Seeing as we're already around 18 trillion dollars in debt (which is larger than our GDP by about 10%), I don't think it's such a great idea to go another 17 trillion into debt.

lolno

no one wants wat u want

ur a small little minority

@smedley

and imperator. the usa can take on more debt. we r strong enough to do. personal debt doesnt work like how countries do business with each other. the usa has always paid its debts due to inflation and printing mo money

and the world lets us do tht cus we r big nd strong

Edited 5/14/2016 23:31:24

Since you correctly stated that the research has been done by the Urban Institute, why not read their research directly, instead of the cited propaganda bias by the Cato institute. You would get a completely different opinion on the matter:

It is true that you can read:

But even though Sanders would raise taxes on nearly all households by a total of more than $15 trillion over the next decade, his plan still would add an additional $18 trillion (plus at least $3 trillion in interest) to the national debt over the period—an unprecedented increase in government borrowing.

But more importantly you can also read:

As a result of Sanders’s overall domestic policy agenda, the lowest income households would pay about $200 more in taxes on average in 2017, but receive about $10,000 more in benefits—almost triple their total adjusted gross income. . Middle-income households would pay an average of about $4,500 more in taxes and receive $13,000 more in government transfers, for a net benefit of about $8,500. By contrast, the highest income 5 percent of households would pay $130,000 more in taxes on average and receive about $19,000 in additional transfers, resulting in a net cost of $111,000.

Those massive taxbenefits for a low and middle income households would most likely stimulate the economy in themselves, since those low and middle income households would immediately use the gained social security to invest money for comsumption and expenditures they had to postpone for a long time during this current economic insecurity.

Assuming you are all members of low and middle class income families, I wonder why you vote against your own interests. Because some corporate controlled institutes and mass media propaganda machines influence your opinions accordingly maybe?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/sanderss-domestic-program-would-help-most-households-add-more-18-trillion-debt

Edited 5/14/2016 23:33:10

I wonder why you vote against your own interests.

cus ppl arent rational

Maybe it's because I am going for my own interests. I don't want to be drafted, bombed, shot by police, gaoled for a plant, told I'm not human or right for something I'm not in control of(the US government doesn't do this as much now , but still), have my house searched for no reason, and not have my income taken by a third to a half over my entire lifetime.

draft is politically no longer viable

obey the law to not get shot by cops

government aint bombing u

house get searched for what is probably a good reason

and if u dnt like taxes either get the hell out or convince others to hold ur view and have ppl who represent ur views

libertarians are about 10-11% of the country. increase ur numbers and maybe ur fantasy can be real after all

Edited 5/14/2016 23:47:42

That is exactly the profile of a rational bernie sanders voter you are describing.

-not drafted = Sanders is anti militaristic, voted against Iraq
-not bombed = less injust wars for corporate interests in foreign countries, means less funding for terror groups by the CIA, as well as less retaliation attempts, exactly Sanders policy
-not shot by police = Enhancing Civic rights, providing more social justice would lower the root cause for police violence
-goaled for a plant i dont understand, unless you mean getting criminalized for marihuana consumption = decriminalizing minor offenses is something Sanders stands for
-Have my house searched for no reason = enforcement of civic rights and liberties = Sanders
-not have my income taken by a third to a half over my entire lifetime = unless you belong to the very rich, Sanders again

Edited 5/14/2016 23:51:31

sanders has voted for wars 2

like bosnia

I wonder why you vote against your own interests.

I propose forcibly taking away all the money of the top 10% and redistributing it to the bottom 90%. Going by your logic that will mean that I will get 90% of the vote, since everyone votes for their own self interest.

Not everyone's short-sighted or selfish enough to only support the candidate that will benefit them most.

Perhaps they don't agree, on principle, that people who take the risks and work harder should have to support the welfare of others as well.

Sanders is not perfect, though.

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/145799-bernie-sanders-bad

now you figure out how many us soldiers set foot on the ground in the bosnia war and how many people died in iraq

most of those objections are pretty good and are positive to me besides discrimination laws

the iraq war was justified at da time

Edited 5/14/2016 23:54:43

However, when it boils in relativity, Bernie Sanders is probably the best. He does everything horrible that the other two do, but he's for bulk legalisation of almost all drugs, for toning down border patrol, for stopping the war on Mashriq, things that no other mainstream candidate (thus far) supports. The things that he does uniquely support that are bad, they don't really matter. Like (actively) taking out references to God. Waste of money. Or for nationalising more land into wasteful national parks.

@pulsey

Strange world you live in.
The risk takers are the poorest and the middle class not the super rich. The poorest risk their health by working themselves to exhaustion covering 3 jobs to feed a family, still unable to pay for health insurance.
The middle class goes to university unsure if they can pay off their exorbitant students loans.
While the upper class owns all the assets and generates revenue and profits by doing nothing and dodging taxes. Having a parking lot in manhatten is really risky business, people should be reward for it.

The only reason they dont agree, is simply because they dont understand it. They are misinformed by a multibillion dollar media industry that has only one goal, to conceal the injustice of the current system and justify the redistribution of wealth from the hard working (population) to the super rich.

Edited 5/15/2016 00:02:52

-not drafted = Sanders is anti militaristic, voted against Iraq

Sanders is not anti-militarist. He voted for bombing Beograd in the nineties, supported intervention in Somalia, supported the occupation of Afghanistan, supported more funds for the war in Iraq, and hasn't said he'd get rid of the draft.

-not bombed = less injust wars for corporate interests in foreign countries, means less funding for terror groups by the CIA, as well as less retaliation attempts, exactly Sanders policy

There is a chance that any glitch in nuclear systems could start a nuclear war, and Sanders isn't for less war, but even at that, the Federal Government has bombed American places before.

-not shot by police = Enhancing Civic rights, providing more social justice would lower the root cause for police violence

Police are folk with guns and Carte Blanche to do as they please, the Supreme Court essentially defined this a while back.

-goaled for a plant i dont understand, unless you mean getting criminalized for marihuana consumption = decriminalizing minor offenses is something Sanders stands for

Gaoled is a word Xpapy has wielded in place of jailed, as he sees jailed as a traitor word to the English tongue. Sanders is in support of tobacco criminalization.

-Have my house searched for no reason = enforcement of civic rights and liberties = Sanders

I doubt Sanders can work against decades of fascistic abuse of rights worked on by the government, and if he does, who's to say the next bloke won't be just as bad.

-not have my income taken by a third to a half over my entire lifetime = unless you belong to the very rich, Sanders again

Taxes, fines and other things amount to about a third of the income of most folk.

Edited 5/15/2016 00:07:59

The poorest risk their health by working themselves to exhaustion

Not at all forced to, and in truth illegal for everyone, thanks to "worker's rights" (which impede the rights of both workers and businessowners).

covering 3 jobs to feed a family

Maybe they shouldn't have a family? Obviously not a choice for some, but it's a pick for the great majority.

still unable to pay for health insurance.

No, there are special programmes in America specifically for giving health insurance for free for poorer folk.

The middle class goes to university unsure if they can pay off their exorbitant students loans.

Maybe they shouldn't be so mindnumbingly dumb to pay for something they don't need with money they don't have?

the upper class owns all the assets and generates revenue and profits by doing nothing and dodging taxes.

Right, everything is owned by small businesses, never wielded Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Nestlé, so on. Who are those businesses?

They are misinformed

That's all you need to say about 90% voters, especially D. Trump supporters.

the upper class are wise enough to save their money earned from their jobs and risk their money to invest in assets that give off income

the poor are reckless spenders who never save their money. ironic enough that only 1% of the poor own assets

its not dodging taxes if its within the tax code

lot of loopholes to play with

businesses provide products/services that people want and get money for it

Edited 5/15/2016 00:22:10

@smedley

You are a perfect example for such a misinformed person. You are a mere toy in the hands of neoliberal think tanks. The perfect victim. They use your fear to take away one liberty of you after the other and you still believe you gain more freedom by more fearmongering.

Being Anti militaristic is not the same as being a pacifist. I advise you to look up the difference.

In case you didnt notice, enhancing civic rights factually means to restrict the power of the executive.

Regarding the tobacco, where do read all that crap? He is not criminalizing anyone who smokes cigarettes, but he is trying to battle the corporations that earn billions by knowingly raising the risk of cardiovascular diseases and cancer of the general population, with a totally senseless product called cigarettes. They achieve their goals by creating a demand which wouldnt be there, just through exposition to seductive advertisments. And I am a smoker myself.

If you argue against taxes in general, you are basically an anarchist. Nothing bad with that, but in reality anarchy ends up in feudalism. Your stronger neighbor will eventually deprive you of your freedom, since he has the better guns. The only protection you have as a little man, or impotent member of society is through banding with others in a equal situation and enforcing laws that protect you from your aggresive and abusive neighbor. That costs money, so you pay a certain amount to guarantee your freedom. This is called state and taxes.

You are a perfect example for such a misinformed person. You are a mere toy in the hands of neoliberal think tanks. The perfect victim. They use your fear to take away one liberty of you after the other and you still believe you gain more freedom by more fearmongering.

Really? A full paragraph of insults with no factual basis? I'm sorry, but really? Next time you write a response , don't include a paragraph of Angry Koala level pettiness.

Being Anti militaristic is not the same as being a pacifist. I advise you to look up the difference.

I suggest you realize he is neither anti-militaristic nor pacifist. He is not for acting defensively, nor acting in no way violently.

but he is trying to battle the corporations that earn billions by knowingly raising the risk of cardiovascular diseases and cancer of the general population

The smokers are well aware of the risk and choose to continue, despite the few dozen ways not to smoke and kick addiction. If you're pro-crack selling without government attacks, how can you be anti-tobacco?

If you argue against taxes in general, you are basically an anarchist

Anarcho-Capitalism

Your stronger neighbor will eventually deprive you of your freedom, since he has the better guns

A single man cannot effectively subjugate his neighbors , and subjugating one would result in social and economic ostrazation. Not to mention a small militia rising to kill the man, and private security companies gunning to kill or aprehend the bloke.

That costs money, so you pay a certain amount to guarantee your freedom. This is called state and taxes.

First, the paying of money is voluntary. Not someone going house to house extorting money through force, not paying to go on expeditions thousands of miles away to blow up folk.

Secondly, your biggest trouble with anarchism is governments coming back? Ah good, you're on the road to logical and moral organization of society.

Anarchism is basically the idea of an eye for an eye, which leads to the world going blind. I'm sorry, but you know what? I actually like not getting shot every time I step out of the House.