Fair to criticize Bernie for not practicing what he preaches?

[mikeymikec]

Your comments do not make sense.

What, specifically, about the comment did you dislike?

What doesn't make sense about my post to you? Please explain.

In your previous two posts, you were complaining that your taxes go towards supporting other people. That's pretty much the definition of a tax: If that money only went towards your well-being, it wouldn't be a tax, it would be you paying your employees.

Perhaps you should have a think about how a civilisation can even begin to form. IMO it comes down to two things: co-operation and support. A group of individuals who see that it is in each of their best interests to help the others in the group in order to survive and prosper. As the group gets larger, there will be more individuals who at a given moment in time are probably about as much use as an arsehole on one's elbow, but in time, given the proper support and training, will be productive members of that society. Some may take longer than others to become useful to society, some may never become useful, but because the rest of that society aren't a bunch of arseholes who'd throw say someone who is disabled or terminally ill to the wolves, they support them.

Here's another way to look at it, the most selfish way possible: If a system of welfare benefits isn't in place, the people who need it will become desperate enough to do something that you might not consider to be very civilised because it's your bottom line they're affecting; your car gets stolen / stripped for parts, or you get mugged on your way home, or all your valuable shit gets stolen from your home while you're at work, or someone fancies your house. You've already declared that you don't give a crap what happens to these people, why on earth should they respect you and what's yours?

Here's another selfish way to look at taxes: All the public services that you have and continue to benefit from every single day, those all go downhill in quality if people who can afford to pay taxes pay less.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Oh look, financial wisdom from the party of fiscal responsibility.

Oh please tell us more. Tell us that one where deficit funded tax cuts for billionaires makes middle class people rich. Or maybe the one where the stock market cancels out the national debt. Or maybe the tale of all the farmers being wiped out with the estate taxes, and it's totally not about passing extra billions to the Trump kids.

Enjoy your retirement:

55 cents for a 3 ounce can ? I can do better than that. You need to get more realistic in your lies.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Pretty amazing that so many of your posts just consist of you making up random nonsense.
What does the average Senator have?

My comment was about the average American, something you obviously know nothing about. As an average American it's my right and my duty to criticize US Senators.

 

[pmv]

My comment was about the average American, something you obviously know nothing about. As an average American it's my right and my duty to criticize US Senators.

So you don't even read your own comments (not that I blame you, they aren't really worth the effort). Your comment was about "the lefties in this forum" and what they think. You then proceeded to accuse them (us?) of lying, and of being out-of-touch. On the basis of something you invented. Apparently you are Joe Sixpack and the rest of us are super-wealthy? Is that your attempted implication? It's hard to tell, as your posts have so little actual content.

I don't claim to know a lot about 'the average American', though I constantly try to fight the impression I get from too many Americans on the internet that the average American is an idiot. You aren't helping.

And what does your last line have to do with the topic? Are you suggesting Sanders is wealthier than the average Senator? If so, please prove it. If not, what is your point?

Oh, and are you now arguing that the US system is so crap that 'average Americans' are struggling? Well, that's capitalism. I thought you were in favour of it?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So you don't even read your own comments (not that I blame you, they aren't really worth the effort). Your comment was about "the lefties in this forum" and what they think. You then proceeded to accuse them (us?) of lying, and of being out-of-touch. On the basis of something you invented. Apparently you are Joe Sixpack and the rest of us are super-wealthy? Is that your attempted implication? It's hard to tell, as your posts have so little actual content.

I don't claim to know a lot about 'the average American', though I constantly try to fight the impression I get from too many Americans on the internet that the average American is an idiot. You aren't helping.

And what does your last line have to do with the topic? Are you suggesting Sanders is wealthier than the average Senator? If so, please prove it. If not, what is your point?

Oh, and are you now arguing that the US system is so crap that 'average Americans' are struggling? Well, that's capitalism. I thought you were in favour of it?

I am in favor of capitalism, what system do you prefer?

 

[pmv]

I am in favor of capitalism, what system do you prefer?

So why are you so keen to stress that the 'average american' isn't doing so well under it?

 

[Bitek]

55 cents for a 3 ounce can ? I can do better than that. You need to get more realistic in your lies.

Your responses are especially pathetic when you don't have talking points to parrot.

Here Polly, have Kocher:

“In case it is helpful to you in your own discussions with lawmakers and others,” the memo begins, “below is a list of talking points that address some of the key hurdles to passing tax reform this year.”

The memo goes on to encourage lawmakers to avoid becoming distracted by deficit concerns when passing the GOP tax reform package (emphasis added):

“Avoid getting distracted on revenue neutrality; economic growth increases revenues. Some Republican Senators have expressed concern over supporting comprehensive tax reform that adds to short-term deficits. Though we fully appreciate those concerns, the long-term economic growth that would result from the first comprehensive tax reform in a generation would help to offset short-term deficits over time. That was the result of the Kennedy and Reagan tax reforms—there’s no reason this time will be any different.

The current tax cut plan under negotiation would cost as much as $2 trillion over the next 10 years."

Weren't all you Fiscally Responsible folks freaking out about debts to China not too far back? But yeah, Old Man Sanders needs to give away his $400k suburbia home.

 

[Bitek]

So why are you so keen to stress that the 'average american' isn't doing so well under it?

Moving in the goal posts for his dotarding failure of a president.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So why are you so keen to stress that the 'average american' isn't doing so well under it?

We're not doing as well as Bernie Sanders and his wife for damn sure.
What system did you say you prefer?

 

[Indus]

We're not doing as well as Bernie Sanders and his wife for damn sure.
What system did you say you prefer?

Socialism.

 

[edcoolio]

What doesn't make sense about my post to you? Please explain.

In your previous two posts, you were complaining that your taxes go towards supporting other people. That's pretty much the definition of a tax: If that money only went towards your well-being, it wouldn't be a tax, it would be you paying your employees.

Perhaps you should have a think about how a civilisation can even begin to form. IMO it comes down to two things: co-operation and support. A group of individuals who see that it is in each of their best interests to help the others in the group in order to survive and prosper. As the group gets larger, there will be more individuals who at a given moment in time are probably about as much use as an arsehole on one's elbow, but in time, given the proper support and training, will be productive members of that society. Some may take longer than others to become useful to society, some may never become useful, but because the rest of that society aren't a bunch of arseholes who'd throw say someone who is disabled or terminally ill to the wolves, they support them.

Here's another way to look at it, the most selfish way possible: If a system of welfare benefits isn't in place, the people who need it will become desperate enough to do something that you might not consider to be very civilised because it's your bottom line they're affecting; your car gets stolen / stripped for parts, or you get mugged on your way home, or all your valuable shit gets stolen from your home while you're at work, or someone fancies your house. You've already declared that you don't give a crap what happens to these people, why on earth should they respect you and what's yours?

Here's another selfish way to look at taxes: All the public services that you have and continue to benefit from every single day, those all go downhill in quality if people who can afford to pay taxes pay less.

I disagree, I do not believe that you have "pretty much" defined the definition of a tax. Taxation has nothing to do with directly and permanently supporting others, it never did. You may, of course, believe as you wish.

Perhaps you should think about your comments. It is my opinion that supporting able mind and bodied adults (feeding and housing with nothing required in return) is an exercise in societal waste within a universe of limited resources.

I never mentioned, nor meant, a temporary support or training of those needing help to become functioning taxpaying members of society. You assume far too much.

Regarding your comments on welfare, here is a way to look at things without being so emotional: Someone steals a car, they should get thrown in jail for 15 years. No parole. Some one attempts to mug me, they will be permanently injured in self defense by either myself or a security individual. Someone breaks into any residence, they may become permanently injured in self defense by either myself or a security individual, will be caught and should thrown in jail for 20 years. Again, no parole.

You are proposing that I should not have an issue with certain tax money expenditures when explained to me as a type of Mafia protection racket?! That is just not going to fly with myself, business acquaintances, or friends.

Taxes for basic public services is not the issue, taxes for work-study programs is not the issue, taxes for post-prison work programs is not the issue, neither are roadways, or any of these other things.

The issue is the same as it has always been:

If you give someone something for nothing, why would they work for it?

To be sure, I understand what you are attempting to say and I do apologize for coming off a bit stand-offish. Maybe I'm just an asshole, but maybe I just have a different point of view. Likely different from most people. Everyone is dealt a different hand, some much tougher than others. Knowing this, I can say with confidence - it's not the hand with which you start the game, but rather the one you end with, that defines who you are.

Anyways, excellent discussion!

 

[pmv]

We're not doing as well as Bernie Sanders and his wife for damn sure.
What system did you say you prefer?

Well, I'm not particularly absolutist about it - though bought up as a socialist, I'm not convinced it works, in its pure form. So at the moment I I've concluded it's best to push for whatever we don't currently have, because it seems to me the only future is in keeping a dynamic balance (a static balance doesn't seem to be stable). So these days, I'd favour pushing for socialism. If we ever got there I'd probably decide to push back the other way.

Anyway, you seem to combine supporting a system that promotes inequality with whinging about not being as successful as others under that system. Which seems _desperately_ confused to me.

It does seem your resentful whinging about Sanders illustrates part of what has produced Trump. Americans worship capitalism, but don't know how to react when it turns out not to work for them as they thought it should and they fail to get rich, because they can't believe it could be the system they love so much that has let them down - it must be someone else's fault, perhaps someone with different skin tone to them?

 

[mikeymikec]

I disagree, I do not believe that you have "pretty much" defined the definition of a tax. Taxation has nothing to do with directly and permanently supporting others, it never did. You may, of course, believe as you wish.

Interesting that you don't supply any explanation of your own, you just think mine is incorrect. When your taxes go into local schools, you don't think that is supporting others? When publicly funded services save and protect the lives of others, you don't think that is supporting others? When the state requires that you have a clean water supply suitable for drinking and bathing with, as well as sanitation services, you don't think that is a permanent support?

Perhaps you should think about your comments.

Because...?

The rest of your response is frankly hilarious. You accuse me of assuming too much, while you continue to assume that people on benefits are ready to work, they just don't want to. You want society to protect you from criminal behaviour but you don't want to support others so they're less likely to resort to criminal behaviour, and you refer to taxes as a "Mafia protection racket".

If you give someone something for nothing, why would they work for it?

If you haven't figured this one out for yourself yet, you're clearly as dumb as you made yourself look in your first response to me.

Knowing this, I can say with confidence - it's not the hand with which you start the game, but rather the one you end with, that defines who you are.

Which demonstrates that you clearly misunderstand the nature of problems besetting civilised societies, while demonizing those on positions you clearly misunderstand and you support efforts to deprive them of funds.

Though why on earth you would think say some millionaire who started out with a great inheritance and died with plenty to spare has somehow "defined who they are" (meant by you no doubt in a positive way). Seriously dude, go volunteer for a charity. Do something to acquaint yourself with those whom you're currently happy to pull the rug from under them. Maybe you can learn something from people with real struggles in their life about achieving something against the odds about what builds character and makes a decent human being.

 

[Jaskalas]

I am in favor of capitalism, what system do you prefer?

Capitalism, with a 40 - 50% tax.

That amount would pay, in full, for basic income, healthcare, and the rest of our current budget. It's Capitalism, but with a safety net. Future proof, as being unemployed will no longer deprive a person of contributing as a consumer, nor would it deprive them of safety and security. Nor would it deprive them of having a ladder for self improvement. It provides enough to create and ensure upward mobility as the rest of the free market allows.

And if you aren't concerned with under / unemployment, you haven't been paying attention. Labor is slowly losing all value. Automation is the coup de grâce to end your resistance to helping people. The robot took your bootstraps, someday even you will see that.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

No resentful whining. I have to admit i'm often surprised by the hatred, vitriol and contempt so many on the left have about the poorer and less fortunate members of our society. The whole "enjoy eating your cat food" club that insists you toe their line or horrors will befall you. Bernie Sanders is doing well financially because he learned to manipulate the system to favor his particular form of socialism and he got himself elected as a United States Senator in a State like Vermont.

I disagree, I do not believe that you have "pretty much" defined the definition of a tax. Taxation has nothing to do with directly and permanently supporting others, it never did. You may, of course, believe as you wish.

Perhaps you should think about your comments. It is my opinion that supporting able mind and bodied adults (feeding and housing with nothing required in return) is an exercise in societal waste within a universe of limited resources.

I never mentioned, nor meant, a temporary support or training of those needing help to become functioning taxpaying members of society. You assume far too much.

Regarding your comments on welfare, here is a way to look at things without being so emotional: Someone steals a car, they should get thrown in jail for 15 years. No parole. Some one attempts to mug me, they will be permanently injured in self defense by either myself or a security individual. Someone breaks into any residence, they may become permanently injured in self defense by either myself or a security individual, will be caught and should thrown in jail for 20 years. Again, no parole.

You are proposing that I should not have an issue with certain tax money expenditures when explained to me as a type of Mafia protection racket?! That is just not going to fly with myself, business acquaintances, or friends.

Taxes for basic public services is not the issue, taxes for work-study programs is not the issue, taxes for post-prison work programs is not the issue, neither are roadways, or any of these other things.

The issue is the same as it has always been:

If you give someone something for nothing, why would they work for it?

To be sure, I understand what you are attempting to say and I do apologize for coming off a bit stand-offish. Maybe I'm just an asshole, but maybe I just have a different point of view. Likely different from most people. Everyone is dealt a different hand, some much tougher than others. Knowing this, I can say with confidence - it's not the hand with which you start the game, but rather the one you end with, that defines who you are.

Anyways, excellent discussion!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Full disclosure I haven't waded thru the entire thread.

Why can't someone who has more wealth than most not say taxes on high income people/companies are too low?
Why can't a high earner say low earners need a better deal?

 

[Jaskalas]

Why can't a high earner say low earners need a better deal?

It's a tactic to divert attention away from the policy failure of trickle down.

 

[outriding]

From what i can tell the only reason why he made that much money was due to his book sales which was only estimated.

It was estimated that he only sold 200,000 books, it seems awfully unlikely that senator that had a failed run at the presidency would have commanded a forward of the gap between the sales and 800,000.

I did read about his 2014 taxes and it was about 200k.

If you spread his 800k say over his time as a senator he would have averaged about 280k per year putting him not in the top 1%

 

[Indus]

You guys even discussing this are idiots.

If Trump can grab em by the pussy and get away with it, well then Bernie should be able to deport 60 million Trump voters to Russia and get away with it.

Fuck this fake outrage talk after Trumpity dumpty.

 

[WHAMPOM]

How so? Does a socialist need 3 houses? I think you missed my point.

One in Washington to have a work place to eat and sleep, one in his home state for residence and one for vacation get away. Don't get your point but you do seem to have taxes and charity mixed up pretty damn good.

 

[werepossum]

lol OP doesn't have a clue how taxes work. Old man with a million or two in retirement savings is NOT the 1% and would never pay 70% in taxes under any tax plan. Apparently moderately responsible saving for an old ass man in his 70s is "rich" for these retards.

Actually in income, Bernie is in the 1% at the moment.

 

[werepossum]

I still don't get it, to my knowledge Bernie says high earners should pay more in taxes. To have that position it's required to be low income?
Also I believe Bernie is toward the bottom of Senators wealth but I could be wrong about that.

If you’re wrong, it’s only recently, mostly due to his book.

I think the OP has a false view of socialism. As I understand them, Bernie’s preferred policies (which are NOT mine) would make it much more difficult to own multiple houses and have seven figure net worth, but not impossible, or necessarily immoral. Although to be fair, Democrats have several times floated the idea of a wealth tax. But again, even a wealth tax just makes it more difficult to accumulate and hold wealth.

 

[werepossum]

It is not appropriate to communicate this in a public forum to unknown entities.

However, I am quite positive that I support a minimum of one full square block of families in Detroit. Guaranteed.

What a waste.

Maybe. You won’t really know unless you get to know them. Might be some wonderful people quite worth supporting.

 

[werepossum]

Well, I'm not particularly absolutist about it - though bought up as a socialist, I'm not convinced it works, in its pure form. So at the moment I I've concluded it's best to push for whatever we don't currently have, because it seems to me the only future is in keeping a dynamic balance (a static balance doesn't seem to be stable). So these days, I'd favour pushing for socialism. If we ever got there I'd probably decide to push back the other way.

Anyway, you seem to combine supporting a system that promotes inequality with whinging about not being as successful as others under that system. Which seems _desperately_ confused to me.

It does seem your resentful whinging about Sanders illustrates part of what has produced Trump. Americans worship capitalism, but don't know how to react when it turns out not to work for them as they thought it should and they fail to get rich, because they can't believe it could be the system they love so much that has let them down - it must be someone else's fault, perhaps someone with different skin tone to them?

You have a seriously flawed concept of Americans, or at least conservative Americans. We don’t expect capitalism to make us rich unless we do the things that make people rich: make a better mousetrap, work harder than everyone else, sacrifice now to build wealth. We just don’t assume that people who do get rich had some sort of unfair break the rest of us can’t get.

 

[pmv]

If you’re wrong, it’s only recently, mostly due to his book.

I think the OP has a false view of socialism. As I understand them, Bernie’s preferred policies (which are NOT mine) would make it much more difficult to own multiple houses and have seven figure net worth, but not impossible, or necessarily immoral. Although to be fair, Democrats have several times floated the idea of a wealth tax. But again, even a wealth tax just makes it more difficult to accumulate and hold wealth.

Bernie Sanders isn't even a socialist anyway. I know he's used the word, but he's clearly a leftish social-democrat. The idea that one can get worked up at 'hypocrisy' for someone who (a) is only a very moderate leftist and (b) is probably at best about as well off as a typical US legislator, strikes me as absurd. And thus a cynical political tactic.

There's also the question of background. I don't think the guy was born to privilege. I gather his background was quite ordinary. The people I personally do feel a bit skeptical about are those who combine being hard-left with coming from a privileged background. Neither applies to Sanders.