Why? Because Bernie, unfortunately, doesn't have a party in control of Congress. He is almost alone as the voice of reason.

Why do we elect people that are self-admittedly against the voice of reason then...

Taxes not progressive enough - Commie douchebag.

Yeah no thanks, Lenin.

Hi Sbyvl.

Oh, wait, huh?

Woah, arguing that taxes should be increased is the same as overthrowing the capitalist state with a worker's revolution? I guess I'm now comrades with Joseph Stiglitz :(

Acosmist: You sound like Colbert, ha ha.

bo_sox48: Because there is no third party with a real plan to take power and because there is no large-scale/concentrated effort to convince U. S. citizens that there is another way.

There is no physical way a third party could ever take power. The numerous two-party coalitions throughout 200 years have ensured that will remain, and until the electoral system has been replaced with something truly representative and debates are open to all the candidates instead of separating the "inferior" ones into their own debate, there's no way a third party will have any shot.

bo_sox48: A third party could cannibalize its ideologically closest major party, though. 'Third party' candidates can beat Democrats in primaries. And it would probably be necessary to concentrate on one state first rather than nationally.

I could see the Republican party splitting in half and picking up some moderate Democrats to forma a 3rd party.

"I could see the Republican party splitting in half and picking up some moderate Democrats to forma a 3rd party."

Except it's not the "moderate" Republicans that are likely to split off from the Republican Party. If a 3rd party ever succeeds, the national delusion of political bipolarism will have to be shattered first. This is happening now as people of all opinions realize there really is no difference at the top between the Republicrats and the Demopublicans - both want bigger government, more wars, and less freedom for us Little People.

"Except it's not the "moderate" Republicans that are likely to split off from the Republican Party."

Why? They must be getting pretty annoyed losing election and being associated with a bunch of right-wing nut jobs.

Because the "moderates" are the people who have control of the party now. If there is a serious breakup of the Republican Party it will be the libertarains and/or (a bit less likely) the Christian fundamentalists doing the walking - both of whom are kept out of power within the party and prevented from setting the political agenda (particularly in the libertarians' case) and have serious problems with the "moderation" among the party leadership (for very different reasons).

"And it would probably be necessary to concentrate on one state first rather than nationally."

Yes, Senator Sanders is in one state. He has a state. And what's that getting him? The first actual, slightly productive economic program gets dumped on because of his political affiliation rather than his political points. How pathetic does it have to be for you to see that?

"A third party could cannibalize its ideologically closest major party, though."

And so you have Libertarians becoming Republicans and Green Party members becoming Democrats... that's what the system is supposed to do. The only thing a vote for a third party does is take away a vote from your closest ideological party, and thus you conform, and thus continues this two-party mess. It's designed to do that.

"If a 3rd party ever succeeds, the national delusion of political bipolarism will have to be shattered first."

I can see the Republican Party splitting, but I definitely can't see it affecting the general view of liberalism in this country. As long as the far-right continue to preach innumerable (prefix)-isms, they won't get anywhere, and whether they split or not won't affect liberal-leaning votes.

"Because the "moderates" are the people who have control of the party now."

Not in Indiana. John Gregg ran for governor as a Democrat and the way he spoke I could have sworn he was a Republican. He was just a moderate conservative, yet he was a Democrat because the asshats in power of the party embarrass people like him.

For the article:

"reduce deficits and make profitable corporations and the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share."

Why is it that the rich paying a higher percentage on earned income and a reasonable percentage on earnings from "equity at risk" is somehow unfair? Id on't want to hear this bullshit about how 15% is not fair. The income you receive for working is risk free. The income made from investing in the stock market or venture capital investments comes with a risk of *losing* their entire investment.

"I can see the Republican Party splitting, but I definitely can't see it affecting the general view of liberalism in this country. As long as the far-right continue to preach innumerable (prefix)-isms, they won't get anywhere, and whether they split or not won't affect liberal-leaning votes."

When Ron Paul ran in 2008 (and probably also in 2012), his poll numbers were actually better among registered Democrats than registered Republicans. Lots of Paulist activists over the last five years have been former democrats, attracted primarily by Dr. Paul's anti-war positions (and to lesser extents his oppositions to drug prohibition, banksterism, and the National Security State). I could make similar statements from my experience about big-L Libertarians who have come out of the Blue Team. A real libertarian candidate (which would not include Rand Paul, who is obviously hitching his horse to the post of Christianism) breaking off from the Republican Party to run as a 3rd party candidate who had anything approaching the stature and reputation of the elder Dr. Paul could indeed split off a substantial number of votes from the Democratic Party, especially now that the newest generation of liberal activist voters has seen their own ideological betrayal at the hands of the great phony, Barry Obama, and has become disenchanted with the Democrat party establishment.

"Not in Indiana. John Gregg ran for governor as a Democrat and the way he spoke I could have sworn he was a Republican."

I was speaking of the Republican Party specifically. My knowledge of the internal workings of the Democratic Party is limited, but I get the impression that there, too, there seems to be a reaction against "moderate" election-driven Democrat politicians like this governor guy and Barry O by the more ideologically driven activist element in the party these last five years.

"Id on't want to hear this bullshit about how 15% is not fair. The income you receive for working is risk free. The income made from investing in the stock market or venture capital investments comes with a risk of *losing* their entire investment."

Bullshit. Ask any taxi driver or 7-11 clerk who has been robbed at gunpoint by bandits if their income is "risk free". 15% tax on incomes derived from investments (which is all *discretionary* income) is !*NOT*! fair when taxes on income on even people making less-than-subsistence wages are higher than that. To say nothing of the fact that people who start businesses as sole proprietors have their income at risk as well, but face tax rates even higher than those of the 7-11 clerk on comparable income (thanks to the "self-employment tax"). The only way around it is to game the tax system (sometimes at great time and expense) by incorporating and redefining income as "dividends" like the crook Willard Romney did.

The point about John Gregg was to say that the moderate Republicans in my state have been so far alienated from their party that they are now registered as Democrats. That holds true for a number of other political offices, and while somewhere between 30 and 35 percent of the population that voted in the 2012 gubernatorial election here were registered as a Democrat, Gregg got well over 40 percent of the vote, showing that the alienated few could have some real power in these elections. You can also see from that the possible end of a coherent Republican vision in Indiana, which would be an absolute shock, but that extra 5-10 percent is so strange because Mike Pence (beat Gregg for governor) isn't as far-right as many of his fellow party members and doesn't really alienate conservative moderates like many do.

I know all about self employment tax. Probably more than you seeing as I pay it every year off my consulting income. It is strictly a tax to make up for what is lost by not having to contribute directly to Social Security. If you add the tax bill of someoneone who made 100k with what they paid in social security and what their employer paid as well on them, it comes out the same in theory. That's right, the employer also pays taxes on you.

As far as the clerk at the 7-11, his salary is not at risk and he doesn't pay even 15%. Standard deductions which don't apply to capital gains put him down around zero percent.

"I know all about self employment tax. Probably more than you"

Fuck you and your condescension. I've paid self-employment taxes for nearly ten years now and once upon a time I paid payroll taxes for 5 employees as well. Since I've always prepared my own tax forms myself (unlike you, who, IIRC, pays someone to prepare your tax forms for you), I am in fact quite acquainted with the workings of the tax system and certainly don't need to be instructed on their workings by the likes of you. (and in addition to the employer side payments of social security and medicare, there's another 4 different styles of taxes that employers must pay on their employees in California, on top of all the insurance premiums that must also be paid- I was paying somewhere around 30-35% over and above wages on the various tax slave-rents and mandatory insurance payments back when I had employees.)

"As far as the clerk at the 7-11, his salary is not at risk"

No, it's not. But his or her life often is - something that can't be said by wealthy investors and corporate pirates who sit in their palaces, yachts, and private jets waiting for checks to clear on money they shed not a single drop of sweat for. Anyone who thinks these people should be paying less in taxes than someone who actually *WORKS* for a living in jobs where they sometimes face great risk to life or limb is really sick. I'm no pinko commie, but the American tax system that punishes hard work to reward people with passive income with lower tax rates is truly obscene.

"As far as the clerk at the 7-11, his salary is not at risk and he doesn't pay even 15%. Standard deductions which don't apply to capital gains put him down around zero percent."

A single 7-11 clerk with zero dependents who makes $10/hour and works 40 hours a week will make about $20,000 a year. The personal and standard deductions will knock that down to about $8,000. That $8,000 will be taxed at 10%, plus 7.5% for social security and medicare. Add in sales taxes (more than 10% in some parts of California), car taxes ($200/year for my 10-year old beater that I bought a few years ago for $4K), gasoline taxes (more than $.70/gallon in California), state income taxes, property taxes (which the low-wage earner pays indirectly through increased rents, if not directly), and yes - a lowly 7-11 clerk who risks getting his head blown off at any minute by a robber coming through the front door often DOES face a tax burden comparable to - if not more than - that of some high-flying investor who sits on his ass all day waiting for his interest to accrue.

Sales taxes in CA maybe 10% but they are significantly less than that in most places. Car taxes? We here in Ohio only pay that when we *buy* the car, not annually, so bogus claim in many states. But if you want to include states like KY where there is a property tax on cars, fine. A beater that costs $200 per year versus a wealthier person (like my $25K Mercedes) which cost 6-7 times that.

And why the fuck are you paying SEI? Aren't you the head of an LLC? Pay corporate payroll taxes and give yourself a fucking salary! Fuck the SEI. An LLC is safer anyhow as it protects your personal belongings from lawsuits and liability claims.

As far as anything beyond actual income tax (like you rcar and gas taxes and sales taxes) the investor pays those too. And his investment money has already been taxed once so the money it is making is getting taxed *again*.

As far as being discretionary funds... I call bullshit on that. A houseflipper does it for a living. his investment in the house he is flipping is not discretionary money, it is how he makes a living. Many investors are pure investors and don't have a job on the side. They are risking it all. And those CEOs who have stock as part of their compensation are counting on that stock to not lose money or they are losing salary, which is why a lot of Board of Directors like Executivesw to take stock options in lieu of salary as that makes the Executive work hard to see the company is successful.

Now lets talk your 7-11 clerk. So he pays 17.5% of 8K or $1400. That is 7% of the $20,000 he grossed. The investor is paying more than twice that as a percentage (again, remove your other bullshit as that isn't income taxes).

Now lets add in your other bullshit. Sales tax is only on non-essentials. So say he spends $2K a year in non-food/non-rent/non-carpayment/non-utility/non-services/non-insurance. Even at 10%, that is only 1% of his gross. so now he is up to 8%, still just over half the 15% the investor paid on moeny at risk.

The car? We'll do your $200 - another 1% so 9% total
The rent - his unit is probably worth 25K so maybe $100 in property taxes on the year included in rent (the investing homeowner will pay 6 times that), so half a percent more. total 9.5%

Can't estimate gas taxes as that depends on how much he decides to drive (even the car is iffy as he could be a bus rider).

So less than 10% in his icome gets spent in toto on taxes. His choice of jobs is his concern. Firemen and policemen put themselves at greater risk than a 7-11 clerk. And don't give me the ":that's all there is" as I know better. Places like amazon are *always* (even in the repressed and depressed economy) looking for unskilled labor that is perfectly safe or he could go work at McDs or BK or Wendy's. The riskier shifts at a 7-11 also include shift bonuses and "hazard pay" so he suddenly is making $15 per hour, not minimum wage, which is why he chooses to work the danger shift. That's his choice.

Finally, I reject your investor "sit[ing\ on his ass all day waiting for his interest to accrue." That is what the general populace thinks, but the morons in minimum wage jobs don't have a clue about what investing is about. You don't acrue interest, you are constantly monitoring the market and analyzing where to move you rmoney to if you are a serious investor. You don't acrue interest. That's what the average middle class Joe does who puts his money in savings or CDs, but that isn't what the serious investor does.

bo_sox48: Ah, but Sanders has never, to my knowledge, tried to get a movement going in another state.

And I do think that its possible, if not exactly likely, to stick to your ideals if you capture one side in a 2-party system. The key is shifting public opinion – no easy feat.

Possible? Potentially. Has it ever been done? No. Is the system designed so that it is incredibly difficult, unreasonably difficult compared to, say, the Republicans or Democrats? Yes. Is that immoral if this country lives on basic democratic premises? Yes. Is that reason to change the system? Yes.

Abolish the 15% threshold to enter a Presidential debate and reduce it to 5%. Reduce the 5% threshold to obtain public funding to 2%, a more typical third-party number. Replace the Electoral College with a system that compromises more favorably between urban and rural, potentially an electorate system of counties rather than states. Abolish the CPD and replace it with a non-partisan panel. These things are simple and would allow for the inclusion of third parties at a small expense to the Republicans and Democrats - after all, if they stick to what they claim to believe in, they'll be able to adapt to alternatives presented by third parties to (GASP) make the country better!

Of course, Democrats and Republicans are scared of third parties. They don't want to lose what they've got, even if that costs the country a productive Congress and a President that doesn't violate the Constitution on a daily basis and push the country into so many useless wars funded by middle class money while providing tax breaks to the largest organizations in the country.

But seriously, even the Jedi knows how dumb that is..... ("All who gain power are afraid to lose it" ... arguably my favorite quote from Star Wars...)

It hasn't happened yet because it's not a popular idea.

I have a better question.

*question. Why do you still bother posting? It's been nearly two years of your uninsightful drivel on this site and there's no end or improvement in sight. At least Nigee's around to keep the floor just a little lower.

PE!!!!!

How's it going?

President Eden: I think you may have missed a few chaps in your absence, sir. There are that will do the limbo to keep themselves as close to the floor as possible without stopping their drivel.

"are that" should be replaced with "are those who", but the sentence as it originally stands looks scarily grammatical.

Yes, let's take all of the wealth away from people who produce it, and give it to people who spend the money on wars. 540 Billion dollars raised? BULLSHIT. 540 BILLION DOLLARS WASTED ON THE MURDER OF INNOCENT FOREIGNERS

This is why I like libertarians better than your stock standard conservatives. Hell, were I in the US would consider voting for a libertarian over a Democrat*, the former won't do anything to screw over the working class the latter won't do and at least are anti-war.

* For a moment, then I would remember that Emma Goldman got it right.

The one thing the libertarians could definitely do is end the illicit drug trade. That would be a very big accomplishment that could serve as a pillar for more, too.

Jowe: Uh, what are you replying to? I don't see that figure in Senator Sanders' calculations. Nor can you claim that his proposals "take all of the wealth away from people who produce it". In any case, Sanders is definitely not looking to spend any money raised on a war effort.