2020 Dem/Rep Primary+Debates+Convention Schedules and News Mega Thread

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

News on Bloombefg from MSNBC person clearly taking too many shots of vodka before tweeting:

 

 

Some other highlights from Nate's Liver (most of the good stuff I can't post because its not-family-friendly... thus highly recommended.. check his feed):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A good primer on why polls are stupid (read thread.. has response from Bernie's blue checkmark fan club) 

 

Make sure, though, that you DON'T look at the demographics of this team:

https://www.peopleforbernie.com/about/

Edited February 20, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/snopes-issues-pre-approval-on-all-statements-made-during-tonights-democratic-debate

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

[TBoneTX 43,058]

#DemocraticDebate

BIDEN: NBC said Biden could beat Trump. I'm rooting for him. I may even drop out and endorse him.

Egad, but this is hilarious.

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

[Crazy Cat 39,220]

Appears Trump is doing quite well in the Democrat debates.....

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

26 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

#fakenews

 

Someone else is going to pay for that free healthcare.  And free college.  Not the individual.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

There is no way a rich billionaire is going to be accused of being a male pig and win. LOL

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

4 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

Heh. Saw this meme shared by Woods. Alarm bells should've started going off in his head, being an "arithmetic guy", when he saw "making over $29,000" and then this "arithmetic" taxing people 52% on all income BELOW 29k anyways. Thankfully meme creators aren't accountants. If I were to assume under 29k was, say, a 10% tax bracket, it would be closer to 4,000 in taxes, meaning a 12-13% average (effective) tax rate for that $15/hour. That meme creator was badly screwing people on taxes. 😂

 

Because the awful math in that meme prompted me to search for myself, for reference, here's Bernie's actual plan.. which approaches the 52% marginal rate at the 10 million dollar bracket.

 

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all

 

Wish he'd just do all the brackets instead of "teh rich11!!1one".

 

It's quite clear Bernie isn't serious about this, it's just a talking point targeting the wealthy. 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Heh. Saw this meme shared by Woods. Alarm bells should've started going off in his head, being an "arithmetic guy", when he saw "making over $29,000" and then this "arithmetic" taxing people 52% on all income BELOW 29k anyways. Thankfully meme creators aren't accountants. If I were to assume under 29k was, say, a 10% tax bracket, it would be closer to 4,000 in taxes, meaning a 12-13% average (effective) tax rate for that $15/hour. That meme creator was badly screwing people on taxes. 😂

 

Because the awful math in that meme prompted me to search for myself, for reference, here's Bernie's actual plan.. which approaches the 52% marginal rate at the 10 million dollar bracket.

 

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all

 

Wish he'd just do all the brackets instead of "teh rich11!!1one".

 

It's quite clear Bernie isn't serious about this, it's just a talking point targeting the wealthy. 

While I agree with you completely, you need to realize that you are probably talking over the heads of 80% of US taxpayers.

 

Rather than see Bernie's tax brackets put into place, I would prefer to see a flat tax.  One size fits all.  The problem with our current tax brackets is that they apply only to active income, not passive.  10% taxes on ALL income, no brackets needed.  (or 12%, whatever it takes to fund our country)

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

31 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

While I agree with you completely, you need to realize that you are probably talking over the heads of 80% of US taxpayers.

 

Rather than see Bernie's tax brackets put into place, I would prefer to see a flat tax.  One size fits all.  The problem with our current tax brackets is that they apply only to active income, not passive.  10% taxes on ALL income, no brackets needed.  (or 12%, whatever it takes to fund our country)

Spot on, my man. But that's a type of simplification that would put millions of accountants, payroll employees, lawyers, etc. out of business. It would upset rich people who find caveats to the tax code to lower their liability, feel entitled to systems being in place to benefit them, would upset poor people who think they're entitled to pay no taxes and get everything for free. 

 

Even though it would solve so many problems with corruption, cause a much more transparently fair system, this deliberately complex created tax code and labyrinth of legislation surrounding taxes created a type of dependency that people can't fathom not having despite most of the population hating it. 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

That's a type of simplification that would put millions of accountants, payroll employees, lawyers, etc. out of business. It would upset rich people who find caveats to the tax code to lower their liability, feel entitled to systems being in place to benefit them, would upset poor people who think they're entitled to pay no taxes and get everything for free. 

 

Even though it would solve so many problems with corruption, cause a much more transparently fair system, this deliberately complex created tax code and labyrinth of legislation surrounding taxes created a type of dependency that people can't fathom not having despite most of the population hating it. 

Wow, it would almost be like... draining the swamp?  Then I am all for it!

 

ETA: We can still impose a wealth tax on high-priced luxury items to increase the coffers.

Edited February 21, 2020 by ALFKAD

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

3 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Wow, it would almost be like... draining the swamp?  Then I am all for it!

Me too, I just know it stands a snowballs chance in hell, even with Trump.

 

There's a reason they wouldn't let Ron Paul become President. We're talking a swamp vastly greater than the current anti-Trump swamp. 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

27 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

ETA: We can still impose a wealth tax on high-priced luxury items to increase the coffers.

So @laylalexs French Wine would be heavily taxed right?????? Awesome

[Dashinka 23,241]

9 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

You are asking a lot for a Democrat to actually do the math.