Democratic debates

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

When it comes down to tax talk, why cant tackle major reforms across the board? Individual payer and corporate?

We need major reforms which streamlines the processes, does away with antiquated brackets, etc.

As someone who has to look at people's taxes at their job usually once or twice a week, its really a joke. The "lying ratio" is quite high...and it doesn't discriminate..young, old, and up and down the income line. Shocker: the system allows the biggest cheats to be the folks actually taking home the most money.

Reform? Is that a cleverly veiled term for raising taxes?
You cannot seriously be.........suggesting fixing something?

[mooby]

One of the biggest reasons I hear people say they don't like Bernie is because his plans are too costly and there's no way they will work. I'll be the first to admit he's got my vote, but it's not because I believe he will be able to implement things like free college and healthcare (although as part of my dream scenario, he would be able to set restrictions on for-profit medical companies and regulate healthcare, so people don't go bankrupt for life if they have an accident without insurance).

My reasons for Bernie having my vote are as follows:

1. Honesty - I'm not trying to spend too much time on this (which is my way of saying if you want sources you can do that), but it is widely known Bernie doesn't take money from corporations, and his campaign is almost entirely funded by small donations. He's not getting insanely high speaking fees from companies with vested interests in maintaining the status quo like Hillary is.

2. Consistency: He's been on the right side of history for years, whether it's the civil rights movement, trumpeting gay rights in the 80's, etc.

3. His goals align with mine (campaign finance reform, legalizing weed ((I mean seriously this should be a no brainer by now - it weakens cartels, provides additional tax revenue, research has shown it has medical benefits for people like me with epilepsy/ptsd sufferers/a lot of athletes use it to help recover from their injuries, etc.)), making healthcare/college affordable, spending less on wars, gun control to an extent, etc.)

I'll wrap up with this: One of the biggest arguments I hear against Bernie is this: His plans for how to achieve his goals are unrealistic, i.e. free college/healthcare, $15/hr minimum wage, etc. My whole argument against this is, if you are Bernie and you know that if you win most likely you will have to prepare for battle with the right over every issue you try to tackle. For example, if you come out initially and say "I want $15 minimum wage" (which you know will never happen) it might sound unrealistic, but if your goal is to negotiate and end up with something more reasonable (like $12/hr minimum wage), then that approach is perfectly fine with me. In the end if that did happen it'd be win-win, because the left would be able to gloat about raising minimum wage and the right would be able to gloat about how they didn't let the left get their insane $15/hr minimum wage. So while he might come out and say things like "free healthcare/college for everyone" even supporters like me don't expect that to happen. But maybe talks progress, and improvement is made, however slight it might be it's better than the alternative where jack shit happens and nobody is happy.

[Schneed10]

Legalizing weed is among your top priorities for our country??

What... The actual... Fuck.

[Hog1]

............lol

[FRPLG]

Hillary just isn't a very good candidate. She's a good candidate for 30 years ago when running for president wasn't just a popularity contest based on who seemed the coolest, or gave the best speeches, or could rev up an extreme and vocal element of an ideology. Accomplished politicians inherently suck as candidates now. Hence we have a bunch of what we call "outsiders" running this shit show. Outsider is code for inexperienced and probably unqualified.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Hillary just isn't a very good candidate. She's a good candidate for 30 years ago when running for president wasn't just a popularity contest based on who seemed the coolest, or gave the best speeches, or could rev up an extreme and vocal element of an ideology. Accomplished politicians inherently suck as candidates now. Hence we have a bunch of what we call "outsiders" running this shit show. Outsider is code for inexperienced and probably unqualified.

Not to mention......thief...............charlatan....etc

[Schneed10]

If you want to legalize weed, or not legalize weed, I don't really care. If you want to smoke weed knock yourself out. But just get yourself educated, the notion that it's not harmful is nonsense perpetuated by those who simply enjoy it:

For this study, researchers randomly selected more than 5,000 young adults from 18 and 30 and followed up with them at varying points over 25 years. At the end of the 25 years, there were more than 3,400 participants still in the study. Their cognitive function was measured using standardized tests of verbal memory, processing speed and executive function.

They found current marijuana use was associated with poorer verbal memory and processing speed, and lifetime exposure to marijuana was associated with worse performance in all three areas of cognitive function.

The study analyzed IQ at 13, before marijuana was used, and again at 38. The results showed that the early initiators and constant users demonstrated the largest decline in IQ scores.

Weed users have poorer verbal memory in middle age - CNN.com

[Schneed10]

That said I'm not opposed to legalizing it, we allow tobacco and alcohol which you can debate are more or less harmful than weed.

But no, it is not even close to being among my top deciding factors when I think of voting for POTUS.

I tend to put more emphasis on the things that kill people and the things that prevent people from having the opportunity to live a healthy and happy life. Little things, like ISIS, Putin, healthcare, climate, and policies regarding taxes and trade. But who cares about that, let's all toke up!

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

If you want to legalize weed, or not legalize weed, I don't really care. If you want to smoke weed knock yourself out. But just get yourself educated, the notion that it's not harmful is nonsense perpetuated by those who simply enjoy it:



Weed users have poorer verbal memory in middle age - CNN.com

It's certainly not my top priority but it's definitely something I think should be on the long term presidential agenda. As we all know the war on drugs has been an absolute failure. All the money we've wasted trying to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the country (the fact that we trump about collecting literal tons of drugs coming in yet it only represents 10% of the total amount is ridiculous) when we could be properly taxing it and using that revenue for things that help, like lowering the cost of education/healthcare.

I'm not saying make it totally legal on the state level, because that is up to the states. I'm just saying stop making it illegal on the federal level, which will clear the way for states to make it legal if they want to. And while your link makes a credible point, I will point to the fact that I have grown up with a lot of people that use it (and some of these guys are smart, dedicated professionals who are good at what they do and only use in their free time) while at the same time acknowledging that I know people my age who grow their own, live with their parents, and just get by playing video games and getting high all day. It's different for everyone. There are plenty of people who use it but still are productive members of society.

Not to mention the medical benefits and the fact that there are tons of pro athletes who use it rather than get addicted to pills. As dangerous as you might think it is, I would say alcohol is just is, if not more dangerous than it. Either way, I won't continue this debate. It was one of things I had been thinking about when I wrote that post, but I also agree there are bigger issues at hand, like Daesh, etc. If you want to believe that I think legalizing weed should be a top priority, so be it. I've said my piece though, and I think it's a no brainer with everyone freaking out about how we're going to pay for all these new ideas to fix our country.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by mooby

It's certainly not my top priority but it's definitely something I think should be on the long term presidential agenda. As we all know the war on drugs has been an absolute failure. All the money we've wasted trying to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the country (the fact that we trump about collecting literal tons of drugs coming in yet it only represents 10% of the total amount is ridiculous) when we could be properly taxing it and using that revenue for things that help, like lowering the cost of education/healthcare.

I'm not saying make it totally legal on the state level, because that is up to the states. I'm just saying stop making it illegal on the federal level, which will clear the way for states to make it legal if they want to. And while your link makes a credible point, I will point to the fact that I have grown up with a lot of people that use it (and some of these guys are smart, dedicated professionals who are good at what they do and only use in their free time) while at the same time acknowledging that I know people my age who grow their own, live with their parents, and just get by playing video games and getting high all day. It's different for everyone. There are plenty of people who use it but still are productive members of society.

Not to mention the medical benefits and the fact that there are tons of pro athletes who use it rather than get addicted to pills. As dangerous as you might think it is, I would say alcohol is just is, if not more dangerous than it. Either way, I won't continue this debate. It was one of things I had been thinking about when I wrote that post, but I also agree there are bigger issues at hand, like Daesh, etc. If you want to believe that I think legalizing weed should be a top priority, so be it. I've said my piece though.

Anecdotal evidence (I know a few guys who...) does not hold up well against scientific studies where they track progress against a baseline for 3500 people. Besides, the point isn't whether your friends are productive members of society, the point is how much more productive can they be? If you start with an IQ of 140 and it drops to 130 because of weed, you're still in good shape. But I still wouldn't do it personally. The power of the brain is too significant.

But that should be a value judgment for each person to make on his own.

As for medical benefits, that should be done only under the direction of a physician. Nobody should be trying to decide whether it provides medical benefit for them without the guidance and prescription from a physician. So unless you're a doctor whose job it is to balance the pros and cons of each medicinal option, I'm uninterested in that argument. It can only be made by medical professionals.

And on drug cartels, legalizing weed will have hardly any impact on them. They make most of their money from cocaine, heroin and similar narcotics, not weed. Taking away that business from them would be like telling McDonald's they can't sell the Filet o Fish and McRib anymore. There would be some disappointment but they'd survive just fine on their Big Macs and Egg McMuffins.

[Schneed10]

But forgive me, I read your original post on the matter and thought it to mean it was a high priority for you. I misread.

[JoeRedskin]

So the whole marginal tax rates of 70 - 90 in the 50's 60's and 70's got me curious. I was aware the rates existed and that these rates really only applied to the very rich. (i.e. multi-millionaires). I was also aware that, unlike today's four tax brackets, back in the day the had 24 tax brackets. In 1969, the marginal rate for those earners making ~$112K (adjusted for inflation) was at 36% as opposed to today where income of $143K is taxed 28%.

So yes, tax rates were much higher the 50's -70's. For everyone.

To me, however, tax rates are only part of the story. Yes, taxes were higher. However, what effect has lowered marginal rates had on the total federal income from taxes.

Also, tax laws change, and while marginal rates were high, without an understanding of allowable exemptions, credits and deductions, marginal tax rates are guidelines but not indicative of the real tax rates.

Here are a couple sites that are useful - they have all sorts of charts for number nerds.

This site shows the historical tax rates in nominal and adjusted income: U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) | Tax Foundation

This is the OMB website with tons of charts and stuff:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

I looked at the chart: Table 2.1—Receipts by Source: 1934–2021
It shows income in nominal (unadjusted) dollars.

To really get a sense of tax rates v. income, you would need to correlate the two in 2016 dollars to see where or if marginal rate changes had an effect on actual govt. income.

To me, the question, "should we go back to this model of super-high tax brackets for the super rich?" involves a much more nuanced approach than "taxes bad v. tax the rich." Fundamentally, I oppose taxation as a method of enforced wealth transfer because, in today's economy and as long as the govt. is doing the redistribution, I do not believe it solves the underlying problem of income inequality and is, instead, treating the symptom rather than the illness.

Would we face economic ruin if we reinstituted the 70-90% tax rates on the wealthiest of the superwealthy? No. Would we expand income dependency on the central govt. and, in turn, lessen real economic freedom? Yes.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Anecdotal evidence (I know a few guys who...) does not hold up well against scientific studies where they track progress against a baseline for 3500 people. Besides, the point isn't whether your friends are productive members of society, the point is how much more productive can they be? If you start with an IQ of 140 and it drops to 130 because of weed, you're still in good shape. But I still wouldn't do it personally. The power of the brain is too significant.

But that should be a value judgment for each person to make on his own.

As for medical benefits, that should be done only under the direction of a physician. Nobody should be trying to decide whether it provides medical benefit for them without the guidance and prescription from a physician. So unless you're a doctor whose job it is to balance the pros and cons of each medicinal option, I'm uninterested in that argument. It can only be made by medical professionals.

And on drug cartels, legalizing weed will have hardly any impact on them. They make most of their money from cocaine, heroin and similar narcotics, not weed. Taking away that business from them would be like telling McDonald's they can't sell the Filet o Fish and McRib anymore. There would be some disappointment but they'd survive just fine on their Big Macs and Egg McMuffins.

I agree that anecdotal evidence shouldn't hold up against scientific evidence, but my point is that amongst the younger members of society today, its' use is widespread enough that its' harmfulness has been totally destigmatized. I won't argue about its' longterm degenerative effects, but I would say it's probably on par with tobacco or to a lesser degree alcohol, both of which will continue to be legal even as studies come out showing how unhealthy they are.

I also agree on the medical benefits, obviously those that truly need it should consult with a doctor first. But from cancer patients using it to epileptics that control their seizures with it, I feel like it's obvious there are medical benefits to it.

As for the cartels, no doubt there are far worse drugs that make plenty of money for them. But weed remains one of the most popular drugs out there and probably still makes up a decent chunk of their business percentage wise. I'd argue heroin use is on the rise thanks to the prescription drug abuse, but weed is probably the Big Mac of the cartels. It might not be their money maker compared to other drugs but it still remains one of the most popular products on the market (though with states like Colorado/Washington/I think Alaska as well leading the way the process of legalization is starting to come around, which might be making a slight dip in cartel pockets.)

Anyways, nice debating with you. I realize it's mostly for naught but I appreciate the civility.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Anecdotal evidence (I know a few guys who...) does not hold up well against scientific studies where they track progress against a baseline for 3500 people. Besides, the point isn't whether your friends are productive members of society, the point is how much more productive can they be? If you start with an IQ of 140 and it drops to 130 because of weed, you're still in good shape. But I still wouldn't do it personally. The power of the brain is too significant.

But that should be a value judgment for each person to make on his own.

As for medical benefits, that should be done only under the direction of a physician. Nobody should be trying to decide whether it provides medical benefit for them without the guidance and prescription from a physician. So unless you're a doctor whose job it is to balance the pros and cons of each medicinal option, I'm uninterested in that argument. It can only be made by medical professionals.

And on drug cartels, legalizing weed will have hardly any impact on them. They make most of their money from cocaine, heroin and similar narcotics, not weed. Taking away that business from them would be like telling McDonald's they can't sell the Filet o Fish and McRib anymore. There would be some disappointment but they'd survive just fine on their Big Macs and Egg McMuffins.

Not true, Marijuana is their biggest cash crop and money maker do to the amount of demand based the enormous amount of users compared to the heroin, meth and cocaine users. Cocaine consumption is way, way down. Regardless, the cartels aren't hurt because they have a ton of business verticles these days...drugs, extortion, human traffic, etc.

Remember Mooby, you want the weed from Canada, not mexico.

lil bit of stats...1 million kilos of weed seized at the border...they usually get 10% of being imported...so looking at 10 million kilos of weed yearly from the southwest border.

Heroin: 1,855 kilos seized...10%...18,555 being imported yearly.

http://www.dea.gov/resource-center/D...ry%20final.pdf

guess whats the biggest drug threat to our country? the legal prescription business per the DEA. Shocker? We let these big Pharm hook up and kill more folks than illegal drugs.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I tend to put more emphasis on the things that kill people and the things that prevent people from having the opportunity to live a healthy and happy life. Little things, like ISIS, Putin, healthcare, climate, and policies regarding taxes and trade. But who cares about that, let's all toke up!

drug deals/drug violence kill more americans than isis or putin. legalization increases revenue, lowers jail populations, and results in harm reduction by removing it as a grey/black market item with no legal framework for oversight or regulation.

not saying that it's the end all/be all, but it is a practical/pragmatic solution. like prohibition, making it illegal really hasn't done much to slow the demand.


as for taxes, the US gets a much larger share of it's revenue through income taxes compared to most countries, which rely more heavily on consumption/service taxes instead, which is why there's always so much hand wringing about it.