|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
Discendo Vox posted:That includes pension plans, which I already said. Y'all this is getting into Khmer Rouge territory. I can hardly believe how extremist and hyperbolic these Bernie stans get. It seems like they actually want a rational stock market system (or my god, a world that isn't ruled by it and it's kings!) that isnt hyper-focused on immediate massive profits no matter the long-term cost. They obviously aren't thinking of all the mathematicians, programmers, engineers, ex-bureaucrats, natsec spooks and leaders, and the kids with parents who have all the right connections for the right schools and jobs to really make it in America. What else could all these people be doing if not working for the house of the biggest casinos on earth? gently caress it could even lead to CEO's whose only concern is pumping stock prices up and cashing out with hundreds of millions or billions (poo poo its not like its always illegally) without work!! There's gotta be a dozen other similar impacts but I'm at my wits end with these damned bros. They truly do want to commit genocide with slightly higher taxes on the obscenely wealthy. It's sickening.
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I did read that article, the first time it was cited when we discussed this before. It specifically avoids estimating effects on trading, in the elasticity section below your quotation. Its estimated revenue gain under any set of assumptions made (which includes a fifty percent reduction in trading, which other analyses indicate is an underestimate) still doesn't match his stated revenues. Ah, "other analyses." I'd love to read this "other analyses" that shows that adopting a tax exactly like in the UK would lead to your Khmer Rouge scenario. I mean, I am sure you must have tons of them and are not at all pulling stuff out of your rear end. I am sure that you have those citations of crippling pensions ready and are not at all a dilettante playing wonk here. But please, don't come back with a study like the TPC which says that Bernie's proposal will raise less money than the PERI study, because your claim was of economic collapse, not of financial insufficiency. By the way, policy estimates also say that Bernie's student debt plan reduces wealth inequality more than Warren's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
The Tax Policy Center, which is generally beyond reproach in terms of methods, has a helpful article on the Sanders proposal's issues here. It's based on an earlier report on the subject of FTTs, here. They're more skeptical of FTTs than I am, again focusing on the specific claims of stabilization and revenue. And yes, the rate reductions described are immensely damaging for systems reliant on trading systems, like pensions. It's not lost on me that I'm now simultaneously fielding 1. We want the financial system to collapse, good and 2. there's no way this policy will do that. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Aug 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I'm wondering if some of you guys even know what the hell Joe Rogan's podcast is. It's not an explicitly political podcast of the alt right. It's a stoned out comedian talking to other comedians and various luminaries of the fighting world who also has scientists and political folks on. There are a lot of alt right assholes on, because Joe Rogan is a useful idiot. He also frequently has on people from the leftward political side as well. Joe Rogan is so genuinely dumb that he had Andy Ngo on and stopped just short of calling him a liar to his face about the brain hemorrhage thing He's the only man I know who has both argued that reparations totally make sense without prompting and switched between "how do you put a monetary value on human life" and "did you see the video of that moose getting hit by a car" in the space of three seconds I don't think he's malicious. Malice implies deliberation. I think he's just a fuckin doofus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
Excuse me if I don't trust a report on taxes by the think tank named the ~~Tax Policy Center~~ co-run by these guys: Brookings traces its history back to 1916 and has contributed to the creation of the United Nations, the Marshall Plan, and the Congressional Budget Office, as well as to the development of influential policies for deregulation, broad-based tax reform, welfare reform, and foreign aid.[47]
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
Trust a Bernie stan to reproach the Tax Policy Center, which is generally considered beyond reproach
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The Tax Policy Center, which is generally beyond reproach lol (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
What is this thread's opinion on Jay Inslee, I think he actually has some very good plans and its a shame he is not getting more traction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That includes pension plans, which I already said. Y'all this is getting into Khmer Rouge territory. First its the 1% transaction fee, next its declaring urbanity illegal and making eyeglasses a capital crime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Trust a Bernie stan to reproach the Tax Policy Center, which is generally considered beyond reproach Wheras they'd leave no titan of industry or financier extraordinaire beyond poaching. Such monstrosity takes my breath away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The 0.1% proposal from Schatz was considered an effective method for ending HFT. The Sanders proposal was five times that. It would terminate trading, period. This is complete nonsense. What is your source for this? Because I remember when this was originally discussed you (or someone else) linked the source and it was some organization with a vested interest in keeping rates low. It doesn't at all logically follow that "5 times the rate that ends HFT would end all trading."
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:22
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:What is this thread's opinion on Jay Inslee, I think he actually has some very good plans and its a shame he is not getting more traction. I've actually been leaning toward Inslee as my #1, following Warren's disturbing failure to disavow the ideology of notorious Warren stan Connor Betts (the Dayton shooter)
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The Tax Policy Center, which is generally beyond reproach in terms of methods, has a helpful article on the Sanders proposal's issues here. It's based on an earlier report on the subject of FTTs, here. They're more skeptical of FTTs than I am, again focusing on the specific claims of stabilization and revenue. And yes, the rate reductions described are immensely damaging for systems reliant on trading systems, like pensions. Can you point me to where in the TPC (you know, the one I mentioned in my post) there's the estimate that the plan would be crippling for pensions? I don't know if you are just stupid, linking things you haven't read in the hopes of impressing the audience, or just wildly dishonest. But let's quote the TPC: quote:At the very least, the notion that an FTT is unworkable should be rejected. In other words, not at all this: Discendo Vox posted:There were multiple defects (which, yes, we discussed), but the biggest was that the campaign argued that it would be paid for by a transaction tax that was five times the rate previously proposed and supported by evidence on its impacts, well past a rate that would cripple financial systems and other systems that depend upon them, such as pretty much all pension plans. Transaction taxes are not generally a stable source of revenue, and directly linking a continuously costed policy to one makes little sense. And very, very different than Discendo Vox posted:That includes pension plans, which I already said. Y'all this is getting into Khmer Rouge territory. You're trying to portray differences in terms of whether Bernie's plan raises a lot or a little for something completely different than it is. And then pretend as if you had any credentials in economics. Trade volume doesn't mean what you think it means. This entire conversation is the best example that people prefer to play the expert than read the experts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
1% would probably cause it to move to another or group of other countries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:1% would probably cause it to move to another or group of other countries. A capital strike in America??? Oh god no please don't abandon the most insanely profitable market in history and piss off most of the country at your blatant move.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:36
|
|
|
Also, regarding the pension plan talking point, it is simply inevitable that any significant change to our society to make it serve the needs of the many instead of the wealthy will crash the stock market. There is no avoiding this, and avoiding doing anything that will make the markets crash is tying your hands in a way that would prevent the sort of change that is needed. Fortunately, any real solution would eliminate making people rely on pensions in the first place. And Warren's wealth tax would also crash the markets, if implemented in any way that is actually effected (since the wealthy would have less money to invest). But for some reason you don't see the same people raising this "concern."
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
Skex posted:So basically you don't have an answer beyond insults. Good to know. I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this since you didn't read it the other several times I linked the BSA page on terms leftists use, but here you go: https://blacksocialists.us/mumbo-jumbo Please actually read it this time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
Most other countries that have one are in the 0.1% to 0.5 % range. 1% is relatively large.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
And to be clear I would like us to have one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:What is this thread's opinion on Jay Inslee, I think he actually has some very good plans and its a shame he is not getting more traction. His name isn't Bernie Sanders so the thread would be inclined to dislike him, but he isn't doing well enough to threaten Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Also, regarding the pension plan talking point, it is simply inevitable that any significant change to our society to make it serve the needs of the many instead of the wealthy will crash the stock market. There is no avoiding this, and avoiding doing anything that will make the markets crash is tying your hands in a way that would prevent the sort of change that is needed. Fortunately, any real solution would eliminate making people rely on pensions in the first place. Anyone who complains that Bernie's plan is unworkable while remaining silent on Warren's is fundamentally unserious. There are different estimates of how much money Bernie's plan would raise. We can't do that with Warren's because we don't even know how assets would be valued, how assets held abroad and in trusts would be handled, or any of that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
I'm more skeptical of FTT than the Tax Policy Center. Nevertheless, I recommend reading their helpful article, as their methods are generally beyond reproach
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Most other countries that have one are in the 0.1% to 0.5 % range. 1% is relatively large. In the Joe Rogan interview I'm listening to now, Bernie said he couldn't remember the exact rate he proposed but it was "less than one half of one percent." So it sounds like Bernie isn't married to the .5% or 1% rates anyway. Regardless I think this debate is a bit overblown -- unlike the Republicans, the Democratic caucus is not insane and won't support anything that's too far out there. In practice there's not going to be much specific policy difference in result between Bernie and, say, Warren; the main advantage of a Bernie presidency is rhetorical and ideological and overton-window shifting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:His name isn't Bernie Sanders so the thread would be inclined to dislike him, but he isn't doing well enough to threaten Bernie Sanders. You may not post much, but each one is invaluable. Thank you so much for standing against the tide in this woeful thread. Please feel welcome to elucidate further, it's needed, nay, necessary for this cesspit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Anyone who complains that Bernie's plan is unworkable while remaining silent on Warren's is fundamentally unserious. There are different estimates of how much money Bernie's plan would raise. We can't do that with Warren's because we don't even know how assets would be valued, how assets held abroad and in trusts would be handled, or any of that. Yeah, and what's extra funny is that the TPC also published this - https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/there-are-better-ways-tax-rich-wealth-tax-or-70-percent-top-rate Strange that Discendo Vox doesn't share this TPC fellow's view on Warren's policy!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:What is this thread's opinion on Jay Inslee, I think he actually has some very good plans and its a shame he is not getting more traction. He's an issue candidate, so he's not really worth taking seriously, but he seems pretty good overall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:What is this thread's opinion on Jay Inslee, I think he actually has some very good plans and its a shame he is not getting more traction. He's a little disappointing on health care - his stance is the annoyingly mealy-mouthed "Medicare for All who want it/I don't want to make private insurance illegal" type of thing. I also don't get the impression that he's willing to drastically overhaul the American economy to the degree that his climate change plans would require. He's still a good dude, and probably my third or fourth choice, but he's got some weak points too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The Tax Policy Center, which is generally beyond reproach in terms of methods, has a helpful article on the Sanders proposal's issues here. It's based on an earlier report on the subject of FTTs, here. They're more skeptical of FTTs than I am, again focusing on the specific claims of stabilization and revenue. And yes, the rate reductions described are immensely damaging for systems reliant on trading systems, like pensions. Doesn't the UK have a 0.5% FTT that has yet to destroy the British stock market?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:1% would probably cause it to move to another or group of other countries. And be subjected to the tender mercies of FWB regulators actually investigating the flagrantly fraudulent valuations of tech stocks? Or, heavens forfend, their tax rates and repatriation schemes? Nah. The grift runs too deep. I generally hew to Ytlaya's view that a reckoning is at hand regardless, but it won't be due to capital flight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:In the Joe Rogan interview I'm listening to now, Bernie said he couldn't remember the exact rate he proposed but it was "less than one half of one percent." So it sounds like Bernie isn't married to the .5% or 1% rates anyway. I strongly suspect--on admittedly shaky basis--that the ploy is to ask for 1, and settle for 0.5, which is a bargaining tactic so fundamental to the human psyche that otherwise guileless children use in arguing with their parents in order to play videogames for fifteen extra minutes before bed and yet never once does it seem to cross the mind of presumably Serious Politics Boys
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Doesn't the UK have a 0.5% FTT that has yet to destroy the British stock market? Surely not, that'd be like Khmer Rouge poo poo. Upon checking I assume their 0.5% FTT stands for something else because they remain one of the epicenters of global financial markets and that just can't be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
I give up. Believe all that you wish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I give up. How will anyone be able to tell the difference?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
Knowing when to 'take the L' is a valuable skill. One that Bernie never learned. I commend Discendo Vox for seeing the futility in fighting the Bernie cult
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I give up. Believe all that you wish. Yeah yeah, the problems are so bad but we're monstrous to dream of addressing any of the causes. And no, of course you won't actually debate anyone who cares enough to make an effort to meaningfully refute your bullshit with evidence. That might require introspection or challenging your beliefs and status in this world. We'll all carry on with the delusion that if we dont meaningfully change this world climate change, deepening inequality, and myriad crises will only result in the disaster of fascism, white nationalism, senseless violence, and the demonization or subjugation of everyone else while the world burns. Wouldn't it be insane of all of that were happening right now and you just try to snipe this thread with nonsense about taxing the wealthy being reminiscent of the Khmer Rouge and oh such a terrible idea then bow out when challenged on it. I can't believe I never expected you to do exactly this. Wild.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:His name isn't Bernie Sanders so the thread would be inclined to dislike him, but he isn't doing well enough to threaten Bernie Sanders. I like how posts like this seem to think that "strongly wanting a particular candidate to win" is somehow rude or wrong. There is nothing unreasonable about focusing most negative attention at candidates you don't support who are the most competitive with the one you do support. Discendo Vox posted:I give up. Believe all that you wish. The issue causing you to not see eye to eye with the left is that you seem to believe that institutions (or at least ones without a clear Republican partisan bias) are inherently trustworthy and that not trusting the consensus views presented in the media, or by mainstream thinktanks, is basically equivalent to being a climate change denier. You don't seem to be actually listening to the relevant arguments against the point you're making (like joepinetree's posts about how the paper you linked doesn't even claim what you said it did, or the point I made about how the TPC is also not fond of Warren's wealth tax), and instead choose to just sorta squint and perceive everyone opposed to you as some senseless mob of irrational leftists (because it's a lot easier to just imagine that the left is all So Dumb And Crazy instead of actually addressing the specific points people make). People respond poorly to this because it is not only very condescending, but it's condescension coming from someone who doesn't really seem to have anything supporting their own arguments other than absolute confidence that they're more reasonable and rational than the people they're arguing against. edit: The point about the TPC also being negative about Warren's wealth tax kinda gets into one of the biggest issues with the way people like you perceive political topics. Many liberals can be decent at checking the factual accuracy of specific talking points, but they never stop to consider how their perspective is being distorted by the specific talking points that are brought to their attention and criticized. In the case of Sanders, the media repeatedly tries to cast him (and his supporters) as being unrealistic and irrational and reports things supporting this narrative. Even if I very generously assume that you are viewing these things somewhat critically, it results in a distorted overall perception where Warren benefits from not having to constant defend against claims that she's somehow irrational or unrealistic, despite her having a far worse ideological history than Sanders. Another example of this is Warren not having to field anything approaching the same "why don't black people support you" criticism that Sanders did in 2016, despite it being at least as true for her in this primary. The end result is that Warren being more "realistic/pragmatic" than Sanders feels like common sense to you, to the extent that you aren't even willing to consider the possibility that it might not be true. It's just "obvious," and is filed under the same mental category as stuff like climate change. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Aug 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 04:36
|
|
|
let me see if ive got this right obama mentioning "fat cat" bankers : nazi germany :: a 0.5% tax on stock trades : the reign of the khmer rouge
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
It’s called consolidation. Strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals. With taxes, this can be done imperceptibly over time. In 1945, corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes. Now they pay about 5 percent. In 1900, 90 percent of Americans were self-employed; now it’s about two percent. Corporations are so big, you don't even know who you're working for. That's terror. Terror built into the system. Do you ever ask what it's all for? The surveillance, the police, the shoot-on-sight laws? Is that freedom?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:It’s called consolidation. Strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals. With taxes, this can be done imperceptibly over time. what a shame
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:
I could see that being true in 1800, but not in 1900, not with the industrialization of the economy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 15:25
|
|
