|
big_scrappy97
Lurker


Registered: 07/01/14
Posts: 238
Loc: United States of America
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
I support your desire to vote third party. The two party system is flawed and corrupt. I'm amazed how many Bernie voters have expressed desire to support Hilary, the antithesis of everything he's stood for
I completely agree and am actually quite frustrated not just with the supporters, but with Bernie as well. He really should have stood in front of or behind another progressive movement like Jill Stein's since she is almost exactly in line with what he was trying to spread.
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Maybe you can tell me how our country is similar to those, making a transition to those socialist style governments even possible (I've been asking this question for months, the progressive circle jerk here just gets mad and resorts to name calling, as evidenced above...)
I don't plan on calling names at this time but no promises.  I am totally kidding. It won't get us anywhere in this conversation.
Anyway, to compare us and all those other countries. We already have some semi-democratic socialist programs like Medicare and SNAP. Now, I I am reasonable and don't want a nation of free loaders. Programs like SNAP and Section 8 actually need to be watched closer and need to be more difficult to join. I know several people who unfortunately use the system. However, that is a somewhat separate issue.
Now, for programs like universal healthcare and debt-free college tuition. In order to get these programs, taxes will inevitably be raised. However, there are ways we can limit those tax hikes. First of all, we need to cut our fossil fuel subsidies from huge, already highly profitable companies like Exxon. Then, we would have to raise the capital gains tax rate after $250,000 made from capital gains. I am not saying to raise it altogether since that would discourage people from investing in the first place. After that, we would have to limit tax loopholes. Next, we would raise taxes, mainly on people making above $250,000. Finally, we would have to give it time.
I say the last thing about time because at first, some people will not be happy with the somewhat hike on taxes. Most will already be fine with it and in support. Over 2/3 of the nation is in support of a single-payer healthcare system and the decision about tax funded college tuition is split 50:50. But, just remember FDR's original ideas about a minimum wage, overtime pay, child labor laws, social security, and government funded jobs were all considered socialist and communist at one point.
--------------------
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Anyway, to compare us and all those other countries. We already have some semi-democratic socialist programs like Medicare and SNAP. Now, I I am reasonable and don't want a nation of free loaders.
But that is what we already have, and expanding these programs would make it worse
Quote:
First of all, we need to cut our fossil fuel subsidies from huge, already highly profitable companies like Exxon
Even the most progressive publications only come up with about 25 Billion that could be saved by ending fossil fuel subsidies, most analysts project the cost of universal healthcare alone to be around 1 trillion a year, ending fossil fuel subsides doesn't even make a dent in paying for it
Quote:
Next, we would raise taxes, mainly on people making above $250,000.
Only 2% of Americans even make over 250k a year, that's only about 6 million people, and they already pay 45% of all income taxes, it simply isn't feasible to tax 2% of the population high enough to pay for health care and free college for the remaining 300 million
Quote:
But, just remember FDR's original ideas about a minimum wage, overtime pay, child labor laws, social security, and government funded jobs were all considered socialist and communist at one point.
They still are socialist, I don't know what has changed about that, other than we've accepted the concept of govt taking care of us from cradle to grave
I fail to see the relevance of child labor laws when discussing government social programs, clearly it is not one
Social security is bankrupt, I'd hardly use that as an example of a govt social program working efficiently
|
big_scrappy97
Lurker



Registered: 07/01/14
Posts: 238
Loc: United States of America
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
Anyway, to compare us and all those other countries. We already have some semi-democratic socialist programs like Medicare and SNAP. Now, I I am reasonable and don't want a nation of free loaders.
But that is what we already have, and expanding these programs would make it worse
Quote:
First of all, we need to cut our fossil fuel subsidies from huge, already highly profitable companies like Exxon
Even the most progressive publications only come up with about 25 Billion that could be saved by ending fossil fuel subsidies, most analysts project the cost of universal healthcare alone to be around 1 trillion a year, ending fossil fuel subsides doesn't even make a dent in paying for it
Quote:
Next, we would raise taxes, mainly on people making above $250,000.
Only 2% of Americans even make over 250k a year, that's only about 6 million people, and they already pay 45% of all income taxes, it simply isn't feasible to tax 2% of the population high enough to pay for health care and free college for the remaining 300 million
Quote:
But, just remember FDR's original ideas about a minimum wage, overtime pay, child labor laws, social security, and government funded jobs were all considered socialist and communist at one point.
They still are socialist, I don't know what has changed about that, other than we've accepted the concept of govt taking care of us from cradle to grave
I fail to see the relevance of child labor laws when discussing government social programs, clearly it is not one
Social security is bankrupt, I'd hardly use that as an example of a govt social program working efficiently
Goodness gracious. 
I don't have the time nor want to spend my time typing out and breaking down every single step and detail. Here is the EXACT tax plan step by step that will work for health care...
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/friedman-memo-1.pdf
...and here is the EXACT tax plan step by step that will pay for college..
http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_401-450/WP414.pdf
...if you don't want to read that entire tax plan then I will just explain. It is simply a Wall Street speculation tax that he puts down to predict to be roughly $300 billion. However, it is really estimated to rake in roughly $60 billion. The projected cost is $75 billion. That is still a substantial amount of tuition being paid. The rest can just land on the one going to college. It would basically be a system that Germany had about a year ago.
If this exact breakdown still isn't enough for you, then you're a lost cause.
--------------------
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 8 hours, 16 minutes
|
|
Quote:
big_scrappy97 said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Catch up with Venezuela? Greece? We are already a bankrupt nation, we don't need to catch up with those countries
No, countries like Denmark, Norway, and Sweeden are what we should strive to be more like. They happen to have high voter turnouts, be some of the happiest countries in the world, and have a high standard of living.
We spend more than the next 13 countries combined on our military. It is simple. Cut military spending and put all that money back to the people. We are in the mess we are now because of Bush and Clinton. Clinton allowed anyone and everyone to get a loan even though they couldn't afford paying off that amount. On top of that, Bush cut taxes while sending troops to an oversea war. Bush set the capital gains tax rate at 10-15% for most investors and 0% for low income investors. You will most likely never hear of a low income investor because they simply cannot afford to spend that after paying for their bills. So, this mainly benefits the rich since most rates are taxed 20% higher than the capital gains taxes. This costed us $457 billion in the last 4 years just from one of the many tax breaks Bush put into place. Both parties are to blame.
I can't stand how our country has allowed a two party system for so long. Both Hillary and Trump are the most untrusted nominees in all of U.S. history. I have to say I hate both candidates, but Trump is surely more trustworthy than Hillary which is saying a lot. This could very well be a third party year. If Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were allowed to debate, I would obviously vote Jill Stein. However, if it were just Gary Johnson, I would still vote for him over corrupt Hillary or racist Trump.
Who pays for the ultimate military security of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden?
Who is suggesting that these countries start paying the US for this security?
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
big_scrappy97 said: Goodness gracious. 
I don't have the time nor want to spend my time typing out and breaking down every single step and detail.
You shouldn't waste your time explaining, because it's already been explained for hostileuniverse many, many times.
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Bernies socialist utopia plan has been debunked repeatedly...
You've tried to debunk it repeatedly, but we've gone through the math together many times and proved your articles were factually incorrect. Would you like another math lesson?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
big_scrappy97 said: Goodness gracious. 
I don't have the time nor want to spend my time typing out and breaking down every single step and detail.
You shouldn't waste your time explaining, because it's already been explained for hostileuniverse many, many times.
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Bernies socialist utopia plan has been debunked repeatedly...
You've tried to debunk it repeatedly, but we've gone through the math together many times and proved your articles were factually incorrect. Would you like another math lesson?
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: I'm a lost cause because I don't want to bankrupt the people of the US? Okay then...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/02/12/how-bernie-sanders-wont-pay-for-his-proposals/#77d37bf3200d
Even progressives, the very people who supported Bernie and his nonsense, don't think his plans would have worked
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/19/progressive-economists-sanders-economic
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-do-sanders-economic-plans-add-cost-his-revolution-2326247
Just because you throw a bunch of numbers together, doesn't mean that you magically get what you want.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/04/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-wall-street-tax-would-pay-his-/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/13/how-three-key-claims-in-sanders-robin-hood-financial-tax-simply-dont-hold-water/
http://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/bernie-sanders-single-payer-plan-has-big-feasibility-problem.html
Bernies socialist utopia plan has been debunked repeatedly...
DEBUNKED REPEATEDLY
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Would you like another math lesson?
I'm a lost cause because I don't want to bankrupt the people of the US? Okay then...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/02/12/how-bernie-sanders-wont-pay-for-his-proposals/#77d37bf3200d
Even progressives, the very people who supported Bernie and his nonsense, don't think his plans would have worked
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/19/progressive-economists-sanders-economic
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-do-sanders-economic-plans-add-cost-his-revolution-2326247
Just because you throw a bunch of numbers together, doesn't mean that you magically get what you want.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/04/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-wall-street-tax-would-pay-his-/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/13/how-three-key-claims-in-sanders-robin-hood-financial-tax-simply-dont-hold-water/
http://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/bernie-sanders-single-payer-plan-has-big-feasibility-problem.html
Bernies socialist utopia plan has been debunked repeatedly...
DEBUNKED REPEATEDLY
Yes, those articles have been debunked repeatedly. Please review this post (and the follow up discussion) as an example of how we pay for Bernie's proposals.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
Yea, Even the progressives have debunked those numbers
Most economists have thoroughly debunked Bernies retarded plan, very few have endorsed it, that's a fact
Edited by hostileuniverse (08/01/16 08:57 PM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
It's a fact that we went through the numbers in detail and proved them in the link above. If you're unable to follow the math, then shut up. Otherwise, let us know where we got it wrong.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
big_scrappy97
Lurker



Registered: 07/01/14
Posts: 238
Loc: United States of America
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Would you like another math lesson?
I'm a lost cause because I don't want to bankrupt the people of the US? Okay then...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/02/12/how-bernie-sanders-wont-pay-for-his-proposals/#77d37bf3200d
Even progressives, the very people who supported Bernie and his nonsense, don't think his plans would have worked
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/19/progressive-economists-sanders-economic
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-do-sanders-economic-plans-add-cost-his-revolution-2326247
Just because you throw a bunch of numbers together, doesn't mean that you magically get what you want.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/04/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-wall-street-tax-would-pay-his-/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/13/how-three-key-claims-in-sanders-robin-hood-financial-tax-simply-dont-hold-water/
http://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/bernie-sanders-single-payer-plan-has-big-feasibility-problem.html
Bernies socialist utopia plan has been debunked repeatedly...
DEBUNKED REPEATEDLY
Yes, those articles have been debunked repeatedly. Please review this post (and the follow up discussion) as an example of how we pay for Bernie's proposals.
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: I'm a lost cause because I don't want to bankrupt the people of the US? Okay then...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/02/12/how-bernie-sanders-wont-pay-for-his-proposals/#77d37bf3200d
Even progressives, the very people who supported Bernie and his nonsense, don't think his plans would have worked
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/19/progressive-economists-sanders-economic
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-do-sanders-economic-plans-add-cost-his-revolution-2326247
Just because you throw a bunch of numbers together, doesn't mean that you magically get what you want.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/04/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-wall-street-tax-would-pay-his-/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/13/how-three-key-claims-in-sanders-robin-hood-financial-tax-simply-dont-hold-water/
http://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/bernie-sanders-single-payer-plan-has-big-feasibility-problem.html
Bernies socialist utopia plan has been debunked repeatedly...
Even if trading was reduced by 50% we would still raise $352 billion over the course of a year..and we only need $75 billion for tuition free college.
The last article literally proves nothing. It just reiterates his tax plan and never actually says where he is wrong.
I just love how Republicans are fine with going to an oversea war, but the moment we want to put our taxes back to the people there is huge outrage.
Now let's hear your stance on economics and taxes. What? Continue the trend of Warren Buffet paying less than his secretary in taxes? Continue the trend of wealth inequality when the top .1% owns just as much as the .1% did in the 1920's? Continue the trend of being indebted from the start of adult life because of college? Continue the trend of 1/10 Americans being uninsured? Continue to waste trillions of tax dollars from being an imperialistic nation? Please, let's hear it.

Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: It's a fact that we went through the numbers in detail and proved them in the link above. If you're unable to follow the math, then shut up. Otherwise, let us know where we got it wrong.
I should have just listened to you in the first place. Once people have their mind set, it is set even with cold hard facts slapping them in the face.
--------------------
Edited by big_scrappy97 (08/02/16 06:16 AM)
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
The cold hard facts have been linked, I'm sorry you two don't understand them, but I'm not gonna read them for you...
Don't be mistaken, it's not me disputing your numbers, it's reason magazine, run by progressives... And a myriad of other economists, maybe you can go explain to them why they're wrong, LMFAO!
In other news, THANK YOU NY POST!!!
http://www.thebarbedwiresatire.com/ny-post/
Quote:
NEW YORK – A few Americans were shocked at the photos of a naked Melania Trump, Donald Trump’s wife, on the front page of the NY Post yesterday. Thankfully, the paper has promised ALL Americans that they will not be subjected to having to see naked pictures of Bill Clinton’s wife.
Quote:
Despite the fact that she did some modeling of her own, the Post says there will be no similar pictures of Hillary Clinton gracing their cover. Hillary has posed for Ample Cankles, Panthouse (a sister publication to Penthouse, but with models appearing topless and wearing only the bottom half of a smart pantsuit), Piano-legged Politicians, and Goldman Sex
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 8 hours, 16 minutes
|
|
"raise $352 billion (from WS trading)"
Please explain.
|
big_scrappy97
Lurker



Registered: 07/01/14
Posts: 238
Loc: United States of America
|
Re: Democrats. [Re: qman] 1
#23501968 - 08/02/16 01:49 PM (7 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: The cold hard facts have been linked, I'm sorry you two don't understand them, but I'm not gonna read them for you...
Don't be mistaken, it's not me disputing your numbers, it's reason magazine, run by progressives... And a myriad of other economists, maybe you can go explain to them why they're wrong, LMFAO!
In other news, THANK YOU NY POST!!!
http://www.thebarbedwiresatire.com/ny-post/
Quote:
NEW YORK – A few Americans were shocked at the photos of a naked Melania Trump, Donald Trump’s wife, on the front page of the NY Post yesterday. Thankfully, the paper has promised ALL Americans that they will not be subjected to having to see naked pictures of Bill Clinton’s wife.
Quote:
Despite the fact that she did some modeling of her own, the Post says there will be no similar pictures of Hillary Clinton gracing their cover. Hillary has posed for Ample Cankles, Panthouse (a sister publication to Penthouse, but with models appearing topless and wearing only the bottom half of a smart pantsuit), Piano-legged Politicians, and Goldman Sex
Oh my. I can't believe I just debated someone who thinks a site with "satire" in its name is a reputable site.

Quote:
qman said: "raise $352 billion (from WS trading)"
Please explain.
With a .5% tax rate on stock trades, a .1% tax rate on bond trades, and a tax rate of .005% on derivatives would easily generate that much. The U.S. stocks are worth $25 trillion. There are $300 billion worth of trades a day. I think you can do the math.
Still don't believe me? Here is a peer reviewed paper written by graduates of Amherst.
http://www.peri.umass.edu/236/hash/73719726ffadd0cd22d52981724e90f5/publication/698/
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: The cold hard facts have been linked, I'm sorry you two don't understand them, but I'm not gonna read them for you...
We read them and we refuted them. Pick your favorite article and I'll prove we understand the numbers perfectly and we can discuss the math (I'm a math major). It's you that sits back every time and says "DUUUUUHHHHHH". Go ahead, pick an article...
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 1 day, 19 minutes
|
|
Gotta say, I needed several stiff drinks to get through this thread since my last post. *sigh*.
I fully support a non-two-party system. We need to get closer to where Germany is, with parties that are specific to their candidates that are required to work together to get a popular vote. Personally, I hate democratic policies regarding nuclear power. I think every city in the country should have a nuclear plant powering the place. This is, and always has been, a very republican view. Of course, I can't in good conscience support any other republican views, so I've consistently voted democrat ever since I gained US citizenship and was legally allowed to vote.
Anyway, back on topic (ish). I would like to point out a few interesting graphs. Linked here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/07/the-story-behind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/
Republicans have pretty consistently outspent democrats in terms of real purchasing power every single time they have held the office of the president. Seems a little bit contrary to the idea of "less government", personally, but I may be wrong. Maybe spending more federal money on federal expenditures somehow reduces the amount of government. Hollywood bookkeeping and all that.
My biggest problem is the obvious oxymoron of increasing military spending and simultaneously reducing the deficit. Given a consistent cash inflow, greater spending on the military would cause greater cash outflow...Of course, again, Hollywood bookkeeping may prove me wrong, in the sense that spending more money somehow saves money, but I'm no economist.
Having used the above as a counter to most "less Guv'ment!" redneck calls, let's get into things that matter. Specifically, welfare, and spending money on keeping people out of poverty. Yes, sure, there are a few examples of welfare queens. As a matter of fact, I have met some during my time as a salesman for the lifeline program. The funny thing is, almost every "definition" welfare queen wanted a job. Many even had part time jobs. It's just that at a certain point/income level, it is easier to stay unemployed and collect benefits than it is to get a minimum wage job and no longer be eligible for benefits. I have in my time met many people who lived below the poverty line, and when I asked them why they didn't try to get out, they simply said: "It's not worth it". This isn't to say that they *wanted* to stay reliant on welfare, it is simply that at a certain point, it makes sense to stay in a lower tax bracket.
I will use this paragraph to illustrate the first of two examples, one of subsistence poverty and one of upper middle class. The first, subsistence poverty, sounds terrible. You are literally in poverty to the point where you can barely survive. This is common throughout the US (1/6th is on food stamps). A minimum wage of 7.50$/hr, if you work 40 hour weeks, is just barely over the poverty line for one person households ($7.50/hr= $15,600/yr). Two person household poverty line is $16,020/yr. Of course, very few people making minimum wage actually work 40 hour weeks. The average daily shift length at McD's (apparently the national standard, talk about low standards...) is 4-6hr/day. This comes out to... $7.8k-11.6k per year, which is below poverty. These people literally do not get enough money to live according to poverty calculations.
Next, let's talk about a situation which is much closer to home for me. My household recently went up a tax bracket, and is now considered upper middle class to upper class. Sure, my salary boost was nice and shiny, but I fought against it. Why? Because my next salary hike would be years away, and the increase in tax bracket reduced my household real income by about 10%. I personally don't mind paying taxes, and I ended up losing about $5-7k/yr in real income as a result of increased taxes. The nice thing is that if I move up another tax bracket, I'd be considered rich, and while my theoretical tax rate and therefore deduction would increase, my real income would increase because the taxes are not as severe in terms of cost/benefit analysis.
This is an example of a truly messed up system. I would pay more taxes as "upper middle class" than I would as "upper class". Welfare is worth it as long as your skills do not provide enough real income to cover the discrepancy between welfare and lower class, which is true of pretty much every lower class citizen, as a high school diploma from the US is worth about as much as a burning bag of shit when it comes to finding a job.
This is, of course, not even touching on the absolute poverty present in the country, such as the truly homeless. I find it interesting that keeping homeless people homeless costs an average of twice as much in taxpayer money per person than simply giving them a cheap rent free apartment. Mostly because homeless people will go to the ER or commit minor crimes for a warm (prison) bed/meals, which is insanely more expensive than simply covering their rent using taxpayer dollars. Of course, if we were to just pay for their apartments and rehabilitation, we wouldn't have the equivalent of urban clowns to laugh at. Too bad that ability to laugh at urban clowns and panhandlers runs the taxpayer an extra approximately $20k/yr/person.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: The cold hard facts have been linked, I'm sorry you two don't understand them, but I'm not gonna read them for you...
We read them and we refuted them. Pick your favorite article and I'll prove we understand the numbers perfectly and we can discuss the math (I'm a math major). It's you that sits back every time and says "DUUUUUHHHHHH". Go ahead, pick an article...
Oh you're a math major? So you can add and subtract, good for you, are you an economist?
sorry Charlie, I'll still believe published economists over YOU any day of the week
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: sorry Charlie, I'll still believe published economists over YOU any day of the week
And there are a boatload of economists who agree with Bernie. The only way to resolve it is to look at the numbers, which is exactly what we've done in past posts like the one I linked to above.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: sorry Charlie, I'll still believe published economists over YOU any day of the week
And there are a boatload of economists who agree with Bernie. The only way to resolve it is to look at the numbers, which is exactly what we've done in past posts like the one I linked to above.
Right, and you choose to believe progressive economists who want the numbers to work knowing full well once instituted, it will have have to be funded, no matter what the cost
I choose to believe the ones who don't care about agendas, only facts
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: there are a boatload of economists who agree with Bernie. The only way to resolve it is to look at the numbers, which is exactly what we've done in past posts like the one I linked to above.
Right, and you choose to believe progressive economists who want the numbers to work knowing full well once instituted, it will have have to be funded, no matter what the cost
Wrong again, Mr Straw Man King. I choose the ones who back their results with verifiable calculations.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
|