The 4th Democratic Primary Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
woolley said:
They have said the percentages during the debates. The rich aren't going anywhere and even if they do they still have to pay taxes as an American citizen.

The rich have to pay their fair share because they make 20x the money of an average person but don't spend 20x the amount of money. They use loopholes to keep from paying their share then keep the rest to make more money instead of spending it and helping to stimulate the economy, this is why trickle down economics doesn't work.
Click to expand...

"Fair share" often amounts to limiting/reducing tax loopholes and ensuring that capital gains -- which disproportionately benefit the well off -- are taxed at the normal rates of income. There may be some marginal tax rate at upper ends of the income bracket beyond that (all of which are well within historical norms or comparable rates to other OECD countries), but that's generally what the "fair share" euphemism amounts to.
 
mid83 said:
I asked this last night and I didn't see a response. My two biggest issues on why I'm having a hard time supporting the Democrats this year despite being pretty unhappy with the Republican field.

1. How much is their fair share in terms of the rich and corporations? People love this sound bite but nobody every says how high they plan to raise their taxes. It's great for political points since most people aren't and won't ever be rich, but people also seem to not realize that at some point increasing taxes on these groups will have a negative effect on our economy.

2. Hillary listing a number of policies they will make the 1% pay for brings up a related point. How on earth will all of these policies be paid for? There is only so much money you can take from the rich before it becomes to negatively effect our economy. Plus i don't doubt some of the rich will eventually leave if the tax situation gets bad enough, which means all their potential revenue goes with them. The point is, the ambitious programs being presented, especially from Sanders, can't possibly be paid by the ultra rich only. Like with his single payer proposal, it will require increased revenue from all Americsns, and I think it's time for the Democrats to be honest about it. At least Bernie is.
Click to expand...

You are parroting Fox News talking points, just so you know.

1. The balance of wealth has shifted dramatically to the rich in the past few decades - this is fact. They make more money, while the poor make less. That is not good, and hurts our economy, in addition to being morally suspect. THIS is what's hurting our economy. A healthier middle class means more spending power, more demand and thus more money flowing through our economy. The policies put in place over that time have lead to this happening. Corporations see record profits year after year.

2. Another disingenuous Fox News talking point that is parroted mindlessly. Policies we have in place right now - tax breaks for corporations, lower taxes on the rich than ever before, a big military budget - are massively expensive. Eliminating these will alone create a huge chunk of revenue. Healthcare expenditure is rising rapidly and occupies a large portion of our GOP compared to other countries - in other words, we are spending more on it than others yet are coming out worse in many health metrics. The ACA is just a step in the right direction. Will these policies require higher taxes? Yes, but again it's only part of it. To focus only on slightly higher taxes (Clinton era, during which we were doing very well) and ignore the corporate subsidies, tax loopholes, etc is extremely dishonest and just blatantly dumb.
 
Another thing I don't get about Sanders is that fiscally the US gov't is obviously far older than he is. It's approaching 230 years old. A ton of great programs have been introduced over that timeframe helping the poor and middle class that didn't follow his Robin Hood approach.
 
TheLaughingStock said:
Another thing I don't get about Sanders is that fiscally the US gov't is obviously far older than he is. It's approaching 230 years old. A ton of great programs have been introduced over that timeframe helping the poor and middle class that didn't follow his Robin Hood approach.
Click to expand...

Thanks for parroting blatant conservative braindead talking points.
 
BoboBrazil said:
A little over 7% of households watching. That is poor viewership. Republican debates are seeing 50-100% higher viewership on stations available in far fewer homes.
Click to expand...

It was the second highest rated debate on the Democratic side, and even that was on CNN vs. NBC versus CNN.

I just don't think there's as much spectacle on the Democratic side this time around. Even the Obama v. Hillary debates weren't getting this much viewership.
 
ivysaur12 said:
It was the second highest rated debate on the Democratic side, and even that was on CNN vs. NBC versus CNN.

I just don't think there's as much spectacle on the Democratic side this time around. Even the Obama v. Hillary debates weren't getting this much viewership.
Click to expand...

Going back and looking at the 2008 debates, it's interesting that Obama started taking the lead vs Hilary in February in polls. What caused the huge spike of support around that time for him? I doubt it will happen since Sanders isn't a good speaker, but it I guess it will be interesting to see what happens moving forward if Sanders gets some more support.
 
BoboBrazil said:
Going back and looking at the 2008 debates, it's interesting that Obama started taking the lead vs Hilary in February in polls. What caused the huge spike of support around that time for him? I doubt it will happen since Sanders isn't a good speaker, but it I guess it will be interesting to see what happens moving forward if Sanders gets some more support.
Click to expand...

He won Iowa and proved to african-americans that white people would vote for him, so they defected.
 
BoboBrazil said:
Going back and looking at the 2008 debates, it's interesting that Obama started taking the lead vs Hilary in February in polls. What caused the huge spike of support around that time for him? I doubt it will happen since Sanders isn't a good speaker, but it I guess it will be interesting to see what happens moving forward if Sanders gets some more support.
Click to expand...

Ted Kennedy endorsement and Super Tuesday.
 
The Dems need to have a Plan "B"....I think Hillary pulls out late in the game (excuse might be health) and not sure Bernie can do it......simply how the press labels him a socialist w/out listening to what he says. Could this allow Biden in at the last minute? He might look good after all the ridiculous debates. Just thinking out loud.....
 
RompinRaider said:
The Dems need to have a Plan "B"....I think Hillary pulls out late in the game (excuse might be health) and not sure Bernie can do it......simply how the press labels him a socialist w/out listening to what he says. Could this allow Biden in at the last minute? He might look good after all the ridiculous debates. Just thinking out loud.....
Click to expand...
bruh
 
RompinRaider said:
The Dems need to have a Plan "B"....I think Hillary pulls out late in the game (excuse might be health) and not sure Bernie can do it......simply how the press labels him a socialist w/out listening to what he says. Could this allow Biden in at the last minute? He might look good after all the ridiculous debates. Just thinking out loud.....
Click to expand...

lol no. Biden would have had to register by November to be on the ballot for the first primaries like New Hampshire, Nevada, etc.
 
RompinRaider said:
The Dems need to have a Plan "B"....I think Hillary pulls out late in the game (excuse might be health) and not sure Bernie can do it......simply how the press labels him a socialist w/out listening to what he says. Could this allow Biden in at the last minute? He might look good after all the ridiculous debates. Just thinking out loud.....
Click to expand...

Why do you think Clinton will pull out?
 
Your Entertainer said:
Thanks for parroting blatant conservative braindead talking points.
Click to expand...

I've never heard conservative talking points about what the US has done over time to help the poor and middle class, but ok. It's too late for Sanders, but maybe the next archliberal should move away from FDR the balanced budget nut paying for x, y, and z with high taxes to FDR the Keynesian committed to running deficits and issuing treasury securities to promote economic prosperity. It would help too if that person was committed to helping labor and our most vulnerable as much as possible all the time vs. just in crisis mode.
 
BoboBrazil said:
A little over 7% of households watching. That is poor viewership. Republican debates are seeing 50-100% higher viewership on stations available in far fewer homes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cuz democrats also watch the republican debate. That debate has multiple questions of who will say crazy shit, will trump finally get knocked down a peg, etc. Democratic debates aren't nearly as entertaining, and none change the rhetoric of Hillary being safe but kinda shady and not liked, while Bernie is ultra liberal but unelectable.
 
RompinRaider said:
The Dems need to have a Plan "B"....I think Hillary pulls out late in the game (excuse might be health) and not sure Bernie can do it......simply how the press labels him a socialist w/out listening to what he says. Could this allow Biden in at the last minute? He might look good after all the ridiculous debates. Just thinking out loud.....
Click to expand...

wat
 
BoboBrazil said:
Well Bill Clinton definitely won't lol. Hilary is cozied up next to Obama so he won't endorse Sanders either.
Click to expand...

Obama not endorsing anyone has nothing to do with him possibly preferring Clinton. Sitting Presidents don't endorse anyone in primaries. It would take something on the level of the Trump disaster currently happening to the GOP to get a sitting President to wade into a primary fight.
 
teruterubozu said:
Oddly he sounded like he was endorsing Bernie during the State of the Union - get special interests out of elections and politics, etc.
Click to expand...

Obama has talked about money and politics for a long time now. Don't forget that super pacs only came into existence after Citizens United and virtually every democrat opposes that decision. One of Obama's first legislative victories as president was about reducing lobbying and closing the revolving door from K street to congress (it didn't). So these are hardly new themes for Obama or him endorsign Bernie's ideas. I mean, these aren't even Bernie's ideas to begin with.
 
Hazmat said:
Obama not endorsing anyone has nothing to do with him possibly preferring Clinton. Sitting Presidents don't endorse anyone in primaries. It would take something on the level of the Trump disaster currently happening to the GOP to get a sitting President to wade into a primary fight.
Click to expand...

Ahh, makes sense.
 
BoboBrazil said:
A little over 7% of households watching. That is poor viewership. Republican debates are seeing 50-100% higher viewership on stations available in far fewer homes.
Click to expand...

The only reason anybody is tuning into the Republican debate is to watch how Trump will outdo himself this time around. When you have two candidates saying more or less the same thing as the other, and doing so in a generally cordial way, it doesn't make for compelling television. However, I'd rather have boring, plain debates than whatever crazy shit the other side is doing.
 
RompinRaider said:
The Dems need to have a Plan "B"....I think Hillary pulls out late in the game (excuse might be health) and not sure Bernie can do it......simply how the press labels him a socialist w/out listening to what he says. Could this allow Biden in at the last minute? He might look good after all the ridiculous debates. Just thinking out loud.....
Click to expand...



RompinRaider said:
Laws and rules don't seem to matter anymore...I'm not pushing Biden but Hillary will never win.
Click to expand...

What are you even talking about?
 
damisa said:
But Sanders really does demonize Wall Street though, his exact words were "I think that the business model of Wall Street is fraud." Fraud is a felony, he is implying that all of Wall street are criminals who's business model is stealing.

It's a very easy target to hate on Wall Street(even Republicans like Trump and Cruz do it), but there are tons of people who work there who are just doing their jobs and not doing anything wrong. All wall street actually does is help people who want to invest in companies find companies who need investors to grow their business, that's it. You can call for increased regulations and taxes without constantly demonizing in important American industry
Click to expand...

He's not a fan of Wall Street. Agreed. My point was that he and most of his supported don't hate all rich people simply because they are rich. It's how they got there that's the issue.

I also don't interpret calling the business model of Wall Street a fraud as the same as calling everybody who works there guilty of a felony. Individuals are only liable for misdeeds of their employer in a a few very limited ways in which they directly and generally willingly commit a criminal act.
 
damisa said:
But Sanders really does demonize Wall Street though, his exact words were "I think that the business model of Wall Street is fraud." Fraud is a felony, he is implying that all of Wall street are criminals who's business model is stealing.
Click to expand...

The market crash of 2008 would show you it was and most likely still is a corrupt and fruadulant system.

That doesn't mean everyone is in cahoots to make it a fraudulent system but they certainly went along with it.
 
giphy.gif
 
lednerg said:
That's Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in the green, receiving a very un-heartfelt handshake from Bernie. She's the head of the DNC, the one who came up with the Dem's horrible debate schedule among other shitty things. Probably the most hated DNC chair in recent memory, if not ever.
Click to expand...

She sucks so bad! What happened to her?? I didn't think she was terrible when she first became chair.
 
She had perpetual foot in mouth syndrome, ran a bad 2014 mid term where the party tried to run away from Obama, and is perceived to be playing favourites with Clinton in the primaries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom