Soooo, What's the Difference Between a Democrat and a Socialist?
- Thread starter Nuk'EM Heels
- Start date
Man, I just loves me some Debbie Wasserman Schultz . .
You go Girl . . !
Wow. Billy you need help bud.
Well, I'm also a very big Sarah Palin fan . . after all, she's done more for the democratic party than Debbie has.
LOL
The truth is there is very little, if zero, difference between a Democrat and a Socialist. DWS knows this full well; and, she also knows that if she told the truth there would be no way to keep that off the political adds and kills DEMs. So, she's not willing to give an answer to that direct question..
Capitalism also builds roads, schools, and much more than socialism. I'm an unabashed capitalist pig and lovin' it!
"Because in America taxes contributed by everyone but the top 1% pay for roads and schools." Are you off your meds today?!?! The top 1% pays a huge percentage of all taxes in the US:
The top-earning 1 percent of Americans will pay nearly half of the federal income taxes for 2014, the largest share in at least three years, according to a study.
According to a projection from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of Americans will pay 45.7 percent of the individual income taxes in 2014—up from 43 percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2012 (the oldest period available). (Tweet this)
The bottom 80 percent of Americans are expected to pay 15 percent of all federal income taxes in 2014, according to the study. The bottom 60 percent are expected to pay less than 2 percent of federal income taxes.
You get over it.
Right. Kinda funny how they pay around 40% of the tax burden, while also taking 99% of all new wealth. Seems a little disproportional
Also, its kinda funny how you trashed NBC in the other thread and then shared a busted link from NBC as part of your argument here. lol that's just pathetic Nukey
Also, its kinda funny how you trashed NBC in the other thread and then shared a busted link from NBC as part of your argument here. lol that's just pathetic Nukey
No, I just know the differences in the way the news is approached by various news outlets. The fact you don't proves your ignorance.
A see you actually have no response to the non-partisan organization reporting these facts execpt to give the usual 99% vs 1% whine - a highly partisan and highly LIBERAL and LAME retort.
Actually I gave a response, which you clearly know because you just quoted it.
Of course, as soon as the numbers stop supporting your argument they are "highly partisan and highly LIBERAL and LAME." What part of this is too hard for you to understand? Roughly 40% tax burden, 99% of all income. Most people are smart enough to understand why that is a problem. Its time for the 1% to start pulling their weight, or GTFO.
Of course, as soon as the numbers stop supporting your argument they are "highly partisan and highly LIBERAL and LAME." What part of this is too hard for you to understand? Roughly 40% tax burden, 99% of all income. Most people are smart enough to understand why that is a problem. Its time for the 1% to start pulling their weight, or GTFO.
You've been sold a BS idea that only benefits a group that you will never be a part of. As long as lower and middle class Americans continue to fight each other over crumbs, the fat cats will continue to make off with the whole cake.
This 1% non-sense is hard-left, RADICAL LEFT, crap. And, you claim to be an independent!
The statistics speak for themselves. They don't have to be politicized to make their point.
Your response was LAME and HARD LEFT-WING. Where are you getting the line that 1% of ALL taxpayers make 99% of ALL income?!?!??! That's crap... And, you're lazy.
Let's do a little fact checking:
The facts
There are different ways to measure “income,” and the exact figures vary depending on the time frame and whether taxes and government benefits are considered. The key studies on this topic look at different measures, data sets and time frames, so there is no accurate comparison between studies.
Sanders’s office pointed to a New York Times article by Justin Wolfers, a University of Michigan economics professor, that compared the growth in average income among Americans between 2009 and 2012-2013, excluding capital gains. The average income for the top 1 percent rose while the average income for the 99 percent fell, and “so far, all of the gains from the recovery have gone to the 1 percent,” the article said. This is where Sanders’s “99 percent” figure comes from.
Wolfers’s article analyzed research by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Saez, along with Paris School of Economics professor Thomas Piketty, has produced research that is one of the most widely cited sources for assertions that the economic recovery has disproportionately benefited the richest 1 percent of Americans. Wolfers said he used Saez’s research to generate his findings; Saez confirmed the calculation in an e-mail.
A January update of Saez’s report shows that the top 1 percent captured 91 percent of the total growth in the 2009-2012 period. The top 1 percent in 2013 had incomes above $392,000, the report said.
But top tax rates increased in 2013 — a change Sanders supported — and led many wealthy Americans to shift taxable income into 2012 instead of 2013. So the 2012 top estimate probably is skewed high, and the 2013 likely is too low.
The Saez/Piketty research defines income as the sum of the pre-tax cash income reported on individual tax returns, such as wages, salaries, pensions and capital income. It used realized capital gains, but also provided numbers that excluded them. It does not include any government transfer programs. The 2013 data was preliminary tax filings from the Internal Revenue Service. This is a narrow definition of household income that skews toward the top of the income distribution and is likely to show the most extreme rise in income inequality.
Critics of this research say the method is too narrow. Others have used the Current Population Survey by the Census Bureau that does not show as big of a gain in the top 1 percent, but census data is known to be unreliable for this information because not enough people in that population respond to census surveys.
Another important context is that the top 1 percent saw a steep decline in income compared with the rest of the percentile, when the financial industry crashed. As the stock market recovers, this population will earn significantly more in capital gains than the 99 percent. Figure 1 in Saez’s research update shows how the income increases when capital gains are included.
One study that offers context for other factors in the income inequality debate is by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It is not an apples-to-apples comparison to the Saez study, but it is a broader look at income by including benefits from government transfer programs, such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.
Although these benefits are not provided in cash, they are included in the income calculation because they “increase people’s ability to purchase consumer goods and services,” according to the November 2014 CBO report. This calculation includes automatic stabilizers (such as food stamps, unemployment insurance and earned income tax credit) that more lower-income families qualified for through the recession and the slow recovery, to make up for lost income.
The CBO report looks at 1979 through 2011, the most recent data available for its calculation. Government transfers increase the incomes of lower-income groups significantly more than higher-income groups, the CBO found. In 2011, transfers accounted for more than one-third of before-tax income for the bottom two income quintiles.
Federal tax rates rise with income. CBO found that after taxes, the income levels for the lowest and middle quintiles were higher than the measure that Saez used. The top 1 percent of Americans had an average tax rate of 29 percent, while Americans in the bottom four quintiles paid between 1.9 percent to about 15 percent. By 2013, CBO estimated, the top 1 percent would pay 33.3 percent in federal taxes.
Sanders is a proponent of raising taxes on the wealthy and protecting government transfer programs. Yet the statistics he uses do not reflect those factors.
When asked why he used an income calculation that disregards steps taken to help Americans in the 99 percent, his spokesman Michael Briggs wrote: “Saez and the senator both are looking at how the market economy is distributing income gains. Yes, there are programs that help keep some families afloat. But the senator’s remarks were focused on the unevenness of the recovery and the extent to which income gains are flowing directly to the 1 percent. The fact that there is redirection via transfer programs does not undercut the accuracy of what he said.”
The Pinocchio Test
The various income-inequality measures make it difficult to draw accurate comparisons between studies. In addition, there is no comparable research for 2012 and 2013 (the years that Sanders uses) to compare how the recovery would look under a broader definition of “income.” Sanders is correct that the top 1 percent of Americans have benefited disproportionately, but there is dispute over just how much.
The calculation Sanders cites is one measure, but it is a specific and narrow one that skews toward a more extreme portrayal of income inequality. His statement also disregards the impact of programs that were designed to mitigate the impact on Americans with far less cash income than the wealthy, which provides context in the debate over income inequality. He earns One Pinocchio.
One Pinocchio
Yeah, if she stays on as DNC Chairwoman, the GOP may actually obtain a filibuster and veto proof majority in 2016! And, win the WH!!!Man, I just loves me some Debbie Wasserman Schultz . .
You go Girl . . !
May as well swap every 8 years or so, since we're supposedly driving the bus
Obstructing traffic is not 'driving the bus' . .
This pretty much sums up the Republican party right now. "Damn your democracy, we don't care what the American people want"
No, not really, and you sound like sour grapes because your liberal DEMs lost the House in 2010 and then the Senate in 2014, both free and fair elections. And, INDEPs are allowed to participate in the electoral process and have every opportunity to show their stuff... Heck, I even voted for one in the VA governors race a couple of years ago, and we got McAwful instead. Damn that democracy...
OBTW, DEMs are only going to have six debates, evidently to insulate HillBill from any possible harm... "Damn your Democracy, we don't care what the American people want..."
Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley is taking his party to task for issuing a primary debate schedule that he says clearly insulates front runner Hillary Clinton from harm on her way to a possible nomination.
The former governor of Maryland told reporters that the debate schedule – trimmed to six from more than 25 in 2008 – represents a circling of wagons around Clinton, who is clearly ahead of her Democratic challengers. He is joined by fellow Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is also calling for more debates.
“This is not how democracy works,” O’Malley told supporters in a fundraising letter Thursday. “It’s ridiculous. The campaign for presidency should be about giving voters an opportunity to hear from every candidate and decide on the issues, not stacking the deck in favor of a chosen candidate.”
Your liberal DEMs showing their true colors this election cycle.
Last edited:
Didn't Chris Christie just say that he would overturn the ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in Colorado? A ballot initiative is the most direct form of democracy we have in this country, and Christie isn't the only conservative that has spit in its face.
So how do you feel about the state ballots which banned gay marriage? Should federal law supersede the will of the people in those states?
And FTR, I support gay marriage and legal weed.
A ballot initiative cannot override the Bill of Rights. At that point the federal government is forced to intervene to protect the rights of those citizens. The legalization of recreational use of marijuana for adults in no way infringes upon anyone's right. There are too many people who think they have the right to prohibit others from living their lives the way they choose. I'm glad you support it, lets keep the change in the zeitgeist moving so we actually stop people from getting locked up, or worse killed over such silliness.
I really don't get the people who are opposed to marijuana legalization. What is it with Conservatives who are supposed to hate the government telling them what to do, being content with the government outlawing a freakin' plant? Or any drug for that matter? Why do they want the government to decide who can and cant get married? Why do they want the government telling women they cant have abortions? Seems like there are some closet liberals hiding out on the right.
Okay, unlike yourself I'm not simple minded enough to fall for the bi-partisan charade that our government has become. Just about everyone in D.C. has been bought and sold ten times over. The only hope this country has is to elect not only a president, but congress-men and women that will radically reject the influence of money in politics so that we can stop basing our policy on what makes the rich richer, and start basing policy on what will be the most effective solution to our problems. I supported Ron Paul, now I support Bernie Sanders. They have very different politics, but they share a commonality in the fact that they want to upset the current balance that is shafting 99% of the American people and corrupting our democracy.
It isn't hard for the media to marginalize guys like Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul. Especially when 90% of the networks, newspaper, and magazines in the country are owned by one of six corporations. They go against the grain. They want to tip the scales back in our favor. They may not agree on the way we should do that, but one look at their voting records show that they are the very rare types of men with integrity that stand for what they believe in, instead of putting themselves at the mercy of big time campaign donors. That kind of integrity is something that should be a prerequisite for being POTUS and you sure as hell wont see it from Hillary, or anyone I've seen from the right. If you think supporting one politician entirely defines someones ideology then you are truly simple minded. If you think the country is divided exclusively between republicans and democrats then you really need help. I want nothing to do with your tribal politics. I'm just going to ignore any further attempted labeling. It's tribal and childish.
Boy I do agree everyone has been bought and sold. However all of your comments on this board clearly indicate you are either ultra liberal or socialist and both will destroy this country. Your disbelief in God Almighty is your first mistake.
So, you agree with the logic, but you can't trust him because he doesn't believe there's a Man In The Sky keeping track of all of us. Your religion has basically diminished God to being just that. Without realizing it, you've subscribed to that idea, either consciously or subconsciously.
His comments may reflect a liberal mind. But, you people need to understand what true Liberalism really means. Neo-conservative is not conservative in a traditional sense. Liberal minds founded this country, okay? Breaking from tradition and from the monarchy, choosing to be individualized and independent from the traditional "care provider." Most religions force their members to subjugate to something like a King, metaphorically and literally. It's basically impossible to break from that in a social/political sense as well. Most people here have their "conservatism" fed to them from sources like Fox News Channel. That's not conservative at all. It's a regression of thought and it's becoming more and more like a cult.
Similar threads
