The Democratic Presidential Debates

mickeyrat

Hi! said:

people on twitter need to get the fuck over themselves. seriously.

Hi!

mickeyrat said:

Hi! said:

people on twitter need to get the fuck over themselves. seriously.

I don’t twitter, but thought it was kind of funny. 

dankind

Lerxst1992 said:

.

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. 

dignin

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

.

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.

brianlux

mickeyrat said:

Hi! said:

people on twitter need to get the fuck over themselves. seriously.

Is that Buttigieg eating that cinnamon roll like it was chicken wings?  Damn commie!!!

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

darwinstheory said:

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

cincybearcat

brianlux said:

mickeyrat said:

Hi! said:

people on twitter need to get the fuck over themselves. seriously.

Is that Buttigieg eating that cinnamon roll like it was chicken wings?  Damn commie!!!

I like Pete.... but that is funny. And kinda sad if that how he eats cinnamon rolls!

Hi!

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

darwinstheory said:

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.  

mcgruff10

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

darwinstheory said:

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.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2019/04/12/how-bernie-sanders-the-socialist-senator-amassed-a-25-million-fortune/#4021e85636bf

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.

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. 

ed243421

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/22/bernie_sanders_i_plead_guilty_to_being_a_millionaire.html

Lerxst1992

dignin said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

.

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?

mrussel1

ed243421 said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/22/bernie_sanders_i_plead_guilty_to_being_a_millionaire.html

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.  

dankind

Lerxst1992 said:

dignin said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

.

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).

mickeyrat

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?

Lerxst1992

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dignin said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

.

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.

ikiT

I thought Joe's CNN town hall last night was very good.
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

ikiT

Hi! said:

Steyer been running anti trump ads since day one. I can see his point with Bloomberg, I don’t like it,

Tom invented activism though.

Hi!

ikiT said:

I thought Joe's CNN town hall last night was very good.
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

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.

dankind

Lerxst1992 said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

dignin said:

dankind said:

Lerxst1992 said:

.

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.