Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[bearrock]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Could you mention which proposal it is of Bernie's, that does that?  

 

(Or if you're talking about somebody else, please specify whom, and answer?)

 

Sanders' Wealth tax. 

 

The article in Rufus' post has the nice infographic.  The underlying UC Berkeley paper is here

 

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1843-letter-from-saez-zucman-about-bernie-sanders-wealth-tax/62daccab56ef75a2cbbb/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

 

I'll add that the UC Berkeley paper lends support to what I was saying.  The paper estimates that the richest 400 Americans' wealth grew at 6.6% per year between 1982-2018.  Assuming everyone pays about 15% in income tax like Warren Buffet (I think it was 16%, but 15% is easier for me calculate), that's about 7.76% increase in pretax wealth.  Under the Sanders plan, wealth would need to grow at 10-16% pretax to outpace the wealth tax.  The paper itself says (without even considering the change in income tax rate) that wealth will be halved every 15 years.  Add in the inheritance tax and the fact that wealth tax still exists below a billion in worth, it is inevitable that billionaires will be eliminated eventually (barring the super unlikely scenario where billionaires leave wealth to successive generations of super successful heirs.  But even that luck will have to run out at some point).

[visionary]

 

 

 

[Forehead]

So you all can get back to fighting, but again, is Biden's rally being carried anywhere?  I couldn't find anything online but wanted to watch Buttigieg and Klobuchar speak.

[visionary]

 

 

 

Bernie doubling down on Socialism and his tag of Democratic Socialist.  Interesting strategy.  

 

Going hard after billionaires.

 

 

Now mad at Biden for calling his campaign a revolution.....

[Dan T.]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

First Public Enemy, now Hardball...what's next?

 

 

😉

 

 

 

Please please please let it be Donald Trump.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

3 hours ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

Biden is a hell of a lot more likable than Hillary, and has far less baggage.

wait until you’ve been thru 8 months of Ukraine/Hunter/Burisma wall to wall coverage. 

 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

 

Thats a good point and a good observation. I hadn’t really thought about that. So you are saying they are generating revenue by talking about him - negative or positive doesn’t matter. Right? And that that doesn’t imply bias itself. 

 

I cant really argue that without pointing to the way many of them speak about him. But in the end that can be explained away by my interpretation just like above. If you can listen to the Matthews clip I posted and tell me it doesn’t have any implicit bias against Bernie showing in it, than I really don’t know how to argue my point with you. 

 

I still feel the the way I felt when we started, but I don’t really feel I can call you wrong either now. 

 

Mathews clearly has a bias against socialist based on definitions and means used by socialist in the 1950s.  From there, he clearly doesn't think Bernie has clearly distinguished his vision of the US from that of socialists in the 1950s vs. what we see in countries like Denmark.  I think he clearly has a bias against Sanders.   But that doesn't mean that he thinks or implies Sanders is going to have him shot.  And in the context of the conversation happening with respect to Sanders, maybe the answer is for Sanders to actually listen to what Matthews is saying, try to build his support and do a better job of making a distinction between himself and 1950s Soviet supported socialists.

 

Why is he more like current Denmark and not Cuba?

 

Maybe if Sanders spent more time outlining why his plans were less like Cuba and more like Denmark and less time attacking the press, Matthews wouldn't be biased against him?

 

If I am a company that makes money by getting people to watch and click and I'm acting in a way that maximizes views and clicking, then the only bias is in what the consumer consumes.  And that bias isn't really implied.  It is defacto to they way they run their businesses.

 

Ratings matter to cable news programs not too much else because that's the best way for them to maximize the profits for their share holders.

[visionary]

😡

 

 

 

[Larry]

18 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Sanders' Wealth tax. 

 

The article in Rufus' post has the nice infographic.  The underlying UC Berkeley paper is here

 

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1843-letter-from-saez-zucman-about-bernie-sanders-wealth-tax/62daccab56ef75a2cbbb/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

  

 

I'm not seeing "reduce their net worth by 90%" in that article.  (In fact, searching on the word "worth" says it occurs 3 times - when it states what the proposed rates would be.)  

 

And I'm not sure which "Rufus' post" you're referring to, but his "what would they be worth if Bernie's tax plan had been in effect" article seems to say that if their plans had been in effect for 40 years, then their worth, today, would be around half of what it is, today.  

 

Not "net worth reduced by 90%".  "Would have grown around half as much as it actually grew over that period".  

 

Quote

I'll add that the UC Berkeley paper lends support to what I was saying.  The paper estimates that the richest 400 Americans' wealth grew at 6.6% per year between 1982-2018.  Assuming everyone pays about 15% in income tax like Warren Buffet (I think it was 16%, but 15% is easier for me calculate), that's about 7.76% increase in pretax wealth.  Under the Sanders plan, wealth would need to grow at 10-16% pretax to outpace the wealth tax. 

 

Noting that the goalpost has now moved from "reduce their net worth by 90%" to "might not go up, after taxes".  

 

[tshile]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

I'm also always confused by this idea of "fairness" in the corporate media.  Essentially, by law, they are obligated to maximize the value to their share holders. 

Side point:

then they no longer get to use the word journalism. Not in what they do, not in what they are. 

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

Side point:

then they no longer get to use the word journalism. Not in what they do, not in what they are. 

 

Why?

 

"The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles.

• n.
  Material written for publication or broadcast as news.
• n.
  The business of a journalist; the occupation of writing for, editing, or producing a newspaper or public journal; the diffusion of intelligence or of opinions by means of journals or newspapers and periodicals."

 

That's what they do, no?

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Wow is that a ridiculous response. I didn't ignore anything, the part you quote relies completely on the part I quoted. There was no reason to include it, which is why I didn't.  A case he tried to make with highly misleading, or completely false claims. 

 

Have a nice day. 

 

You literally said his point wasn't a restatement of his first sentence.

 

Me:  "His point is that Bernie's plan is a far left plan even compared to more left leaning capitalist countries, like the Nordic countries."

 

You: "No it isn't."

 

First sentence: "Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says that his proposals “are not radical,” pointing again and again to countries in Northern Europe such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway as examples of the kind of economic system he wants to bring to the United States. "

 

And then you quoted from the piece to show that I was wrong and completely ignored the first sentence.

 

That's ridiculous.

[Voice_of_Reason]

14 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

Bernie doubling down on Socialism and his tag of Democratic Socialist.  Interesting strategy.  

 

Going hard after billionaires.

 

 

Now mad at Biden for calling his campaign a revolution.....

And not doing well in the south is ok because you can beat Trump without winning a single southern state.  
 

/sarcasm

 

Whoever is the Democrat nominee, if they win Florida, the election is essentially over.  Assuming they don’t get completely run in the Midwest like Hilary did.  
 

My strategy for a Democrat victory: nominate whoever can win Florida. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AJ*]

5 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

Pete pointed that out in the debates. Bernie is quick to put his opponents in that establishment boat. If Bernie is the nominee it's safe to say his VP pick is going to be someone no one has ever heard of or else it will undercut his anti-establishment message. And that person will be very important because of Bernie's age...similar to the situation with Sarah Palin and McCain.

[visionary]

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

9 minutes ago, AJ* said:

 

Pete pointed that out in the debates. Bernie is quick to put his opponents in that establishment boat. If Bernie is the nominee it's safe to say his VP pick is going to be someone no one has ever heard of or else it will undercut his anti-establishment message. And that person will be very important because of Bernie's age...similar to the situation with Sarah Palin and McCain.

 

It’s gonna be Tulsi Gabbard.

[bearrock]

18 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I'm not seeing "reduce their net worth by 90%" in that article.  (In fact, searching on the word "worth" says it occurs 3 times - when it states what the proposed rates would be.)  

 

And I'm not sure which "Rufus' post" you're referring to, but his "what would they be worth if Bernie's tax plan had been in effect" article seems to say that if their plans had been in effect for 40 years, then their worth, today, would be around half of what it is, today.  

 

Not "net worth reduced by 90%".  "Would have grown around half as much as it actually grew over that period".  

 

 

I think you are misreading the conversation.  Rufus said billionaires would continue to exist even if the wealth tax is instituted and cited that article as support, showing what would've happened to top billionaires during the last 40 years is that they would still be billionaires.  

 

My point was that with the wealth tax, compared to where they are, some see 90% reduction in wealth (not that wealth tax would immediately result in 90% reduction).  Add in the other three items and the billionaires will not be able to remain billionaires.

 

Quote

Noting that the goalpost has now moved from "reduce their net worth by 90%" to "might not go up, after taxes".

 

I know you like to point out moving the goalposts, but this is not it.  10-16% ROI is needed to outpace the wealth tax.  7.76% is the historical return of the uber rich.  Therefore the uber rich will not be able to outpace the wealth tax and their net worth will go down over time, eventually reducing it below a billion (which is reduction of 90% or more for some).  And that's without the effect of inheritance tax.

[Destino]

11 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

Aside from the obvious lesson in how democracy works, how is this guy saying Biden doesn’t have support from people of color?  I thought the fact he did is what gave him the advantage over Pete and Amy.  

[Nerm]

I find it interesting that Denmark keeps coming up when discussing economic systems for Bernie to emulate, when Denmark repealed their wealth tax more than 20 years ago.  Most countries that have tried it have ended up repealing it, because it doesn't end up helping anyone.  The few countries that do still try it usually don't have things like capital gains taxes.

[Larry]

19 minutes ago, bearrock said:

My point was that with the wealth tax, compared to where they are, some see 90% reduction in wealth

 

And I haven't seen you support that claim.  

 

And you didn't say they would have 90% less than what they have now, you said their net worth would have been reduced by 90%.  

 

If, without BernieTax, then their net worth went from $1B to $100B

But with BernieTax, their net worth would have gone from $1B to$10B, 

 

Then that's not "had their net worth reduced by 90%".  That's "had their net worth increase by 90% less than it did"  

[Larry]

29 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I know you like to point out moving the goalposts, but this is not it.  10-16% ROI is needed to outpace the wealth tax.  7.76% is the historical return of the uber rich.  Therefore the uber rich will not be able to outpace the wealth tax and their net worth will go down over time, eventually reducing it below a billion (which is reduction of 90% or more for some).  And that's without the effect of inheritance tax.

 

And once again, you're trying to support a claim of "reduce their net worth by 90%" with "Might not go up by enough to cover taxes, resulting in a slight decrease over time, which might eventually become, if you throw in a monsterous transfer to somebody else, . . . "  

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

Klobucher on now at the Biden rally.  On CNN at least.