I wasn't trying to justify Sanders' (or any candidate's) tax plan, just the weakness of the article. Only talking about taxes makes it seem taxes have no point and just exist to take money from you. Explaining what services those additional or reduced taxes are going to affect would make the article much less biased.
I don't think the tax burden further shifts towards individuals, I think it shifts back on organizations. And yeah, I'd be cool with paying more taxes if getting cancer doesn't bankrupt me, and my mom doesn't have to tearfully borrow money to pay her medical bills. I think we fail to realize the trillions we have tied up in healthcare and what that would look like redistributed. I think that's one of the largest quality of life gaps between us and countries like Canada or Australia.
No, you wouldn't. I have no idea why you guys are going to these random sites and coming up with these ridiculous numbers. This is the actual tax plan for Sanders. Seriously, it didn't occur to any of you to once look at the tax plan from the actual candidate? Most people won't see their rates change very much at all. You guys really hate those low information voters, huh? Now, as to whether this tax plan would actually pay for all the shit he wants is a legit question.
This doesn't really add up to what just about everything I've read has stated. http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway...candidate-tax-plans-is-historic/#7007391c263d Bernie's plan:
Do you have a source that explains how they're calculating this? Where are they getting 8.5% for the middle quintile when the tax rate doesn't go up under the plan? Regarding single payer too, most people already have a chunk taken out of their check for medicare and their employer's insurance plan. An increase in tax there doesn't necessarily affect income at all. Find a source that explains how they're calculating this shit because that one is both really vague and doesn't seem to draw on the actual tax plan. Not trying to be dismissive of those claims, but I am really fucking skeptical of any article/source that says "Here, this is what happens to income" without seeing any need to explain how and why that is what will happen to income. The article/TPC link in the article barely touches on the specifics of the plan in question, and when it does it seems to touch mostly on the higher brackets, which is where the real changes are expected to happen anyway. Here's a source for the rates I was talking about, also forbes. Edit: And how the fuck do they say tax revenue goes up by 6.4% of GDP, but income goes down by far more than that at almost every level? Or is their argument that increases in taxes for the upper class are going to obliterate everyone's income? Because that's a really shitty argument, and is completely unsupported by American history. But again, they aren't even explaining their reasoning.
The Georgia governor vetoed HB 757. "I do not think we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia, of which I and my family have been a part of for all of our lives," he said. He said he was not reacting to pressure from the faith-based community or responding to the business community, which warned Georgia could lose jobs if he signed the bill." http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/us/georgia-north-carolina-lgbt-bills/index.html
That's what kook zealots want. Notoriety, personal fulfillment, make a statement. I am also assuming he is mentally deluded and not just a psyched up holy warrior. Not that the outcomes are much different. Anyone want to take bets how often this happens running up to November? On the bright side, the Secret Service put the kibosh on guns at the RNC. That was gearing up to be possibly the worst idea ever.
Right now it's unclear if the suspect even fired. He set off a metal detector and pulled out a gun...and then may or may not have fired before he himself was shot.
I'm too lazy to find the link but I do think it was started by a blog called hyperationalist(?), and the blog was obviously not conservative, and this was definitely a perfect piece of satire.
That's pretty much my thought. In the left wing media comments, folks were all urging each other to sign the petition because it would be the height of hilarity to see a gun fight at the GOP convention.
In all seriousness, is anyone else troubled by the constant use of the word 'homeland' in reference to the US? I personally find it very troubling - and no, not in the way I dislike the use of 'pivot,' 'optics,' 'boots on the ground,' 'adult in the room,' and 'undocumented.' Words matter to me very much and 'homeland' dredges up visions of the Third Reich for me.
To be fair, Germany was the Fatherland. Russia is the Motherland. I dont think its unique like those two are, I've heard Brits refer to the UK as the homeland.
I hear it used by politicians a lot. They use a particular lexicon on purpose. Always have, always will. So do Dawkins, Hitch, and any other social commentator. Hell, so do I when I'm trying to stress a point or manipulate the conversation. Oration skills. Get some! We've always been at war with East Asia.
I don't know if you have kids or not, but as a new parent, the idea that my kid would be able to go to college for free is extremely attractive. It would be great if she could drive her electric car on a brand new freeway or take high speed rail to school. When she visited her family out in the country, she'd still be able to do her schoolwork and video chat with her friends and teachers thanks to decent broadband being made available. But life happens, so when she breaks a leg snowboarding, she won't go broke since she can visit any hospital in the country for little to nothing. We live in a country where a kid graduates with 5 figures worth of student debt. In 2013, a bridge on I-5 fucking collapsed, essentially cutting off travel from Seattle to Canada. I have family that has to get by on 1.5 MBit internet. Your cell phone in any metro area is likely 2-5 times faster than that. Even with the ACA, people's health insurance deductibles are in the thousands. If I have to pay more in taxes for my kid to go to free college and healthcare, better infrastructure and ensure Social Security doesn't go insolvent by the time I retire, fine. For all the faults of government, I know that my money will be spent on things, instead of hoarded by the extraordinarily wealthy.