The Bern Identity

[jem]

in terms of paying for it all.. we have many options.
If we cap spending and eliminate income tax... while order the Federal reserve to hold money supply even for the next few years.
2 things could happen.

1.... the economy booms and the reciepts the govt brings in besides income and taxes cover the budget... . or there is a budget short fall and the

2. the govt just prints the money. This may or not result in inflation due to the fact that if the world economy expand the money we print... may be enough to accommodate that expansion without much inflation. However even if we do have inflation... the inflation will stop once the economy expands enough to bring govt receipts with the capped budget.

 

[ETcallhome]

in terms of paying for it all.. we have many options.
If we cap spending and eliminate income tax... while order the Federal reserve to hold money supply even for the next few years.
2 things could happen.

1.... the economy booms and the reciepts the govt brings in besides income and taxes cover the budget... . or there is a budget short fall and the

2. the govt just prints the money. This may or not result in inflation due to the fact that if the world economy expand the money we print... may be enough to accommodate that expansion without much inflation. However even if we do have inflation... the inflation will stop once the economy expands enough to bring govt receipts with the capped budget.

you lost me, if we eliminate income taxes where does the revenue come from?

 

[jem]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
here it says that 42% of federal govt revenue comes form income taxes.
I believe we could eliminate income taxes and make up the shortfall via economic expansion and tariffs... if that does not work we have inflation.

But... again... I am not sure the deficit would create inflation if we prevented the Federal Reseve from expanding the money supply on its own.

Remember we are only 20% of the world's economy. Dollars are used throughout the world.
The world economy is 60 trillion or larger and some of that is done in dollars. As world economy expands at perhaps 4 % in a given year the theory is that our excess over spending / printing could match the needs of the economic expansion of the world.

In short we Amercians would for the first time benefit from being the world currency instead of the allowing the owners of the FED to reap the benefit of "expanding" the money supply.

 

[piezoe]

In other words, you mean people who work and don't live off of welfare.

YES! But only the poorly educated among them. Most broadly educated people -- I'm not referring to job training here -- will realize that when you propose something such as 'free' college tuition you mean it it is free for the student, but not for the tax payer. They understand that these issues have at least two sides , and some more than that. One has to consider all of the ramifications -- both the advantages and disadvantages of each such proposal. Those entertaining political posters, such as the one fhl posted, are most effective with those who have built in biases that make it unlikely they will think beyond the simple message of the cartoon. We all have biases. I maintain that the more poorly educated a person is, the less likely they will recognize their biases for what they are. One of the many benefits of a broad education, perhaps its chief one, is it improves our judgement and reduces the hold that biases have on our thinking.

In rapid fire political rhetoric, some issues necessarily get presented in over simplified form. Some of the things Sanders has proposed would obviously be relatively easy to implement, but very hard to achieve politically. He has been fairly criticized for that. His proposals are politically impractical; at the same time they are unquestionably practicable. Proof of that is found in the many advanced nations that have, for example, universal health care at much lower cost and better outcomes, and free college tuition for students who can academically qualify. Both of these Sander's initiatives are clearly practicable.

Likely when Sanders speaks of 'free' college tuition most are going to think in terms of the entire cost of higher public education without stopping to consider that, as things stand at present, only about 1/3 of the total cost is billed to the student. The additional amounts Sanders is talking about are, on a per capita basis, not nearly so much as it might at first seem. Would the benefits outweigh that additional cost? We should consider that issue carefully.

 

[piezoe]

I like it! Now just explain to me real slow (I'm an uneducated blue collar republican) how are we going to pay for it all? Staying out of war I get. Wars are expensive. But taxing Wall Street? Why Wall Street? Why not Apple iphones? What's Wall Street have to do with healthcare? Why not mandate that everybody must buy health insurance and a few stocks or pay a penalty?

why not tax people that live in warmer climates to pay for those of us that need more ng in the winter?

It's people that live in warmer climates that should be taxed. They are not paying their fair share of the nations heating bill.

That warmer climate you are enjoying down there was built on the backs of hardworking northerners who burn tons of fossil fuel each winter to stay warm. We pay for the fuel, and you get all the nice global warming. It's not fair I tell ya. Feel the Bern?

You forgot to subtract the power bill for air conditioning in the summer.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

YES! But only the poorly educated among them. Most broadly educated people -- I'm not referring to job training here -- will realize that when you propose something such as 'free' college tuition you mean it it is free for the student, but not for the tax payer. They understand that these issues have at least two sides , and some more than that. One has to consider all of the ramifications -- both the advantages and disadvantages of each such proposal. Those entertaining political posters, such as the one fhl posted, are most effective with those who have built in biases that make it unlikely they will think beyond the simple message of the cartoon. We all have biases. I maintain that the more poorly educated a person is, the less likely they will recognize their biases for what they are. One of the many benefits of a broad education, perhaps its chief one, is it improves our judgement and reduces the hold that biases have on our thinking.

In rapid fire political rhetoric, some issues necessarily get presented in over simplified form. Some of the things Sanders has proposed would obviously be relatively easy to implement, but very hard to achieve politically. He has been fairly criticized for that. His proposals are politically impractical; at the same time they are unquestionably practicable. Proof of that is found in the many advanced nations that have, for example, universal health care at much lower cost and better outcomes, and free college tuition for students who can academically qualify. Both of these Sander's initiatives are clearly practicable.

Likely when Sanders speaks of 'free' college tuition most are going to think in terms of the entire cost of higher public education without stopping to consider that, as things stand at present, only about 1/3 of the total cost is billed to the student. The additional amounts Sanders is talking about are, on a per capita basis, not nearly so much as it might at first seem. Would the benefits outweigh that additional cost? We should consider that issue carefully.

The fact that Obama was elected twice with overwhelming support from your well-educated crowd would seem to undercut your thesis. The PC reign of terror on campuses this past year should also make you rethink it.

You're no different from guys riding around in pickups with Confederate flags. You want people who think like you to be in charge and make decisions. At least they don't feel the need to spend a lot of time coming up with condescending putdowns of the other side.

 

[fhl]

YES! But only the poorly educated among them. Most broadly educated people -- I'm not referring to job training here -- will realize that when you propose something such as 'free' college tuition you mean it it is free for the student, but not for the tax payer. They understand that these issues have at least two sides , and some more than that. One has to consider all of the ramifications -- both the advantages and disadvantages of each such proposal. Those entertaining political posters, such as the one fhl posted, are most effective with those who have built in biases that make it unlikely they will think beyond the simple message of the cartoon. We all have biases. I maintain that the more poorly educated a person is, the less likely they will recognize their biases for what they are. One of the many benefits of a broad education, perhaps its chief one, is it improves our judgement and reduces the hold that biases have on our thinking.

In rapid fire political rhetoric, some issues necessarily get presented in over simplified form. Some of the things Sanders has proposed would obviously be relatively easy to implement, but very hard to achieve politically. He has been fairly criticized for that. His proposals are politically impractical; at the same time they are unquestionably practicable. Proof of that is found in the many advanced nations that have, for example, universal health care at much lower cost and better outcomes, and free college tuition for students who can academically qualify. Both of these Sander's initiatives are clearly practicable.

Likely when Sanders speaks of 'free' college tuition most are going to think in terms of the entire cost of higher public education without stopping to consider that, as things stand at present, only about 1/3 of the total cost is billed to the student. The additional amounts Sanders is talking about are, on a per capita basis, not nearly so much as it might at first seem. Would the benefits outweigh that additional cost? We should consider that issue carefully.

Everyone on here is aware of your inclination to give the state complete control over everything while at the same time referring to yourself as a libertarian. You are beyond biased. You are a nut.

 

[ETcallhome]

YES! But only the poorly educated among them. Most broadly educated people -- I'm not referring to job training here -- will realize that when you propose something such as 'free' college tuition you mean it it is free for the student, but not for the tax payer. They understand that these issues have at least two sides , and some more than that. One has to consider all of the ramifications -- both the advantages and disadvantages of each such proposal. Those entertaining political posters, such as the one fhl posted, are most effective with those who have built in biases that make it unlikely they will think beyond the simple message of the cartoon. We all have biases. I maintain that the more poorly educated a person is, the less likely they will recognize their biases for what they are. One of the many benefits of a broad education, perhaps its chief one, is it improves our judgement and reduces the hold that biases have on our thinking.

In rapid fire political rhetoric, some issues necessarily get presented in over simplified form. Some of the things Sanders has proposed would obviously be relatively easy to implement, but very hard to achieve politically. He has been fairly criticized for that. His proposals are politically impractical; at the same time they are unquestionably practicable. Proof of that is found in the many advanced nations that have, for example, universal health care at much lower cost and better outcomes, and free college tuition for students who can academically qualify. Both of these Sander's initiatives are clearly practicable.

Likely when Sanders speaks of 'free' college tuition most are going to think in terms of the entire cost of higher public education without stopping to consider that, as things stand at present, only about 1/3 of the total cost is billed to the student. The additional amounts Sanders is talking about are, on a per capita basis, not nearly so much as it might at first seem. Would the benefits outweigh that additional cost? We should consider that issue carefully.

the educated know what they should do with the money the uneducated work for

 

[piezoe]

The fact that Obama was elected twice with overwhelming support from your well-educated crowd would seem to undercut your thesis. The PC reign of terror on campuses this past year should also make you rethink it.

You're no different from guys riding around in pickups with Confederate flags. You want people who think like you to be in charge and make decisions. At least they don't feel the need to spend a lot of time coming up with condescending putdowns of the other side.

I do want people who think like I do to be in charge and make decisions. I'd be a fool if I didn't. You might consider spending more time examining your own thinking rather than mine.

 

[piezoe]

the educated know what they should do with the money the uneducated work for

This reminds me of that Will Rogers quip. (One of my favorites)

This election was lost four and six years ago, not this year. They [Republicans] didn’t start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickles down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the driest little spot. But he didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellows hands. They saved the big banks, but the little ones went up the flue. -- Will Rogers, ca 1932, St. Petersburg Times