| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 11/14/2008
Posts: 24,988
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
|
They have. All post-debate talks did mention and discuss the Henry Kissinger foreign policy adviser mention. Plus, it's not like there aren't a lack of anti-Hillary media exposure already.
There were and still are plenty of media topics about it.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...singer&tbm=nws
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,726
|
I hate the fact that the Democratic party just decided to hand Hillary Clinton the nomination. No one will convince me that there wasn't some sort of behind the scenes negotations with the Clinton camp. There are PLENTY of credible candidates that could have run but some reason all we get is Bernie Sanders?
Just crown her already and get it over with.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 21,462
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
|
Slate has become so annoying  But either way, I don't think the quote is that terrible. It's odd to be talking about a uterus, but he's just saying that Hillary shouldn't get votes SIMPLY for being a woman, not that EVERY woman is incapable of being the president. I think the intent is being distorted and Slate's off here.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Qwerty1234
I hate the fact that the Democratic party just decided to hand Hillary Clinton the nomination. No one will convince me that there wasn't some sort of behind the scenes negotations with the Clinton camp. There are PLENTY of credible candidates that could have run but some reason all we get is Bernie Sanders?
Just crown her already and get it over with.
|
What are you talking about? This is a race so far, no one crowned anybody yet because neither has the amount of delegates needed. All credible candidates decided against a run when they saw Clinton's name in the fray
Quote:
Originally posted by feelslikeadream
Slate has become so annoying But either way, I don't think the quote is that terrible. It's odd to be talking about a uterus, but he's just saying that Hillary shouldn't get votes SIMPLY for being a woman, not that EVERY woman is incapable of being the president. I think the intent is being distorted and Slate's off here. |
Become? It was always annoying  . The Hill has become annoying though
The comment itself was the awful part. I mean if he meant that people shouldn't vote for her simply because she's a woman that's fine. But "having a uterus doesn't qualify you to be a president" never made sense to me because it's not like ev'ry president is female  . Coming off the back of many sexist attacks in the media that was not a smart thing to say. But what made it worse was that he said it wasn't his words he just repeated what other female supporters said. As if that's any better
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 20,070
|
Just a q... If you don't support raising the minimum wage, what do you want instead? Having full time workers living in poverty obviously isn't humane or feasible, so how would you fix that? Genuinely curious (and not in a sarcastic way!) because I can't imagine any reasonable person looking at the current system and thinking it is good enough when people have to work multiple jobs and 50+ hours per week to keep a roof over their head.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 15,589
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Qwerty1234
45-52% is a common tax rate for the rich in a lot of European countries. It's 52% in the Netherlands. It's fair. Since they earn more, they can contribute more.
|
Most of those Scandinavian countries are low-debt, low-population countries with an aging workforce and an efficient government that pays for everything (like, everything is free). I don't think they mind paying more bc the money goes to good use.
The US is drowning in debt and no one wants their tax dollars going to Middle East invasions and bank bailouts.
Btw, i don't think people who earn more should pay *that much* more. 52% is more than half of your taxable income, are you serious.  39% is a good enough rate, anything over half is a punishment.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sasha.
Just a q... If you don't support raising the minimum wage, what do you want instead? Having full time workers living in poverty obviously isn't humane or feasible, so how would you fix that? Genuinely curious (and not in a sarcastic way!) because I can't imagine any reasonable person looking at the current system and thinking it is good enough when people have to work multiple jobs and 50+ hours per week to keep a roof over their head.
|
I support minimum wage raises as a state-by-state issue. Or even more specifically, a city-by-city issue.
$15/hour is not livable in Manhattan or San Francisco. I think those cities should go higher.
$10/hr is more than enough in rural West Virginia or Arkansas.
Unilaterally applying a minimum wage hike nation-wide is the equivalent of giving chemotherapy to anyone and everyone with a cough.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Damien M
Most of those Scandinavian countries are low-debt, low-population countries with an aging workforce and an efficient government that pays for everything (like, everything is free). I don't think they mind paying more bc the money goes to good use.
The US is drowning in debt and no one wants their tax dollars going to Middle East invasions and bank bailouts.
Btw, i don't think people who earn more should pay *that much* more. 52% is more than half of your taxable income, are you serious. 39% is a good enough rate, anything over half is a punishment. |
Bernie has said this.
Also look up marginal tax rates. Only their income over $10m would be getting taxed at 52%.
Quote:
Originally posted by TikiMiss
I support minimum wage raises as a state-by-state issue. Or even more specifically, a city-by-city issue.
$15/hour is not livable in Manhattan or San Francisco. I think those cities should go higher.
$10/hr is more than enough in rural West Virginia or Arkansas.
Unilaterally applying a minimum wage hike nation-wide is the equivalent of giving chemotherapy to anyone and everyone with a cough.
|
I've said this but I still thinking aiming for higher ($15) is better than aiming lower ($12). This will also be over the course of 5 years so it won't be an immediate change.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 20,070
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TikiMiss
I support minimum wage raises as a state-by-state issue. Or even more specifically, a city-by-city issue.
$15/hour is not livable in Manhattan or San Francisco. I think those cities should go higher.
$10/hr is more than enough in rural West Virginia or Arkansas.
Unilaterally applying a minimum wage hike nation-wide is the equivalent of giving chemotherapy to anyone and everyone with a cough.
|
I see; this is a very valid point. Cost of living does vary greatly between not only states but also the size of the city, so I understand the sentiment.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
Bernie has said this.
Also look up marginal tax rates. Only their income over $10m would be getting taxed at 52%.
I've said this but I still thinking aiming for higher ($15) is better than aiming lower ($12). This will also be over the course of 5 years so it won't be an immediate change.
|
it still doesn't make a lot of sense nationally. This is a discussion for local and state governments because not every locality is the same, and cost of living is not the same across the United States. Also, we're not even going into inflation yet.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/28/2008
Posts: 4,530
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sasha.
I see; this is a very valid point. Cost of living does vary greatly between not only states but also the size of the city, so I understand the sentiment.
|
i still think minimum wage should be higher, don't get me wrong, but I think that it's too simple to say that the whole country should be lifted to X amount.
I think a raise to $11-12 could be stomached by localities across the country, and local democratic politicians should rise up to fight for higher minimum wage in cities where it's necessary. At the moment, democrats are getting creamed on city council boards, school boards, state senate/state-legislature, and governorship races, because Democrats seem to think local doesn't matter as much as national, which is just wrong
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mickey
|
Really wish he'd just stay out of US politics. So weird he is stepping in. Also, THE VATICAN HAS A WALL
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,726
|
Quote:
Think about it: Sanders has shown little interest in building the fortunes of the Democratic Party. I mean that literally. I heard on the Chris Hayes show the other day that Clinton has raised millions for the DNC, while Sanders has raised $1,000. Sanders would argue that it’s important to get money out of the electoral process, but you can’t tell me that Sanders isn’t spending millions on himself. And I really don’t care if that money from small donors or not. Yes, Bernie is creating a movement, and that’s great. But at the end of the day, we’re likely to continue to have two political parties that will control much of the dialogue for years to come. I get the sense that many Progressives don’t give a second thought to what might be best for the Democratic Party overall, conveniently forgetting that representative and senators and governors come from parties many more times than not. There’s little to no thought among progressives about the depth of the bench of other elected officials. And that lack of strategic thought is one reason why I’ll vote for Clinton, because the Democratic Party will continue to be important, revolution or no revolution, and the Democratic Party will need to go toe-to-toe with the GOP, which means that the Democratic Party has to be strong. And unlike Bernie, Hillary is proud to call herself a member of the Democratic Party.
|
Vote Hilary. Because the alternative is worse. 
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/deberned-in-vermont
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/28/2008
Posts: 4,530
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
Really wish he'd just stay out of US politics. So weird he is stepping in. Also, THE VATICAN HAS A WALL
|
A reporter asked him though, so idk why he wouldn't answer
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/7/2011
Posts: 18,969
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Qwerty1234
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Qwerty1234
|
Sanders has the same mentality as Obama, which has resulted in the biggest nationwide losses to Democrats from top to bottom in the history of the Democratic party. Democrats have literally lost hundreds if not thousands of seats across legislatures in almost all 50 sates + governorships + the House of Reps + the Senate.
Bernie has not shown any interest in helping down-ticket Dems. He has done zero fundraising for them and has never in his history done any meaningful fundraising for the Democratic party. His revolution literally has no support. A couple million millenials voting for Bernie is not going to change the fact that in Texas and Louisiana, the super-Republican state legislature has made it easier to buy a gun with a criminal record, than to get a legal abortion.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mickey
A reporter asked him though, so idk why he wouldn't answer
|
He should know better than to get into a back and forth with a presidential candidate.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Damien M
Most of those Scandinavian countries are low-debt, low-population countries with an aging workforce and an efficient government that pays for everything (like, everything is free). I don't think they mind paying more bc the money goes to good use.
The US is drowning in debt and no one wants their tax dollars going to Middle East invasions and bank bailouts.
Btw, i don't think people who earn more should pay *that much* more. 52% is more than half of your taxable income, are you serious. 39% is a good enough rate, anything over half is a punishment. |
I think taxes should be at no more than 48% unless the government wants to cut off all of the military excursions and start paying down our debt. Secondly, most rich people never pay this. They make their money through investments so that lowers the actual rate of taxes they pay to be closer to 15% on capital gains. So they aren't actually paying anything near 50%. We are lucky to get 30% out of rich people.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,726
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Damien M
Most of those Scandinavian countries are low-debt, low-population countries with an aging workforce and an efficient government that pays for everything (like, everything is free). I don't think they mind paying more bc the money goes to good use.
The US is drowning in debt and no one wants their tax dollars going to Middle East invasions and bank bailouts.
Btw, i don't think people who earn more should pay *that much* more. 52% is more than half of your taxable income, are you serious. 39% is a good enough rate, anything over half is a punishment. |
What are you even talking about in that bold part?
The 52% works because it comes with a lot of tax benefits that greatly reduce the base amount that people ultimately pay tax on. It's not punishment, it's what they call the ability to pay principle.
And if we're going to talk debt, then let's tax fraud and tax evasion, which means that income tax becomes completely irrelevant. The US debt would be greatly reduced if the whole corporate tax law system was overhauled to deal with tax evasion. Because that's where all the billions go to hide. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
