Refresh Comments
Anonymous comments allowed.
39 comments displayed.
#75 to #54
-
randomsnail ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-]
dam you and your blue text, making me have to highlight whatever you say
#59 to #58
-
sgtmajjohnson (01/05/2016) [-] 
Not a greentext, but mankind's emperor bears mention, because I'm not a heretic.
#81 to #53
-
thesecretbear (01/05/2016) [-] What about Rand Paul? If I was voting republican he would be my first pick.
#32 to #5
-
larknok (01/05/2016) [-]
I'm a huge supporter of Bernie Sanders for economic and environmental reasons (namely, single payer healthcare system, free tuition, carbon tax, etc.) -- but if I ever hear **** from him about "white privilege causing all of America's problems" I will drop him in a heart beat.
#83 to #32
-
thesecretbear (01/05/2016) [-] Alright i'm a bernie supporter too, but the idea of a carbon tax sorta worries me. Companies have a tendency to work hard to increase profits, even if it means charging the consumer more. Considering our dependancy on carbon based fuel sources for energy, I can see them easily just raising the price of things to pay for it.
Explain the plan in some more detail I guess. Environmental policy is a pretty tricky mine field.
Explain the plan in some more detail I guess. Environmental policy is a pretty tricky mine field.
#71 to #32
-
lieutenantderp (01/05/2016) [-] You do realize his economic policies will destroy the US economy right? Not saying Trump's is much better.
#74 to #71
-
larknok (01/05/2016) [-]
Alternatively, read bubble (1) in the graphic, which sites the difference between the two to be 2,500 billion. Either way, Bernie would be saving the American people nearly double what we intents on spending.
He's saying something very ******* legitimate when he says that "America is the richest country in the history of the world, but most Americans wouldn't know it."
He's saying something very ******* legitimate when he says that "America is the richest country in the history of the world, but most Americans wouldn't know it."
#136 to #74
-
anon (01/06/2016) [-]
this is where you need to know some basic economics and a term that applies in this situation is the gini coeffecient. this formula describes the inequality in terms of the difference between the poorest and richest. The US has the highest inequality in the whole of the western world.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
#134 to #74
-
lieutenantderp (01/06/2016) [-] >most Americans wouldn't know it
All Americans live in luxury compared to those living in almost any other country. Please don't tell me that a middle class family living in socialist France is in any way better off than a middle class American family. In their economic system social mobility is all but halted. Also most Americans are ignorant of the outside world, thus they don't know the true definition of poverty.
All Americans live in luxury compared to those living in almost any other country. Please don't tell me that a middle class family living in socialist France is in any way better off than a middle class American family. In their economic system social mobility is all but halted. Also most Americans are ignorant of the outside world, thus they don't know the true definition of poverty.
#72 to #71
-
larknok (01/05/2016) [-]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Here's the uncharitable, no context version of Bernie's budget plan:
blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/files/2015/10/SandersBudgetBV.jpg
The thing to notice here is that the single-payer healthcare system is being treated here as if it is an addition to the total amount of money the US citizen needs to spend on taxes, rather than a substitute for the existing, FAR more expensive privatized healthcare system.
The truth of the matter is that the single-payer system will save Americans 5000 billion over the next 10 years: www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html
So basically, just imagine the "single payer" bar in expenditures completely gone, replaced with an additional bar half its size (5000) in revenues.
Here's the uncharitable, no context version of Bernie's budget plan:
blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/files/2015/10/SandersBudgetBV.jpg
The thing to notice here is that the single-payer healthcare system is being treated here as if it is an addition to the total amount of money the US citizen needs to spend on taxes, rather than a substitute for the existing, FAR more expensive privatized healthcare system.
The truth of the matter is that the single-payer system will save Americans 5000 billion over the next 10 years: www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html
So basically, just imagine the "single payer" bar in expenditures completely gone, replaced with an additional bar half its size (5000) in revenues.
#135 to #72
-
lieutenantderp (01/06/2016) [-] The reason American medical costs are so high is because the huge amounts of lawsuits hospitals receive all the time. To cover the legal losses hospitals have no choice but to jack up the prices. The problem is not with capitalism, but an attitude that modern Americans have with the legal system; we take our right to go to court for granted, without realizing that the money have to come out of someone's pockets, and that someone is ourselves.
#66 to #44
-
talldumbdork ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] Oh god.....that smug look on the BLM protestor faces..... Raging internally....
#48 to #44
-
larknok (01/05/2016) [-]
I'm not sure what you're suggesting.
On the left, a bunch of supposed BLM supporters with questionable ties to the Clinton campaign stormed Bernie's platform and threatened to shut down his event unless they got to take the mic and say whatever they want. The crowd boo'd them, but Sanders properly understood that if he wants the African American vote, obviously he can't ******* have security physically detain a bunch of uncooperative black women in the wake of massive protests of white-on-black cop violence.
On the right, Trump clearly bought out a bunch of black women to speak against their own self-interest.
On the left, a bunch of supposed BLM supporters with questionable ties to the Clinton campaign stormed Bernie's platform and threatened to shut down his event unless they got to take the mic and say whatever they want. The crowd boo'd them, but Sanders properly understood that if he wants the African American vote, obviously he can't ******* have security physically detain a bunch of uncooperative black women in the wake of massive protests of white-on-black cop violence.
On the right, Trump clearly bought out a bunch of black women to speak against their own self-interest.
#69 to #68
-
larknok (01/05/2016) [-]
You know, not being a brash idiot does not entail weakness.
I won't call Trump an idiot because it's not relevant -- but it's very clear to me that what you're suggesting Bernie should have done (physically detain emotionally unstable black women in the wake of a supremely politically charged race protest) is not "strong" -- it's utterly idiotic.
I won't call Trump an idiot because it's not relevant -- but it's very clear to me that what you're suggesting Bernie should have done (physically detain emotionally unstable black women in the wake of a supremely politically charged race protest) is not "strong" -- it's utterly idiotic.
#41 to #40
-
larknok (01/05/2016) [-]
That's 100% true. It would come out of taxes. In the specific case of free tuition, he's proposed for it to come from a tax on Wall street speculation. So while it's not technically a free lunch, it's a tax on millionaires and billionaires who can spare to give back and educate our youth, which is arguably the most important use of public money.
#65 to #41
-
anon (01/05/2016) [-]
Just because someone can afford to pay, doesn't mean they should have to pay. I'm all for ending tax breaks on the rich, but increasing percentages just because they are rich (how dare they) makes me uncomfortable. A rich person paying 18% next to a middle class paying 18%, rich guy is still paying far, far more and the majority of the country's tax income. Raising the rich guys percentage borders on socialist wealth redistribution.
#98 to #65
-
meganinja (01/05/2016) [-] Let's say you make $10,000 a year. Your expenses are $7,000 a year.
Your friend makes $100,000 a year. His expenses are $20,000 a year.
You put taxes at 30 percent flat rate. You make literally no money after expenses, but your friend still makes $50,000 after expenses.
It's because the wealthy can afford to be taxed more than the poor and middle class can without starving to death.
Your friend makes $100,000 a year. His expenses are $20,000 a year.
You put taxes at 30 percent flat rate. You make literally no money after expenses, but your friend still makes $50,000 after expenses.
It's because the wealthy can afford to be taxed more than the poor and middle class can without starving to death.
#82 to #65
-
thesecretbear (01/05/2016) [-] Welcome to society, where we should all work together. Unfortunately many people do not. For that there is government.
