The difference between Bernie and Hillary

a reply to: mOjOm

I don't own a business.

I do have an income tax liability of over 40% between state/federal/local, and we are not making anywhere near six figures. Somehow, the idea of tax the rich always trickles down to us.

Free college is not free. If you pay taxes, you will be paying for it. It's that simple.

Even if your taxes don't go directly to it, they have to make up the shortfall elsewhere. Taxes are never a closed loop.

originally posted by: ketsuko

I don't own a business.

Oh, for some reason I thought you owned your own business. Must have you confused with someone else.

I do have an income tax liability of over 40% between state/federal/local, and we are not making anywhere near six figures. Somehow, the idea of tax the rich always trickles down to us.

Free college is not free. If you pay taxes, you will be paying for it. It's that simple.

Even if your taxes don't go directly to it, they have to make up the shortfall elsewhere. Taxes are never a closed loop.

Unfortunately that is where the real problem is at. That problem of course is that you aren't already wealthy and the way things are today it seems the only people who can catch a break are those who need it the least. Had you already been making lot's of money or had a substantial amount of wealth, well then you would get all the tax relief you could ever want. But being in the middle of course you just continue to have your money taken from you.

Typically when the topic of Taxing wealth comes up anyone in favor of it such as myself get a response from others as if we have some desire to tax everyone more to feed the machine. This isn't the case however, at least not with many of us. It's not that we like taxes or like the idea of taxing people more for bigger government. We simply don't like those who have all the wealth have rigged the system so that they get a free ride while others have to make up for it. The way I see it, if those with so much wealth weren't skipping out on their obligations the rest of us wouldn't be taxed as much as we are because they would be paying their share as well.

Now, the usual response of course is that even if they paid it would be no cheaper for anyone else as the Gov. would just take that extra amount and spend it on themselves too. This may be so but those are really two separate issues. One has to do with everyone paying their share without cheating and making others make up the difference. The other has to do with Gov. wasteful spending habits. The former has to do with what is fair and right as far as what we all contribute to society so we all can benefit from it. The latter has to do with corrupt practices which need to be fixed regardless of how much everyone is paying in. By fixing the second problem everyone is better off. By fixing the first problem everyone is better off except for those who are currently cheating everyone else which shouldn't be happening in the first place.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

That was sarcasm right??? I feel almost silly asking but I'm not real familiar with you so I have to ask. You're laying it on pretty heavy in that post so I'm assuming sarcasm but it's not always easy to tell around here.

just pointing out the obvious......which may be that any presidential candidate who is not an extremist nut-job is probably a bit more complicated than the OP makes out!

Better written on the very different approach and agenda's of two Democrat candidates for President:

Pick an issue, any issue, and Bernie and the majority of American people are likely to be in lockstep.

Financial reform, income disparity, health care policy, jobs, foreign policy, economic policy, climate change, environmental protection --

even on the so-called wedge issues such as gay marriage, abortion etc – for the most part the majority of voters agree with Bernie.

We know this agreement is real, because Mr. Sanders speaks in clear, unequivocal language about what his positions are on the issues of the day.

Where’s Hillary Clinton on the Issues?

In contrast, we have Hillary, the cipher candidate, who won’t answer questions;

who equivocates on the issues;

and who speaks in vague generalities and stunningly calculated language that is designed to say nothing.

Of course, her end game is to try to con progressive voters into supporting her without alienating her corporate funders.

As a result, her campaign is completely devoid of substance, passion and principles.

For example, when pressed on trade, the best she could come up with was, “listen to Nancy Pelosi,” then followed it up a few days later saying she “…probably” would not vote for it …at this time …” Can you get any squishier?

Just ask outgoing leader of the Communication Workers of America, Larry Cohen, who tried desperately to get a clear stance on Fast Track from Clinton and couldn’t. He’s now backing Bernie.

Biggest difference seems to me that Bernie is running a true "grass roots" campaign with little negativity. In fact, that's not really fair as there definitely hasn't been the type of mud slinging on the Democrats' side that there has been already among the Republican candidates.

I suspect the Bernie Sanders is being groomed to be Hillary's VP, and just going through the motions to get a huge number of Americans on his side before they announce the ticket.

The first female President with the first gay Vice President as her running mate? Talk about historic !

I'm thinking it will likely be Clinton / Sanders vs Bush / Cruz at this point.

Clinton / Sanders will wrap up the female vote and the LGBTQ vote. The entire Republican field has already alienated the Hispanic vote.

At this point, Republicans are just fighting over who's going to lose to Hillary Clinton. If she gets Sanders on board on her ticket, it will likely be a larger landslide than Reagan in '84.

I think the best ticket, the most unbeatable ticket would be a Carson/Sanders ticket.

Both are honest men of integrity.

Both could work together to unite a divided country.