• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Sanders releases 10 years of tax returns, showing how his 2016 presidential run vaulted him i

CharisRose said:
Oh, I like that willful ignorance ploy (a cunning plan or action designed to turn a situation to one's own advantage) when you have no defense for your idea "that calling him a hypocrite was asinine and not logical."

I informed you that it was an Opinion Piece by Robert Knight so you would be able to take that into consideration if you decided to read the article for yourself to make up your own mind concerning the information provided in the article.
Click to expand...

Citing more ludicrous nonsense that aggressively cherrypicks to make its dubious case doesn't do you any favours.

Bernie is not a hypocrite because he never categorically condemned capitalism, being rich, or demanded that people donate money to the government above and beyond their tax obligations.

Bernie is not a Marxist or a communist because he doesn't actually believe in either of those things.

The reason why people don't lament the rich in Scandinavian countries is because their income inequality is among the lowest in the first world whereas it is among the very highest in the States by contrast; because wealth and income there are much more evenly distributed; because there isn't rampant legal corruption in the form of massive lobbying and money in politics that grossly skews the legislation and tax policy of government in favour of the ultra rich as is demonstrably the case in America; here's an actual Princeton study demonstrating as much (y'know as opposed to vacuous, absurd opinion columns by moronic or at best deliberately misleading ideologues): https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf ); because they do in fact have higher taxes for the rich, even if they also have higher taxes on the middle class.

The idiocy you cite proves nothing except that you don't understand exactly what it is you are linking me to and citing, as none of it is persuasive, or indeed even cogent ultimately, and it certainly is bereft of any strong, grounded argument.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
A few words in a large font is not tax policy and does not address "loopholes". BTW, what is a "large corporation"? Is that like a "large employer" under PPACA which has 50 or more employees?
Click to expand...

Do you really need that explained to you, or are you just being deliberately contrary?
 
cpwill said:
Well, firstly, politicians benefit in at least two ways:

1. It gives them funding to divert to their districts, which increases the likelihood of their being reelected
2. It gives them funding to divert to favored interests, increasing the likelihood those interests will support their reelection efforts, increasing the likelihood they get reelected

However, that wasn't really what was under discussion. You were pointing out that there are ways in which taking income from some to give to others was popular. I was pointing out that:

Taking from others to gain for oneself is usually popular​

and so the "oneself" in this refers (generally) to voters who expect to receive those monies.

It's also occasionally popular with voters who don't expect to receive those monies, but who also don't expect to have those monies taken from them for a couple of other reasons:
1. It is a cost-free way to tell one's self that you are doing good for others (you aren't, of course, you are forcing others to do it, but it's a nice lie to tell yourself)
2. It is human nature to resent those who have more than they do, whether in terms of wealth, power, an attractive spouse, etc. That's why it has its own Commandment.



:shrug: unfortunately, reality does not care whether or not we are tired of it.



I'm not sure how I'm going to be benefited from having my cost of living increase at the same time that my employment opportunities shrink.

Additionally, it is worth noting, if a company has made billions in a trade-based society, then it has done so by serving people, likely doing so uncommonly well, in ways they especially appreciate.
Click to expand...

"... having my cost of living increase at the same time that my employment opportunities shrink."

If that isn't already happening to you, and hasn't been happening for the last 20 years or so, you're one of the lucky few. First the shrinking opportunities, then the full employment for all but at jobs that pay a fraction of what we earned before. We're sliding into a new modern day feudalism thanks to conservative economic and tax policy.
 
Idiometer said:
Do you really need that explained to you, or are you just being deliberately contrary?
Click to expand...

Yes, I need tax policy explained with a clear definition of the terms used. Is Bernie now proposing progressive taxation bracket rates for business (corporate?) income? By definition, a "loophole" is an unintended side effect (generally caused by omission) not a specifically targeted provision of the tax law.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes, I need tax policy explained with a clear definition of the terms used. Is Bernie now proposing progressive taxation bracket rates for business (corporate?) income? By definition, a "loophole" is an unintended side effect (generally caused by omission) not a specifically targeted provision of the tax law.
Click to expand...

Tax policy isn't what I replied to. You questioned what defines a large corporation. I find that to be a little disingenuous.
 
Surrealistik said:
Investing money in campaign finance and lobbyists to attempt to beget a return on investment via the mechanisms of governance is absolutely an organic outgrowth and predictable result of capitalism if it exists in the context of a central government that has powers of taxation, spending and law.
Click to expand...

Pure fabrication.

Surrealistik said:
Also there's definitely a difference in advocating for a higher tax rate that is broadbased versus loopholes or subsidies that only you or a relatively select rich, powerful few will be able to utilize (at least in practice).
Click to expand...


Irrelevant. He can voluntarily pay whatever he wants. He says the 1% don’t pay their fare share. So he’s not paying his fair share.

A real leader wouldn’t have to be forced to do what they think others should doing. They would lead by example. Like Trump donating his salary. ;)
 
Aberration said:
Pure fabrication.
Click to expand...

How so?

In capitalism, the actors seek to maximize profits; it turns out a great way to maximize profits is engaging in de facto bribery of lawmakers and dispensers of govt contracts and dollero; why on earth do you think hundreds of millions are spent on lobbyists and campaign finance?

Irrelevant. He can voluntarily pay whatever he wants. He says the 1% don’t pay their fare share. So he’s not paying his fair share.

A real leader wouldn’t have to be forced to do what they think others should doing. They would lead by example. Like Trump donating his salary. ;)
Click to expand...

Not at all.

First of all the difference is material; advocating for one, i.e. tax law that will work to your detriment to the benefit of those at lower income brackets, is not at all comparable to advocating for another, i.e. tax law that will work to your near-exclusive benefit at the expense of everyone else. The ethical implications for each are obviously very different; one features shared sacrifice and self-sacrifice for the benefit of others, while the other is unadulterated selfishness at the expense of others.

He thinks their tax rates should be higher, and he is willing to pay those higher tax rates.

Trump donates his salary as a token PR move because it's largely irrelevant to his income as anyone should be acutely aware.
 
Praxas said:
No, that would be you who is twisting themselves. I've stated CLEARLY what Bernie was talking about since he has always talked about changing tax laws so that the wealthy pay more. NO WHERE has he said for the wealthy to send in their money VOLUNTARILY. You, like ludin, are just lying at this point because you have been proven wrong. You have already been proven to be lying since you cannot produce ONE STATEMENT from Bernie saying that the wealthy should send in their money VOLUNTARILY. You lose and have been proven to have just posted lies. You're dismissed con, you can go run along now.

Also, not a Bernie fan and will not be voting for him in the primaries. If he wins the general, you bet your ass I will be voting for him instead of Trumptard.
Click to expand...

You need to check the definition of hypocrite.

You obviously have no idea what the word means.

You are arguing that Bernie is not what he demonstrates himself to be.

Your position is a loser. Give it up and move on to something that you understand.
 
Praxas said:
No, that would be you who is twisting themselves. I've stated CLEARLY what Bernie was talking about since he has always talked about changing tax laws so that the wealthy pay more. NO WHERE has he said for the wealthy to send in their money VOLUNTARILY. You, like ludin, are just lying at this point because you have been proven wrong. You have already been proven to be lying since you cannot produce ONE STATEMENT from Bernie saying that the wealthy should send in their money VOLUNTARILY. You lose and have been proven to have just posted lies. You're dismissed con, you can go run along now.

Also, not a Bernie fan and will not be voting for him in the primaries. If he wins the general, you bet your ass I will be voting for him instead of Trumptard.
Click to expand...

The fervent hope of all Trump supporters is that Bernie will win the nomination of the Dems.

Of course, there are about 20 declared Democrat Candidates that will serve the purpose just as well.

I suppose it really doesn't matter which one gets nominated, but Bernie is my favorite prospective Trump opponent.
 
JasperL said:
Well, if you're holding Bernie and not yourself or any republican in Congress or any other conservative to this stupid standard, maybe it's not a standard at all but a dumb talking point, trotted out ONLY (in my experience) for people who support tax increases. That's the only time I see this 'hypocrisy' standard applied to anyone. What? You're not paying extra with your return AND you support tax increases???!! Hypocrite!!

No one asks Ted Cruz or anyone else if they cashed their government paychecks, or used government healthcare. No one demands Tea Party members decline to cash their SS, etc. It never happens.
Click to expand...

I have said and continue to say that EVERYONE should strive to pay the pay the lowest legal level of tax allowed by law.

That is exactly what I do.

See the subtle difference? I say one thing and then do the same thing.

Bernie says one thing and does the opposite.

That is why he's a hypocrite.

You are aware of the definition of the word aren't you? Arguing with you is like fighting a punching bag.
 
JasperL said:
It's both because math. Revenue minus expenditures = surplus (deficit) Changes on the left hand side to revenue or expenditures affects the deficit. If we spend more and raise taxes to cover the spending, deficits don't change because of math.



Well, maybe if we raised taxes to cover spending, people would demand less in spending. Makes sense to me. What surely doesn't help is the approach of lowering taxes, lying about them not reducing revenue, then demanding everyone else make up the shortfall in spending cuts when tax cuts lower revenue and increase the deficit, as math tells us will happen.



I don't accept the blinkered view that spending is the only problem, because it's not. More to the point on this thread, when people who get federal benefits allowed to them by law and cash the checks or enjoy the benefits, all the while whining about deficits and spending, they too are hypocrites, every damn one of them, if Bernie is in their view.

The standard you're applying to Bernie and others supporting tax cuts requires NO sacrifice of any kind from anyone except Bernie, and those supporting tax increases. It's a convenient one because you get to throw rocks at the left, while sacrificing nothing yourself or demanding it of others on the right, such as retirees, farmers, soldiers, retired military such as those using VA services, Congressmen, defense contractors or anyone else getting government checks. It's a one way demand - that requires nothing of those on the right.
Click to expand...

There is not one idea or word you posted here that has any tether to either logic or sanity.

Buy a dictionary.
 
JasperL said:
Because I've addressed the part I omitted a dozen times in other comments. I was just pointing out that your standard that a no vote means yes is stupid and you won't and cannot legitimately apply it across the board because it's nonsense, bull****.

Republicans who voted AGAINST ACA were FOR the ACA because they knew it was going to pass! Of course that's bull. You know it's bullcrap so why apply a BS standard to Bernie but not anyone else?
Click to expand...

You are either very stupid or just incredibly naive. I don't know.

Votes cast in Congress are only exercises conducted to get re-elected. Trump is the rare politician who had a defined set of ideas that he ran on. He is sticking to them.

Votes in the Senate and the House are cast only as a political calculation. When Joe Manchin, as an example, votes outside the Democrat lock step allegiance to a particular idea, he is doing so as a fig leaf to get him re-elected in his conservative state.

The measure he is voting against will pass in any event and he can tell the sheeple that he is doing the best he can, but the Swamp is just too strong.

This is not a news flash. Well, not a news flash to most. It's been going on for decades.

I suppose it could be startling to you. As a PSA for you, here's another one: Used Car Salesmen are not always honest, either.
 
Obscurity said:
LOL. This is the most ridiculous batch of bat**** crazy right wing apologist BS I've read in a while.

Sanders VOTED AGAINST THE BILL. It was DESTINED to pass because the republicans guaranteed it would pass.

You're ****ing absurd, and I have no tolerance for ignorant bull**** like this.

The only hypocrite here is someone who presumably voted for a billionaire, and then calls a millionaire a hypocrite. Sanders can't cut a check to the IRS for money he doesn't owe. They will simply put it toward next year's taxes. For folks on the right who insist so much about taxes they sure as **** do not understand taxes in general.

Clean out your own stinky ****ing house before you try ****ting in mine.
Click to expand...

You seem to love profanity. As is the case with most who love profanity, you also seem to hate actual knowledge and facts.

The actual real world facts that completely destroy your misinformation required about three keystrokes to find.

Your brain is a terrible thing to waste.

Government - Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt
<snip>
Financing the Debt
Why does the debt sometimes decrease?
The Public Debt Outstanding decreases when there are more redemptions of Treasury securities than there are issues.

How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

At Pay.gov, you can contribute online by credit card, debit card, PayPal, checking account, or savings account.
You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, and, in the memo section, notate that it's a gift to reduce the debt held by the public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
<snip>
 
code1211 said:
You seem to love profanity. As is the case with most who love profanity, you also seem to hate actual knowledge and facts.

The actual real world facts that completely destroy your misinformation required about three keystrokes to find.

Your brain is a terrible thing to waste.

Government - Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt
<snip>
Financing the Debt
Why does the debt sometimes decrease?
The Public Debt Outstanding decreases when there are more redemptions of Treasury securities than there are issues.

How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

At Pay.gov, you can contribute online by credit card, debit card, PayPal, checking account, or savings account.
You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, and, in the memo section, notate that it's a gift to reduce the debt held by the public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
<snip>
Click to expand...

A donation to the fed is not the same thing as "paying more taxes." Of course, that's inconvenient for you to admit, that the charity process has been co-opted by right wing pundits and spewed repeatedly to folks like you who inevitably soak it all up.

Sanders' voting record speaks for itself. Trump's speaks for itself.

A billionaire voted to lower taxes on billionaires and millionaires. A millionaire voted AGAINST this decrease.

I'll tell you exactly which one of those two positions earns my respect, and it's not first.
 
Obscurity said:
A donation to the fed is not the same thing as "paying more taxes." Of course, that's inconvenient for you to admit, that the charity process has been co-opted by right wing pundits and spewed repeatedly to folks like you who inevitably soak it all up.

Sanders' voting record speaks for itself. Trump's speaks for itself.

A billionaire voted to lower taxes on billionaires and millionaires. A millionaire voted AGAINST this decrease.

I'll tell you exactly which one of those two positions earns my respect, and it's not first.
Click to expand...

You cite a destinction that has no difference.

Sanders said that the rich should pay more. You're trying to let him off on a technicality.

This politician, like all the rest of them, is a lying hypocrite.

Why is this so hard for you to admit?

Why do you enjoy being lied to by people like Sanders who are telling you to your face that you are a moronic idiot?
 
code1211 said:
You cite a destinction that has no difference.

Sanders said that the rich should pay more. You're trying to let him off on a technicality.

This politician, like all the rest of them, is a lying hypocrite.

Why is this so hard for you to admit?

Why do you enjoy being lied to by people like Sanders who are telling you to your face that you are a moronic idiot?
Click to expand...

Lol. You're abjectly pathetic.

Sanders is not a hypocrite. And the distinction is a major issue. You and tuckface and all the rest of the sanctimonious, sandy ****ed right wing demagogues have no leverage over me to call me a hypocrite.

The voting record stands, and that's all that matters. Sanders voted against a tax bill that would benefit him. Your god and savior Trump installed a tax plan that overwhelmingly benefits himself and people like him.

Your words in the face of voting records and policy decisions are complete hot air and useless agitprop. It's a non-argument, "pay more", and simply a way to try and insinuate everyone who benefits is a hypocrite. This sort of thinking makes policy choices irrelevant, which is par for the course with you lot.
 
Obscurity said:
Lol. You're abjectly pathetic.

Sanders is not a hypocrite. And the distinction is a major issue. You and tuckface and all the rest of the sanctimonious, sandy ****ed right wing demagogues have no leverage over me to call me a hypocrite.

The voting record stands, and that's all that matters. Sanders voted against a tax bill that would benefit him. Your god and savior Trump installed a tax plan that overwhelmingly benefits himself and people like him.

Your words in the face of voting records and policy decisions are complete hot air and useless agitprop. It's a non-argument, "pay more", and simply a way to try and insinuate everyone who benefits is a hypocrite. This sort of thinking makes policy choices irrelevant, which is par for the course with you lot.
Click to expand...

I am decidedly NOT rich.

My taxes went down by 22% year over year.

Tax revenues to the Feds went up.

Bernie said The Rich should pay their fair share and, when given the chance, hid under his bed wetting his pants.

He's a lying hypocrite.

In contrast to The Lying Hypocrite Sanders, I say that want to pay less and when given the chance, I do exactly what I say I want to do.

See the obvious difference? I say one thing and do the same thing. Sanders says one thing and does the opposite thing.

This is why Sanders is a Lying Hypocrite.

Nothing wrong with that, but if it's what he is going to be, then he should own it.
 
code1211 said:
I am decidedly NOT rich.

My taxes went down by 22% year over year.

Tax revenues to the Feds went up.

Bernie said The Rich should pay their fair share and, when given the chance, hid under his bed wetting his pants.

He's a lying hypocrite.

In contrast to The Lying Hypocrite Sanders, I say that want to pay less and when given the chance, I do exactly what I say I want to do.

See the obvious difference? I say one thing and do the same thing. Sanders says one thing and does the opposite thing.

This is why Sanders is a Lying Hypocrite.

Nothing wrong with that, but if it's what he is going to be, then he should own it.
Click to expand...

You're being willfully obtuse with this and you know it.

Sanders voted against a tax cut for himself.

Trump signed into law a tax cut for himself.

Night and day.

You do not understand the notion of what hypocrisy actually is.

And you're unwilling to learn. So go back to your echochamber, with the rest of the agitprop spewing demagogues.
 
Bernie Sanders has integrity and honesty. Far too much to ever become President.

Bernie doesn't need to become President to change America in ways that will be remembered in future generations to come. He's already been doing that for 50 years. He should just use the Senate term he won in November to keep fighting for his values.
 
code1211 said:
I have said and continue to say that EVERYONE should strive to pay the pay the lowest legal level of tax allowed by law.

That is exactly what I do.

See the subtle difference? I say one thing and then do the same thing.

Bernie says one thing and does the opposite.
Click to expand...

OK, you're still applying a principle of self sacrifice, foregoing government benefits, ONLY to liberals.

And if you can find Bernie saying, "the rich should pay more than the tax law requires - Charles Koch and Warren Buffett and others should voluntarily send in a few $million or a few $billion more than is required by law" or the equivalent, just do it.

I know you cannot, that's why the hypocrisy charge is such nonsense when you don't apply a similar standard to Republicans and others who want to cut spending, and yet rake in their own government benefits with both hands when given the opportunity. So for them, it's "spending cuts for thee but not for ME!" Republicans aren't required to lead by example like you're demanding of Bernie.

That is why he's a hypocrite.

You are aware of the definition of the word aren't you? Arguing with you is like fighting a punching bag.
Click to expand...

Yes, and you've not demonstrated "hypocrisy" except by inventing a standard, a principle, for Bernie and others and not applying it to anyone else. You certainly cannot take his actual words and demonstrate that he's a hypocrite.
 
code1211 said:
There is not one idea or word you posted here that has any tether to either logic or sanity.

Buy a dictionary.
Click to expand...

Learn simple math!

Revenues minus spending = surplus (deficit).

That's a simple equation and so both revenues and spending impact the deficit. If you don't believe me, explain.

It's always convenient for right wingers to focus ALL their attention on spending. It's because the GOP exists to cut taxes and if we all acknowledged that cuts in revenues have contributed $trillions and $trillions to the national debt, maybe it would be harder to cut taxes. Instead, the GOP cuts taxes, lies about the impact (reduces revenue! EVERY TIME!), then wants us all to pretend that the problem is entirely spending, and that tax cuts played no significant role in the deficits and debt.

Math tells me that spending is only a problem because we're not willing to raise taxes sufficiently to cover the spending.
 
Obscurity said:
It doesn't work on people who have no scruples and simply want revenge.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm I find your response to my post "that shaming doesn't work on me" very interesting.

You have stated that you think... Shaming doesn't work on people who have no scruples and simply want revenge.

Do you also think... I'm the kind of person who has no scruples and simply wants revenge?

If, you actually think I'm that kind of person isn't this post to me a rather pointless attempt at shaming?

Perhaps, your shaming statement was not meant for me?

Perhaps, you are simply sending some obscure message for other posters to read with a hope they will see me as a person who has no scruples and simply wants revenge?

Perhaps, none of the above is true and you have posted this to me out of the kindness of your heart with the hope that shaming me will make me a better person?

A better person just like you who has scruples and never simply wants revenge?

Perhaps, you attempted to shame me because you have no scruples and simply want revenge?

Congratulations, You have lived up to the name you have chosen to represent yourself here...

"Obscurity"-the quality of being difficult to understand. Bye*Bye Mr. Scruples? :happy::2razz:

Roseann:)
 
Surrealistik said:
Gotta love how CNN immediately tries to imply that the money from his book sales makes him a hypocrite and someone who's lost his credibility as a populist and with the working class as a consequence; I laughed.
Click to expand...
He used to chide and belittle “ millionaires “, until he became one. His speeches now chide and belittle “billionaires”. I laughed.
 
code1211 said:
You are either very stupid or just incredibly naive. I don't know.

Votes cast in Congress are only exercises conducted to get re-elected. Trump is the rare politician who had a defined set of ideas that he ran on. He is sticking to them.

Votes in the Senate and the House are cast only as a political calculation. When Joe Manchin, as an example, votes outside the Democrat lock step allegiance to a particular idea, he is doing so as a fig leaf to get him re-elected in his conservative state.
Click to expand...

I'm impressed with your ability to read minds. So when Bernie votes against tax cuts, he really wants tax cuts but votes against them because politics.

And I understand politicians usually vote in a way that maximizes their chances at reelection. That does NOT mean that they have no beliefs and every vote is a cynical exercise in political expediency. You have legitimate opinions on issues, and it's unfair to assume politicians cannot legitimately believe in stances they take.

The measure he is voting against will pass in any event and he can tell the sheeple that he is doing the best he can, but the Swamp is just too strong.

This is not a news flash. Well, not a news flash to most. It's been going on for decades.

I suppose it could be startling to you. As a PSA for you, here's another one: Used Car Salesmen are not always honest, either.
Click to expand...

Or, maybe, he opposed tax cuts. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom