Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic
Presto Vivace writes: The H-1B visa issue rarely surfaces during presidential races, and that's what makes the entrance by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) into the 2016 presidential race so interesting. ... ...Sanders is very skeptical of the H-1B program, and has lambasted tech firms for hiring visa workers at the same time they're cutting staff. He's especially critical of the visa's use in offshore outsourcing.
Bush's tax cuts for the rich in addition to two unfunded wars sure didn't do the economy any good. Not to mention we were hemorrhaging 800K jobs per month when that dumbass left office.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
While he calls himself a democratic socialist, I'd think more in the vein of Scandinavia and less of a Marxist dictatorship (ie, in Soviet Russia...). He's not anti-capitalistic, but he is anti-crony capitalistic. The difference is important-- he thinks that without government maintaining a fair playing field, those who have economic and political advantages will further tip the scales against those who don't.
To say he's not a capitalist though is misleading. He wants a free market, but one that works for all and isn't consistently being rigged by those who accumulate more power/wealth in a feedback loop of wealth leads to power leads to advantage leads to wealth leads to power leads to advantage leads to wealth ad infinitum as we have in our current U.S. system.
but then goes for batshit insane politics that would push us back to the worst part of the soviet experiment.
Examples?
I looked him up to see what was so crazy, and all I found was:
None of that seems all that crazy or dangerous to me
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It was Gingrich and the repubs who shut down the government during the Clinton years.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
Obama has cut the budget deficit in half since 2008. (Bush left it at $1.5 trillion per year, and now it's about $750 billion). Since $750 billion is still greater than zero, the national debt continues to rise, at about half the rate that it did during the Bush administration- when, if you recall, no one seemed to be complaining about it at all.
Which can otherwise be described as ban on anonymous speech — at least, political speech.
We don't have a media monopoly, that's all that matters. Most likely, his being a Socialist, the solution will involve creating an official governmental media corporation (such as by vastly expanding NPR/PBS). USSR had such a monopoly on media, and now Russia has too. It is not pretty — and much worse, than what we have today.
Well, GP said "soviet experiment" and you asked for examples — here is another one.
They are perfectly equal already — there are no laws singling them out in any way.
Yeah, right. Would he properly privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mark? Without dealing with that giant elephant in the room, all "banking reforms" are meaningless.
Then you have no idea, what "soviet experiment" is. Likely, Mr. Sanders does not know it either. Both of you should be kept away from governing a country.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Here we go again. The deficit from Clinton's years was due to Republican Congress setting the budget.
Then explain why it is that the first year Bush is elected, with that SAME republican controlled congress, they pissed away a projected 5.7 trillion dollar 10 year projected surplus? The last 4 years of Clinton budgets resulted in: 1998 - $69.3 billion budget surplus, 1999 - $125.6 billion budget surplus, 2000 - $236.2 billion budget surplus, and 2001 - $128.2 billion budget surplus; the first four years of Bush's budgets...with that same republican controlled congress... netted us this: 2002 - $157.8 billion budget deficit, 2003 - $377.6 billion budget deficit, 2004 - $412.7 billion budget deficit, 2005 - $319 billion budget deficit.... and it only got worse from there.
A 5.7 trillion dollar surplus over the next 10 years would have come very close to eliminating ALL US debt... instead, Bush and the rest of his party of fiscal irresponsibility chose to ignore the debt, and give (most of) that money to the wealthiest.
Bush did a lot wrong, but the economy wasn't one of them.
Bullshit. Pure and utter bullshit. Two wars paid for by deficit spending, tax cuts that wiped out our surplus and transferred even more deficit spending directly to the wealthiest, and a massive unfunded (yes, MORE deficit spending) give-away to big pharma. There wasn't a thing Bush touched involving the economy that he did fuck up like a 5 dollar whore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://economix.blogs.nytimes....
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You guys are so transparent. The same old mistaken arguments every time, yet you ignore any bad news from 'your team'.
Perhaps you should be looking in the mirror when you say that. It would take a fucking idiot to not see the damage Bush did to this country.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
they never actually do pay the taxes they claim
Nonsense. Well-off people pay the vast majority of the income taxes in this country. Nearly half the people in the country pay no income taxes at all (though they still get to vote on what happens to the money collected from the other people who do).
The top 5% of earners pay almost 60% of the taxes. The top 25% of earners pay over 86% of the taxes. The bottom HALF of the country pays under 3% of those taxes. So how do you come up with "never actually do pay" - ? These numbers come from the IRS. The people who cash the checks you say aren't being written.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's very, VERY important to pay attention to the terms when someone starts flashing around statistics. For one, it's very easy to talk about something else entirely, but make it seem like you're offering a contrast rather than comparing apples and oranges.
For instance, "top 5% of earners pay 60% of income tax" is true, but entirely misleading, because we're only talking about INCOME tax. That's the people who get paychecks. We're not talking about the truly rich, who don't have to work for a living, they make their money in investments - that is, capital gains. Now, capital gains is taxed, but at a much lower rate. This is why Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. There are also other taxes that people pay, but income and capital gains are the biggest chunks when we're talking about an individual (depending on where you live at least, some states don't have an income tax and use sales/etc tax instead, so YMMV).
This is an outright lie. You probably don't even realize it's a lie because you've bought into the propaganda. Every person who hold a job pays taxes including those on income. Social security and medicare taxes are NOT exempt-able and they ARE income taxes. The only way to not pay social security and medicare/medicaid taxes is to not have income, something the wealthy are remarkably good at not paying for. On top of this they pay their state taxes, including income, cigarette, alcohol, gas, sales and property along with all the other miscellaneous taxes and fees. In fact as a percentage of their income the poorest among us pay the highest proportion of their income in taxes than anyone else.
The nugget of truth that makes your lie so insidious is that the poorest among us don't pay FEDERAL income tax but they still pay taxes and they still pay income taxes. This little lie and deception allows you to paint entire segments of our society as non-contributing freeloaders and it's NOT TRUE.
All your bullshit numbers are based solely on federal income tax. They disregard all the other taxes entirely as if they don't exist and it's complete and utter horseshit. The most important fact, the one you completely ignore is that the poorest among us pay something like 50% of their income in various federal, state and local taxes. As a percentage of income they are the highest taxed individuals in this country.
Personally I'm a big believer that those people who have benefited the most from the system and have the means to support it should be the ones that have the highest burden in paying for it. That is NOT asking a lot.
Bullshit.
Clinton (both of them) is a centrist, a "new democrat", almost identical politically to the moderate republicans of the 50s, with the biggest exceptions being things like gay rights. He was only "liberal" in comparison to the extreme conservatism the GOP has carved out for itself as it pushed ever more rightward.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.