Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
people on twitter need to get the fuck over themselves. seriously.
I don’t twitter, but thought it was kind of funny.
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Taxing billionaires 6% every year is dangerous. The only thing it is likely to do is get trump reelected.
The majority of their wealth is in stock and property. In order to pay taxes they will need to sell and liquidate.
This could create a vicious cycle where hundreds of billions in stocks and properties being sold to pay taxes drives down the stock and real estate markets.
So if this creates a situation where the combined effect causes wealth to decline 10% a year initially, how does that impact GDP or employment?
Oh no, that would mean that the average American could maybe buy property or a single share of a public company that they’ve actually heard of.
Taxing billionaires 6% every year is dangerous. The only thing it is likely to do is get trump reelected.
The majority of their wealth is in stock and property. In order to pay taxes they will need to sell and liquidate.
This could create a vicious cycle where hundreds of billions in stocks and properties being sold to pay taxes drives down the stock and real estate markets.
So if this creates a situation where the combined effect causes wealth to decline 10% a year initially, how does that impact GDP or employment?
Oh no, that would mean that the average American could maybe buy property or a single share of a public company that they’ve actually heard of.
The horror.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,304
Yeah. That's what we need. Just 1 more candidate to share the spotlight.
I loathe Bloomberg. Please just go away.
Why do you hate him? Is it the gun control issue?
Yes and he was a terrible mayor imo. We need another guy in his late 70's running? And yet another billionaire that has no clue what real life is like for the majority of america.
Which candidate knows what life is like for a majority of Americans?
Uncle Bernie
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Yeah. That's what we need. Just 1 more candidate to share the spotlight.
I loathe Bloomberg. Please just go away.
Why do you hate him? Is it the gun control issue?
Yes and he was a terrible mayor imo. We need another guy in his late 70's running? And yet another billionaire that has no clue what real life is like for the majority of america.
Which candidate knows what life is like for a majority of Americans?
Uncle Bernie
Uncle Bernie is a millionaire with multiple houses and has been a government official for 30 plus years. I don't think that really qualifies.
Yeah. That's what we need. Just 1 more candidate to share the spotlight.
I loathe Bloomberg. Please just go away.
Why do you hate him? Is it the gun control issue?
Yes and he was a terrible mayor imo. We need another guy in his late 70's running? And yet another billionaire that has no clue what real life is like for the majority of america.
Which candidate knows what life is like for a majority of Americans?
Uncle Bernie
Uncle Bernie is a millionaire with multiple houses and has been a government official for 30 plus years. I don't think that really qualifies.
How Bernie Sanders, The Socialist Senator, Amassed A $2.5 Million Fortune
Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist senator from Vermont, is a fierce critic of the affluent in America. That’s a bit rich, considering he himself is well off.
Sanders, 77, has, in fact, amassed an estimated $2.5 million fortune from real estate, investments, government pensions—and earnings from three books, including the 2016 hit Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In. “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” he recently told the New York Times, striking a downright Trumpian note.
Since his bid for the Democratic nomination raised his profile in 2016, Sanders has released a book a year. In all, he has pulled in at least $1.7 million from the series, starting with Our Revolution (220,000 copies sold, according to industry tracker NPD BookScan) and then Bernie Sanders Guide to Political Revolution (27,000) and finally Where We Go From Here: Two Years in the Resistance (26,000).
In addition to the books are his government pay and pension accounts. Sanders has collected a six-figure annual salary since he joined Congress in 1991, some of which he and his wife (who herself commanded hefty pay as head of now-defunct Burlington College) plowed into personal real estate. Then there are his pensions, which are based on income and years of service. With 28 years in office and a current salary of $174,000, Sanders is entitled to around $73,000 a year from the federal government for the rest of his life. If he were to sell that guaranteed income stream for a lump-sum pile of cash, Forbes figures he could get around $650,000 for it. Before he was elected to Congress, Sanders ran a small business producing filmstrips on New England historyfor schools and served as mayor of Burlington, Vermont. From his time running Burlington, he gets another $428 a month from a city pension, which is worth roughly $50,000.
As with many Americans, the bulk of Sanders’ net worth is tied up in his home. Unlike most Americans, however, he owns three. In Burlington, he keeps a four-bedroom, two-and-a-half-bath colonial that he purchased in 2009 for $405,000. Last year, after the hefty book profits started rolling in, Sanders paid off its 30-year mortgage, 25 years early. In D.C., Sanders owns a row house a short walk from the Capitol, which he bought in 2007 for $489,000. Forbes estimates he still has around $350,000 left on the mortgage there.
His vacation pad, however, was paid for in cash. Sanders made headlines when he snapped up a Vermont summer home for $575,000 less than two months after ending the 2016 campaign built on lambasting the rich. Sanders chose a tranquil, four-bedroom, three-bath home with 500 feet of shorefront access on Lake Champlain, 50 minutes north of Burlington. His wife, Jane, told the Associated Press that the couple financed the deal with Bernie’s book advance money, plus some of her retirement savings and proceeds from the sale of a cabin owned by her family.
Even after the big purchases, the couple has around $500,000 in cash and investments, including three retirement accounts owned by Jane Sanders. They might have even more cash on hand. If Sanders has been contributing a portion of his paycheck to the Thrift Savings Plan—essentially a 401(k) program for government workers—he could be sitting on hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional wealth. But the government doesn’t require politicians to disclose such holdings.
What does Sanders, the scourge of the wealthy, have to say about his own wealth? He is uncharacteristically silent: A Sanders spokesman didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Taxing billionaires 6% every year is dangerous. The only thing it is likely to do is get trump reelected.
The majority of their wealth is in stock and property. In order to pay taxes they will need to sell and liquidate.
This could create a vicious cycle where hundreds of billions in stocks and properties being sold to pay taxes drives down the stock and real estate markets.
So if this creates a situation where the combined effect causes wealth to decline 10% a year initially, how does that impact GDP or employment?
Oh no, that would mean that the average American could maybe buy property or a single share of a public company that they’ve actually heard of.
The horror.
Does any of that mean a 6% decline in market values would not create a recession?
I think everyone knows that being a millionaire from writing books is okay. If you create a product, web platform or financial service that people use, that is despicable. Everyone knows this already.
Taxing billionaires 6% every year is dangerous. The only thing it is likely to do is get trump reelected.
The majority of their wealth is in stock and property. In order to pay taxes they will need to sell and liquidate.
This could create a vicious cycle where hundreds of billions in stocks and properties being sold to pay taxes drives down the stock and real estate markets.
So if this creates a situation where the combined effect causes wealth to decline 10% a year initially, how does that impact GDP or employment?
Oh no, that would mean that the average American could maybe buy property or a single share of a public company that they’ve actually heard of.
The horror.
Does any of that mean a 6% decline in market values would not create a recession?
A recession is a foregone conclusion at this point, with or without a wealth tax.
We've seen our way through recessions caused by worse (in)action(s).
not sure if its national or targeted by market , but am watching history channel and have 3 different ads with Steyer making his pitch in the past 45 minutes?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Taxing billionaires 6% every year is dangerous. The only thing it is likely to do is get trump reelected.
The majority of their wealth is in stock and property. In order to pay taxes they will need to sell and liquidate.
This could create a vicious cycle where hundreds of billions in stocks and properties being sold to pay taxes drives down the stock and real estate markets.
So if this creates a situation where the combined effect causes wealth to decline 10% a year initially, how does that impact GDP or employment?
Oh no, that would mean that the average American could maybe buy property or a single share of a public company that they’ve actually heard of.
The horror.
Does any of that mean a 6% decline in market values would not create a recession?
A recession is a foregone conclusion at this point, with or without a wealth tax.
We've seen our way through recessions caused by worse (in)action(s).
We have recessions and we have ones like 2008 which are entirely different.
My concern is a 6% wealth tax is significant. It can cause a recession on it's own by forcing the wealthy to sell 6% of their assets every year, creating a perpetual sellers market. 6% is so significant that Warren constantly lies about it by referring to it as 2%
Besides causing a downward spiral in stock and real estate markets, the tax collections would also spiral downward if all this selling leads to collapsing markets.
So we'd be locked into at least $5 to 6 trillion in new spending and stuck with trillions of new debt each year as tax collections decline.
Thanks. I ended up falling asleep and missed it. I was wondering what people thought, or how he did. I did catch 1 7 min clip I thought was good and reasonable as well. I think he does better in formats like this.
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Taxing billionaires 6% every year is dangerous. The only thing it is likely to do is get trump reelected.
The majority of their wealth is in stock and property. In order to pay taxes they will need to sell and liquidate.
This could create a vicious cycle where hundreds of billions in stocks and properties being sold to pay taxes drives down the stock and real estate markets.
So if this creates a situation where the combined effect causes wealth to decline 10% a year initially, how does that impact GDP or employment?
Oh no, that would mean that the average American could maybe buy property or a single share of a public company that they’ve actually heard of.
The horror.
Does any of that mean a 6% decline in market values would not create a recession?
A recession is a foregone conclusion at this point, with or without a wealth tax.
We've seen our way through recessions caused by worse (in)action(s).
We have recessions and we have ones like 2008 which are entirely different.
My concern is a 6% wealth tax is significant. It can cause a recession on it's own by forcing the wealthy to sell 6% of their assets every year, creating a perpetual sellers market. 6% is so significant that Warren constantly lies about it by referring to it as 2%
Besides causing a downward spiral in stock and real estate markets, the tax collections would also spiral downward if all this selling leads to collapsing markets.
So we'd be locked into at least $5 to 6 trillion in new spending and stuck with trillions of new debt each year as tax collections decline.
I don't have a horse in this race, but I am beholden to historical facts and tend to shun hyperbole. That being said, the tax rate on the wealthy (hell, even the middle class) has been way higher in our lifetimes, and the economy soldiered on just fine. Greedy fucks still have Ugland House.
Taxing billionaires 6% every year is dangerous. The only thing it is likely to do is get trump reelected.
The majority of their wealth is in stock and property. In order to pay taxes they will need to sell and liquidate.
This could create a vicious cycle where hundreds of billions in stocks and properties being sold to pay taxes drives down the stock and real estate markets.
So if this creates a situation where the combined effect causes wealth to decline 10% a year initially, how does that impact GDP or employment?
Oh no, that would mean that the average American could maybe buy property or a single share of a public company that they’ve actually heard of.
The horror.
Does any of that mean a 6% decline in market values would not create a recession?
A recession is a foregone conclusion at this point, with or without a wealth tax.
We've seen our way through recessions caused by worse (in)action(s).
We have recessions and we have ones like 2008 which are entirely different.
My concern is a 6% wealth tax is significant. It can cause a recession on it's own by forcing the wealthy to sell 6% of their assets every year, creating a perpetual sellers market. 6% is so significant that Warren constantly lies about it by referring to it as 2%
Besides causing a downward spiral in stock and real estate markets, the tax collections would also spiral downward if all this selling leads to collapsing markets.
So we'd be locked into at least $5 to 6 trillion in new spending and stuck with trillions of new debt each year as tax collections decline.
I don't have a horse in this race, but I am beholden to historical facts and tend to shun hyperbole. That being said, the tax rate on the wealthy (hell, even the middle class) has been way higher in our lifetimes, and the economy soldiered on just fine. Greedy fucks still have Ugland House.
We have not had a tax on total wealth. Raising income taxes is fine. If you earn income you have a flow of income accessible for tax payments.
Wealth tax hits unrealized gains or losses and forces liquidation of assets, which will have an impact on markets.
Say your assets were all tied up on your family farm. And your businesses just about break even. Are you going to sell 2 to 6% of your assets every year to pay a tax? Is this reasonable?
Taxing billionaires 6% every year is dangerous. The only thing it is likely to do is get trump reelected.
The majority of their wealth is in stock and property. In order to pay taxes they will need to sell and liquidate.
This could create a vicious cycle where hundreds of billions in stocks and properties being sold to pay taxes drives down the stock and real estate markets.
So if this creates a situation where the combined effect causes wealth to decline 10% a year initially, how does that impact GDP or employment?
Oh no, that would mean that the average American could maybe buy property or a single share of a public company that they’ve actually heard of.
The horror.
Does any of that mean a 6% decline in market values would not create a recession?
A recession is a foregone conclusion at this point, with or without a wealth tax.
We've seen our way through recessions caused by worse (in)action(s).
We have recessions and we have ones like 2008 which are entirely different.
My concern is a 6% wealth tax is significant. It can cause a recession on it's own by forcing the wealthy to sell 6% of their assets every year, creating a perpetual sellers market. 6% is so significant that Warren constantly lies about it by referring to it as 2%
Besides causing a downward spiral in stock and real estate markets, the tax collections would also spiral downward if all this selling leads to collapsing markets.
So we'd be locked into at least $5 to 6 trillion in new spending and stuck with trillions of new debt each year as tax collections decline.
I don't have a horse in this race, but I am beholden to historical facts and tend to shun hyperbole. That being said, the tax rate on the wealthy (hell, even the middle class) has been way higher in our lifetimes, and the economy soldiered on just fine. Greedy fucks still have Ugland House.
We have not had a tax on total wealth. Raising income taxes is fine. If you earn income you have a flow of income accessible for tax payments.
Wealth tax hits unrealized gains or losses and forces liquidation of assets, which will have an impact on markets.
Say your assets were all tied up on your family farm. And your businesses just about break even. Are you going to sell 2 to 6% of your assets every year to pay a tax? Is this reasonable?
Taxing billionaires 6% every year is dangerous. The only thing it is likely to do is get trump reelected.
The majority of their wealth is in stock and property. In order to pay taxes they will need to sell and liquidate.
This could create a vicious cycle where hundreds of billions in stocks and properties being sold to pay taxes drives down the stock and real estate markets.
So if this creates a situation where the combined effect causes wealth to decline 10% a year initially, how does that impact GDP or employment?
Oh no, that would mean that the average American could maybe buy property or a single share of a public company that they’ve actually heard of.
The horror.
Does any of that mean a 6% decline in market values would not create a recession?
A recession is a foregone conclusion at this point, with or without a wealth tax.
We've seen our way through recessions caused by worse (in)action(s).
We have recessions and we have ones like 2008 which are entirely different.
My concern is a 6% wealth tax is significant. It can cause a recession on it's own by forcing the wealthy to sell 6% of their assets every year, creating a perpetual sellers market. 6% is so significant that Warren constantly lies about it by referring to it as 2%
Besides causing a downward spiral in stock and real estate markets, the tax collections would also spiral downward if all this selling leads to collapsing markets.
So we'd be locked into at least $5 to 6 trillion in new spending and stuck with trillions of new debt each year as tax collections decline.
I don't have a horse in this race, but I am beholden to historical facts and tend to shun hyperbole. That being said, the tax rate on the wealthy (hell, even the middle class) has been way higher in our lifetimes, and the economy soldiered on just fine. Greedy fucks still have Ugland House.
We have not had a tax on total wealth. Raising income taxes is fine. If you earn income you have a flow of income accessible for tax payments.
Wealth tax hits unrealized gains or losses and forces liquidation of assets, which will have an impact on markets.
Say your assets were all tied up on your family farm. And your businesses just about break even. Are you going to sell 2 to 6% of your assets every year to pay a tax? Is this reasonable?
Your whole hypothetical is unreasonable.
6% wealth tax, 15% social security surtax, 20% surtax on capital gains plus rolling back trump 2017 tax cuts. If you dont like it, no Ugland House for you. 40% exit tax.
Just to name a few.
I've been a tax and spend liberal most of my life but Warren is playing with fire. All these tax proposals are a gift for trump and the GOP
you know its interesting, Rs passed tax hikes and a budget under Clinton that ran a surplus, a surplus that could pay down the debt .
Enter Bush. Repeal that tax hike, give a rebate back to tax payers, implement a new part to medicare that was unpaid for and started 2 unfunded wars. Eroded certain banking laws and damn near killed the country as a result.
Enter Obama, utter refusal to work with the man. agrees to a predeal freezing certain areas of spending with the proviso that a broader deal was going to be had. again utter refusal to work with the man. works toward reducing spending , cuts it in half. Implements a law written by conservatives called a socialist.
Enter trump/ trots out the same tired old lie of tax cuts with trickle down. explodes the debt for the foreseeable future. lies cheats and steals for the taxpayers.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,304
Is anybody else who does not want to see Trump re-elected beginning to feel a bit concerned about the election coming up in a bit less than a year? Here are the options as I see them, listed in order of their current popularity according to RealClear Politics:
Biden (26%). Good old uncle Joe. Hell of a nice guy but is he up to it? I'm thinking he's slowed down a bit too much and were it not for wanting Trump out, he would probably much rather go fishing. Can he beat Trump anyway? Not if he can't shake that "I'm old and a bit disoriented" look. I know that look. I see it in the mirror on many a morning.
Warren (20.8%). A few years ago I would have been ecstatic at the chances of Warren running for president. But then she admitted ("sort of admitted" I believe it was the Washington Post put it) lying about the Native American thing. I'm almost as fanatical about disliking lying as John "Johnny Rotten" Lydon. This doesn't sit well with me... or much of the voting public. Will this have proven to be her undoing?
Bernie Sanders (17.8). Bernie has some great progressive ideas but I'm seriously concerned he takes them too far to the edge for the average American and probably would lose to Trump. But then that says worse things about the average American, doesn't it? Also, dItto that as-above image in the mirror thing.
Buttigieg (8%). This is the guy I want to stand behind but at his current 8%, the chances are so ultra thin.
All the rest are just minor footnotes at this point.
And add to all of this the all raising their hands to give illegal immigrants health coverage incident. Show me how this isn't handing a shit load of votes over to Trump. It's not that I don't care about the well being of the illegal immigrants, but how well would we suppose those people will do in a situation with another 4 years of Trump as POTUS?
In the early going, I am feeling very concerned about what is going to go down a year from now.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Is anybody else who does not want to see Trump re-elected beginning to feel a bit concerned about the election coming up in a bit less than a year? Here are the options as I see them, listed in order of their current popularity according to RealClear Politics:
Biden (26%). Good old uncle Joe. Hell of a nice guy but is he up to it? I'm thinking he's slowed down a bit too much and were it not for wanting Trump out, he would probably much rather go fishing. Can he beat Trump anyway? Not if he can't shake that "I'm old and a bit disoriented" look. I know that look. I see it in the mirror on many a morning.
Warren (20.8%). A few years ago I would have been ecstatic at the chances of Warren running for president. But then she admitted ("sort of admitted" I believe it was the Washington Post put it) lying about the Native American thing. I'm almost as fanatical about disliking lying as John "Johnny Rotten" Lydon. This doesn't sit well with me... or much of the voting public. Will this have proven to be her undoing?
Bernie Sanders (17.8). Bernie has some great progressive ideas but I'm seriously concerned he takes them too far to the edge for the average American and probably would lose to Trump. But then that says worse things about the average American, doesn't it? Also, dItto that as-above image in the mirror thing.
Buttigieg (8%). This is the guy I want to stand behind but at his current 8%, the chances are so ultra thin.
All the rest are just minor footnotes at this point.
And add to all of this the all raising their hands to give illegal immigrants health coverage incident. Show me how this isn't handing a shit load of votes over to Trump. It's not that I don't care about the well being of the illegal immigrants, but how well would we suppose those people will do in a situation with another 4 years of Trump as POTUS?
In the early going, I am feeling very concerned about what is going to go down a year from now.
I think this is normal. We still have plenty of time to refine arguments, move to the center, etc.
I like Pete a lot. I like his perspective on life, temperament, etc. And he honestly has surpassed Warren in momentum. There will be more shifts in momentum as well.
I think it's a really big mistake to hold that First Nations heritage thing against Warren.
Personally, I think it's a minor issue and I like her a lot. But why did she do that and how will it affect her chances of winning? Those are the important questions.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,304
Is anybody else who does not want to see Trump re-elected beginning to feel a bit concerned about the election coming up in a bit less than a year? Here are the options as I see them, listed in order of their current popularity according to RealClear Politics:
Biden (26%). Good old uncle Joe. Hell of a nice guy but is he up to it? I'm thinking he's slowed down a bit too much and were it not for wanting Trump out, he would probably much rather go fishing. Can he beat Trump anyway? Not if he can't shake that "I'm old and a bit disoriented" look. I know that look. I see it in the mirror on many a morning.
Warren (20.8%). A few years ago I would have been ecstatic at the chances of Warren running for president. But then she admitted ("sort of admitted" I believe it was the Washington Post put it) lying about the Native American thing. I'm almost as fanatical about disliking lying as John "Johnny Rotten" Lydon. This doesn't sit well with me... or much of the voting public. Will this have proven to be her undoing?
Bernie Sanders (17.8). Bernie has some great progressive ideas but I'm seriously concerned he takes them too far to the edge for the average American and probably would lose to Trump. But then that says worse things about the average American, doesn't it? Also, dItto that as-above image in the mirror thing.
Buttigieg (8%). This is the guy I want to stand behind but at his current 8%, the chances are so ultra thin.
All the rest are just minor footnotes at this point.
And add to all of this the all raising their hands to give illegal immigrants health coverage incident. Show me how this isn't handing a shit load of votes over to Trump. It's not that I don't care about the well being of the illegal immigrants, but how well would we suppose those people will do in a situation with another 4 years of Trump as POTUS?
In the early going, I am feeling very concerned about what is going to go down a year from now.
I think this is normal. We still have plenty of time to refine arguments, move to the center, etc.
I like Pete a lot. I like his perspective on life, temperament, etc. And he honestly has surpassed Warren in momentum. There will be more shifts in momentum as well.
I hope yo are right, M. I really hope things com together better over the next 11 1/2 months!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Is anybody else who does not want to see Trump re-elected beginning to feel a bit concerned about the election coming up in a bit less than a year? Here are the options as I see them, listed in order of their current popularity according to RealClear Politics:
Biden (26%). Good old uncle Joe. Hell of a nice guy but is he up to it? I'm thinking he's slowed down a bit too much and were it not for wanting Trump out, he would probably much rather go fishing. Can he beat Trump anyway? Not if he can't shake that "I'm old and a bit disoriented" look. I know that look. I see it in the mirror on many a morning.
Warren (20.8%). A few years ago I would have been ecstatic at the chances of Warren running for president. But then she admitted ("sort of admitted" I believe it was the Washington Post put it) lying about the Native American thing. I'm almost as fanatical about disliking lying as John "Johnny Rotten" Lydon. This doesn't sit well with me... or much of the voting public. Will this have proven to be her undoing?
Bernie Sanders (17.8). Bernie has some great progressive ideas but I'm seriously concerned he takes them too far to the edge for the average American and probably would lose to Trump. But then that says worse things about the average American, doesn't it? Also, dItto that as-above image in the mirror thing.
Buttigieg (8%). This is the guy I want to stand behind but at his current 8%, the chances are so ultra thin.
All the rest are just minor footnotes at this point.
And add to all of this the all raising their hands to give illegal immigrants health coverage incident. Show me how this isn't handing a shit load of votes over to Trump. It's not that I don't care about the well being of the illegal immigrants, but how well would we suppose those people will do in a situation with another 4 years of Trump as POTUS?
In the early going, I am feeling very concerned about what is going to go down a year from now.
I think this is normal. We still have plenty of time to refine arguments, move to the center, etc.
I like Pete a lot. I like his perspective on life, temperament, etc. And he honestly has surpassed Warren in momentum. There will be more shifts in momentum as well.
I hope yo are right, M. I really hope things com together better over the next 11 1/2 months!
If you remember, there was a pretty big divide between Obama and Clinton supporters in 08. But that got healed, helped greatly by Hillary being promised the SOS position. It all worked out. I have faith.
Comments
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
How Bernie Sanders, The Socialist Senator, Amassed A $2.5 Million Fortune
Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist senator from Vermont, is a fierce critic of the affluent in America. That’s a bit rich, considering he himself is well off.
Sanders, 77, has, in fact, amassed an estimated $2.5 million fortune from real estate, investments, government pensions—and earnings from three books, including the 2016 hit Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In. “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” he recently told the New York Times, striking a downright Trumpian note.
Since his bid for the Democratic nomination raised his profile in 2016, Sanders has released a book a year. In all, he has pulled in at least $1.7 million from the series, starting with Our Revolution (220,000 copies sold, according to industry tracker NPD BookScan) and then Bernie Sanders Guide to Political Revolution (27,000) and finally Where We Go From Here: Two Years in the Resistance (26,000).
In addition to the books are his government pay and pension accounts. Sanders has collected a six-figure annual salary since he joined Congress in 1991, some of which he and his wife (who herself commanded hefty pay as head of now-defunct Burlington College) plowed into personal real estate. Then there are his pensions, which are based on income and years of service. With 28 years in office and a current salary of $174,000, Sanders is entitled to around $73,000 a year from the federal government for the rest of his life. If he were to sell that guaranteed income stream for a lump-sum pile of cash, Forbes figures he could get around $650,000 for it.
Before he was elected to Congress, Sanders ran a small business producing filmstrips on New England history for schools and served as mayor of Burlington, Vermont. From his time running Burlington, he gets another $428 a month from a city pension, which is worth roughly $50,000.
As with many Americans, the bulk of Sanders’ net worth is tied up in his home. Unlike most Americans, however, he owns three. In Burlington, he keeps a four-bedroom, two-and-a-half-bath colonial that he purchased in 2009 for $405,000. Last year, after the hefty book profits started rolling in, Sanders paid off its 30-year mortgage, 25 years early. In D.C., Sanders owns a row house a short walk from the Capitol, which he bought in 2007 for $489,000. Forbes estimates he still has around $350,000 left on the mortgage there.
His vacation pad, however, was paid for in cash. Sanders made headlines when he snapped up a Vermont summer home for $575,000 less than two months after ending the 2016 campaign built on lambasting the rich. Sanders chose a tranquil, four-bedroom, three-bath home with 500 feet of shorefront access on Lake Champlain, 50 minutes north of Burlington. His wife, Jane, told the Associated Press that the couple financed the deal with Bernie’s book advance money, plus some of her retirement savings and proceeds from the sale of a cabin owned by her family.
What does Sanders, the scourge of the wealthy, have to say about his own wealth? He is uncharacteristically silent: A Sanders spokesman didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Does any of that mean a 6% decline in market values would not create a recession?
We've seen our way through recessions caused by worse (in)action(s).
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
We have recessions and we have ones like 2008 which are entirely different.
My concern is a 6% wealth tax is significant. It can cause a recession on it's own by forcing the wealthy to sell 6% of their assets every year, creating a perpetual sellers market. 6% is so significant that Warren constantly lies about it by referring to it as 2%
Besides causing a downward spiral in stock and real estate markets, the tax collections would also spiral downward if all this selling leads to collapsing markets.
So we'd be locked into at least $5 to 6 trillion in new spending and stuck with trillions of new debt each year as tax collections decline.
He reasonable yo.
Here's a little perspective from April.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/04/28/sotu-conway-darn-near-perfection.cnn
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
We have not had a tax on total wealth. Raising income taxes is fine. If you earn income you have a flow of income accessible for tax payments.
Wealth tax hits unrealized gains or losses and forces liquidation of assets, which will have an impact on markets.
Say your assets were all tied up on your family farm. And your businesses just about break even. Are you going to sell 2 to 6% of your assets every year to pay a tax? Is this reasonable?
6% wealth tax, 15% social security surtax, 20% surtax on capital gains plus rolling back trump 2017 tax cuts. If you dont like it, no Ugland House for you. 40% exit tax.
Just to name a few.
I've been a tax and spend liberal most of my life but Warren is playing with fire. All these tax proposals are a gift for trump and the GOP
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I like Pete a lot. I like his perspective on life, temperament, etc. And he honestly has surpassed Warren in momentum. There will be more shifts in momentum as well.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"