce so much winning we will get bored of winning? Yeah, its awesome.

Roads and college are gay. I'd rather be winning.

 

[Bitek]

Great infographic tho on how much better stuff we could have got for the trillions Republican Bush blew on foreign policy disasters, spy programs, big pharma handouts and tax cuts that did jack shit for economic growth.

Thanks for reminding us no one knows how to waste money better than a Republican president.

 

[michal1980]

Great infographic tho on how much better stuff we could have got for the trillions Republican Bush blew on foreign policy disasters, spy programs, big pharma handouts and tax cuts that did jack shit for economic growth.

Thanks for reminding us no one knows how to waste money better than a Republican president.

I love how liberals see taxes as something government owns, and income is what government just lets you keep.

sick.

 

[Indus]

I love how liberals see taxes as something government owns, and income is what government just lets you keep.

sick.

You could always move to Saudi America err Arabia where all the tax dollars go to creating oil jobs to maximize profits and protecting oil imports.

You think we care about Iran? Nope.. all we care is that our offshore American CEO's who are in Saudi America for 2 day trips don't feel threatened by Iran whenever they visit their subordinates.

I love how conservatives ignore simple facts in front of them about how much lying the government does.

Hell didn't we send 10 billion dollars to Pakistan to make sure we got Bin Laden and could get supplies to our troops in Afghanistan. Guess what happened instead.. Musharraf became a billionaire, our supplies were robbed and are being sold in 20 rupee stores in Pakistan and Americans are dying.

What a fucking waste. Not that you would ever understand but we the liberals would love our tax dollars spent on America and Americans even a total douche like you or your American family over Saudi/ Israeli or whatever else non American interests.

 

[Bitek]

I love how liberals see taxes as something government owns, and income is what government just lets you keep.

sick.

I love how Republicans order everything on the menu then complain when the bill comes due.

Seems appropriate: Bernie vs the GOP

 

[sportage]

Well as Burnie says, if you raised the minimum wage to a living wage, then people would not need or qualify for public assistance. Food stamps. Welfare.
Burnie points put that the system we have now makes no logical sense what so ever.

People gripe about tax dollars going to the poor, and the so called FREE STUFF from the government. And that Obama is the food stamp president.
They gripe about that, yet resist supporting a decent living wage.

Every president until hell freezes over will be a FOOD STAMP president.
And that especially goes for Donald Trump.
Trump said leaving the minimum wage as is, $7 an hour, is just fine with him.
What THAT does is lock workers into qualifying for public assistance WHILE employed full time, and demanding even more tax dollars from everyone else to support that assistance.

What Burnie points out is with a decent living wage, people would not only get off assistance and food stamps, people would actually PAY TAXES into the system.
This is known as a win win situation.
Lower taxes for everyone, more taxes going into the system, less need for public assistance, and no more food stamp presidents.

Can you really blame Burnie for getting so heated under the collar?
When he is dealing with a system screwed up from top to bottom?
And resistance from the republicans to fix it, when they know what needs to be done, but simply refuse.
And people wonder WHY the national debt is so massive, their taxes through the roof, and seemingly everyone employed full time also qualifies for public assistance as well?
.
.

 

[kage69]

dailykos, a model of unbiased journalism.

Banana republican favorite: If you can't refute the message, abuse the messenger. Typical.

Since you're too fucking partisan and lazy to read the damn thing, here:

From the article:

Apparently the WSJ thought that attacking him on his tax plan was going to make their motives just a little too transparent. And, as Greg Sargent points out, they weren't even really looking at a Sanders' healthcare plan, because he hasn't released one yet. They were using another single-payer plan that's been introduced in the Senate and has a $15 trillion price tag, so they just used it.

Here's what they ignored: "At the moment, total health care spending in the United States runs over $3 trillion a year; according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, over the next decade (from 2015-2024), America will spend a total of $42 trillion on health care." That's a lot more than $15 trillion! Here's how it works—the money that we wouldn't be spending on healthcare premiums to private insurance will be going to the government to pay for health insurance for everyone. Except that those tax payments would be progressive—the lower income people wouldn't have to be paying as much as the rich. The majority wouldn't have to be paying as much in taxes as they are now for health insurance and everybody would have coverage. That's also been proven to save a lot of money in every other developed nation in the world that has some form of a single-payer plan to provide universal health care. That's a just a minor fact that the big economic brains of the WSJ overlooked in this article.

Sanders, though, should be flattered and heartened. The WSJ is scared enough of him to start attacking.


Are you smart enough to abandon a debunked bucket of bullshit, or will you do your standard 'drench myself with it and act smug' routine? Your post history would indicate an emphatic NO.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Banana republican favorite: If you can't refute the message, abuse the messenger. Typical.

Since you're too fucking partisan and lazy to read the damn thing, here:

From the article:

Apparently the WSJ thought that attacking him on his tax plan was going to make their motives just a little too transparent. And, as Greg Sargent points out, they weren't even really looking at a Sanders' healthcare plan, because he hasn't released one yet. They were using another single-payer plan that's been introduced in the Senate and has a $15 trillion price tag, so they just used it.

Here's what they ignored: "At the moment, total health care spending in the United States runs over $3 trillion a year; according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, over the next decade (from 2015-2024), America will spend a total of $42 trillion on health care." That's a lot more than $15 trillion! Here's how it works—the money that we wouldn't be spending on healthcare premiums to private insurance will be going to the government to pay for health insurance for everyone. Except that those tax payments would be progressive—the lower income people wouldn't have to be paying as much as the rich. The majority wouldn't have to be paying as much in taxes as they are now for health insurance and everybody would have coverage. That's also been proven to save a lot of money in every other developed nation in the world that has some form of a single-payer plan to provide universal health care. That's a just a minor fact that the big economic brains of the WSJ overlooked in this article.

Sanders, though, should be flattered and heartened. The WSJ is scared enough of him to start attacking.


Are you smart enough to abandon a debunked bucket of bullshit, or will you do your standard 'drench myself with it and act smug' routine? Your post history would indicate an emphatic NO.

Bullshit can't be debunked by more bullshit. Spending does not equal government revenue. You are trying to compare total healthcare spending vs. tax revenue. Does not compute.

 

[soundforbjt]

Off topic, but I found this hilarious...just before I posted.

 

[John Connor]

Well as Burnie says, if you raised the minimum wage to a living wage, then people would not need or qualify for public assistance. Food stamps. Welfare.
Burnie points put that the system we have now makes no logical sense what so ever.

People gripe about tax dollars going to the poor, and the so called FREE STUFF from the government. And that Obama is the food stamp president.
They gripe about that, yet resist supporting a decent living wage.

Every president until hell freezes over will be a FOOD STAMP president.
And that especially goes for Donald Trump.
Trump said leaving the minimum wage as is, $7 an hour, is just fine with him.
What THAT does is lock workers into qualifying for public assistance WHILE employed full time, and demanding even more tax dollars from everyone else to support that assistance.

What Burnie points out is with a decent living wage, people would not only get off assistance and food stamps, people would actually PAY TAXES into the system.
This is known as a win win situation.
Lower taxes for everyone, more taxes going into the system, less need for public assistance, and no more food stamp presidents.

Can you really blame Burnie for getting so heated under the collar?
When he is dealing with a system screwed up from top to bottom?
And resistance from the republicans to fix it, when they know what needs to be done, but simply refuse.
And people wonder WHY the national debt is so massive, their taxes through the roof, and seemingly everyone employed full time also qualifies for public assistance as well?
.
.

Here's the deal. Jobs have been going over seas for a long time now and people can't find a job. Why is that? For one there isn't a fair trading system. And to add to that the God awful corporate tax of 35%. You can't blame a company from wanting to manufacture goods in far away lands to earn a profit. That is the natural of business, to earn a profit. Now those minimum wage jobs were always for teenagers, nothing anyone should live by. We need a President that will foster growth in this country. Not raise taxes and continue the welfare state that this idiot President has done. Has his policies worked thus far? Fuck no they haven't! Col Sanders would be times 100. It just won't work. Sounds nice, but if you study economics and apply common sense you would say, oh yeah! That's pretty stupid thinking.

If socialism is so great why isn't Venezuela prosperous? http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9568391/venezuela-currency-thieves

Yeah...lets devalue our currency with sky high deficits. ABSOLUTELY STUPID!

 

[soundforbjt]

Here's the deal. Jobs have been going over seas for a long time now and people can't find a job. Why is that? For one there isn't a fair trading system. And to add to that the God awful corporate tax of 35%. You can't blame a company from wanting to manufacture goods in far away lands to earn a profit. That is the natural of business, to earn a profit. Now those minimum wage jobs were always for teenagers, nothing anyone should live by. We need a President that will foster growth in this country. Not raise taxes and continue the welfare state that this idiot President has done. Has his policies worked thus far? Fuck no they haven't! Col Sanders would be times 100. It just won't work. Sounds nice, but if you study economics and apply common sense you would say, oh yeah! That's pretty stupid thinking.

If socialism is so great why isn't Venezuela prosperous? http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9568391/venezuela-currency-thieves

Yeah...lets devalue our currency with sky high deficits. ABSOLUTELY STUPID!

Someone forgot to tell those companies that they shouldn't be open 24 hours a day since teenagers can't work until they get out of school...

 

[John Connor]

Entry level position doesn't sound familiar? You honestly expect a McDonalds worker that throws a burger on a bun, adds a few shitty pickles to get $15 an hour?! Are you out of your fucking mind?!

 

[soundforbjt]

Entry level position doesn't sound familiar? You honestly expect a McDonalds worker that throws a burger on a bun, adds a few shitty pickles to get $15 an hour?! Are you out of your fucking mind?!

Entry level? If someone moves up the ladder, how long do they have to work before they are no longer minimum wage?
Do you expect everyone on the day & night shifts (when teens can't work) to be entry level? Do you hire new people every few months to replace those that have moved up? Where do those that move up go?

 

[cubby1223]

Entry level? If someone moves up the ladder, how long do they have to work before they are no longer minimum wage?
Do you expect everyone on the day & night shifts (when teens can't work) to be entry level? Do you hire new people every few months to replace those that have moved up? Where do those that move up go?

Are you trying to suggest these businesses are so incompetent they haven't been able to staff their operations? They need you to come in with legislation to teach them how it's done?

 

[cubby1223]

It is quite interesting watching this play out. The DNC and the rest of the Democrats assumed Hillary would be the most fucking awesome candidate ever, the public swooning over the opportunity to vote for her, and chose to give her a wide open path to the white house. But then Bernie came along, and any normal year with an actual competitive Democratic field, Bernie has zero chance of making the nomination, but here he is making a surge in the polls based solely on the misguided assumptions of the Democratic Party. They are back to their "Defeaticrats" ways once again.

 

[flexy]

You can't blame a company from wanting to manufacture goods in far away lands to earn a profit. That is the natural of business, to earn a profit.

Wait.... I CAN'T?

And why exactly would I need to take the stance of the 1% and root for them being able to make profit at all costs? WHY EXACTLY?

I guess you think it's ok that douchebag CEO buys a patent for Daraprim and then re-sells the same life-saving med after increasing the price 5000%?

He certainly has the RIGHT, in the same way as corporate XYZ has the right to close 5000 jobs in their TN/IL/AL whatever factory and move the jobs to India.

But I for sure have no reason to take THEIR stance, why should I?

You must be seriously brainwashed when you defend things like this.

Oh...and like it's not obvious even for people with "very low IQs", I can and do blame companies...because I CAN SEE THE DIRECT RESULTS of what corporates are doing when they are going to "manufacture goods in far away lands to earn a profit". Is Detroit not a simple to understand example?

How has the moving of auto makers out of Detroit and to Swasiland "to earn a profit" benefited anyone? You still believing their moving abroad benefited the US, *DESPITE* Detroit now in ruins? You really can't see the obvious even if's right in front of your eyes?

 

[Indus]

You must be seriously brainwashed when you defend things like this.

Ding ding ding. No point wasting time and energy on conservaterrorists who have such an extreme view and are not open to anything else.

Sound familiar?

 

[flexy]

yeah I give up..just my "mornin-coffe rantin", I know it's pointless anyway...lol

 

[soundforbjt]

Are you trying to suggest these businesses are so incompetent they haven't been able to staff their operations? They need you to come in with legislation to teach them how it's done?

I wasn't the one who suggested teenagers are the only ones that should be working minimum wage jobs. If you have a 24 hour business, you should be paying a higher wage to those who are working those hours where teens can't. They're not incompetent, they're greedy tightwads.

 

[cubby1223]

Wait.... I CAN'T?

And why exactly would I need to take the stance of the 1% and root for them being able to make profit at all costs? WHY EXACTLY?

I guess you think it's ok that douchebag CEO buys a patent for Daraprim and then re-sells the same life-saving med after increasing the price 5000%?

He certainly has the RIGHT, in the same way as corporate XYZ has the right to close 5000 jobs in their TN/IL/AL whatever factory and move the jobs to India.

But I for sure have no reason to take THEIR stance, why should I?

You must be seriously brainwashed when you defend things like this.

Oh...and like it's not obvious even for people with "very low IQs", I can and do blame companies...because I CAN SEE THE DIRECT RESULTS of what corporates are doing when they are going to "manufacture goods in far away lands to earn a profit". Is Detroit not a simple to understand example?

How has the moving of auto makers out of Detroit and to Swasiland "to earn a profit" benefited anyone? You still believing their moving abroad benefited the US, *DESPITE* Detroit now in ruins? You really can't see the obvious even if's right in front of your eyes?

So what exactly are you going to do about it? The way I see it, your choices are to either (1) fight and lose, or (2) accept and focus your energy on developing a new niche for yourself in the always-changing world.

I mean, you can protest by not buying foreign-made goods. If you believe your actions actually have an impact in this world.