America - The Official Thread

[TexRex]

I never understood how he won the mueller report. Perhaps he only could have "won" if he was guilty and they couldnt find anything to make a case. Butf he was innocent all the time, according to his claims, he didnt "win" anything.

Consider the upload date; it appears to refer to him winning the election. That the channel displays a video they uploaded two years ago so prominently, with more recent uploads taking a backseat, is rather telling.

 

[Danoff]

Can you actually chose to pay extra tax? Wouldnt that be deducted from your tax the next year?

Yes you can pay extra and no it does not carry over if you do.

If the current tax laws equire X amount and he is paying it now (without any tricky loopholes) then I dont think there ia anything hypocritical about it. He already established he is for a 52% tax law.

He doesn't think the current law is just and yet doesn't do what he thinks is just. Hypocritical.

It's really not complicated.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Yes you can pay extra and no it does not carry over if you do.



He doesn't think the current law is just and yet doesn't do what he thinks is just. Hypocritical.

It's really not complicated.

You're right that it's not complicated. The whole thing is a "gotcha" straw man argument. Nobody would realistically pay more taxes than they owe. I think the only people finding hypocrisy in Bernie's statements are the ones opposed to his tax policy. Note that the concept of Collective Action applies here. There is very negligible collective benefit if only Bernie pays this higher top mariginal rate. If everyone (everyone in the bracket anyways) pays the higher top marginal rate, there would indeed be a collective benefit. If Bernie is solely interested in the collective benefit of higher tax rates for the wealthy (which I'm definitely going to say that he is) than he has no incentive to pay more if nobody else is.

If Bernie was elected president, and with a sympathetic congress enacted changes to the tax codes that resulted in him owing a 52% top marginal rate, and he paid it, would you still find him hypocritical?

 

[Rallywagon]

You know, its gotta be said, if all we have to hang up Sanders with is the fact that he isn't currently paying a tax rate that he wants to implement in the future, wtf are you actually complaining about? I mean, really, with all of the crazy crap that politicians actually do, this really seems like an asinine issue to hold so much contention over.

 

[Danoff]

You're right that it's not complicated. The whole thing is a "gotcha" straw man argument. Nobody would realistically pay more taxes than they owe. I think the only people finding hypocrisy in Bernie's statements are the ones opposed to his tax policy. Note that the concept of Collective Action applies here. There is very negligible collective benefit if only Bernie pays this higher top mariginal rate. If everyone (everyone in the bracket anyways) pays the higher top marginal rate, there would indeed be a collective benefit. If Bernie is solely interested in the collective benefit of higher tax rates for the wealthy (which I'm definitely going to say that he is) than he has no incentive to pay more if nobody else is.

If Bernie was elected president, and with a sympathetic congress enacted changes to the tax codes that resulted in him owing a 52% top marginal rate, and he paid it, would you still find him hypocritical?

If tax policy is only fair when it's enforced by law, then it's fair now. Which is exactly what Bernie is arguing is not the case.

Why would nobody realistically pay more taxes than they owe? Because it's better used in their hands that the hands of the government? Because it's not fair for some people to pay more tax than others? Because Bernie thinks he is entitled to that money simply because he earned it?

You know, its gotta be said, if all we have to hang up Sanders with is the fact that he isn't currently paying a tax rate that he wants to implement in the future, wtf are you actually complaining about? I mean, really, with all of the crazy crap that politicians actually do, this really seems like an asinine issue to hold so much contention over.

Whatabout Trump right? Yea trump is horrible too. As is Hillary. That doesn't absolve Bernie of hypocritical behavior.

 

[Rallywagon]

Someone seems pretty triggered....

 

[Danoff]

Someone seems pretty triggered....

I can only assume that was directed at me, though I'm not sure what I said that makes you think that. Mostly this just seems like a deflection.

 

[Rallywagon]

I can only assume that was directed at me, though I'm not sure what I said that makes you think that. Mostly this just seems like a deflection.

It sure was. The fact that you keep returning with such vehemence to this topic is what makes me say this. Just seems like a really silly thing to take issue with, and if it's the one "flaw" he has, that makes him better than a large percentage of politicians. I mean, it's not like he has backed off on his stance now that he made some money off a book. He's still wanting to raise the tax an income bracket he now belongs too. I would buy the cries of hypocrisy if he rolled back that rhetoric. But he hasn't. Not currently paying what he wants to raise it to in the future, I mean, I just don't see that as hypocritical, no more than any other person out there ever has been at some point anyway. FFS, it's not like the guy isn't human or anything.

 

[Joey D]

FFS, it's not like the guy isn't human or anything.

Did you just assume his species? For shame.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

@Danoff

I still don't think you've articulated well enough what exactly Bernie has done that is hypocritical.

-Bernie wants wealthy Americans to pay more taxes (true or false?)
-Bernie is seeking to achieve the office of the President, in part to carry out this goal (true or false?)
-Presumably, if Bernie wins he will work towards enacting tax policy in line with his campaign pledge (speculation, but again I haven't seen reason to doubt him)
-Presumably, if this tax policy is enacted, he will pay the higher rate he would then owe. (speculation, but again I haven't seen reason to doubt him)

Now, if Bernie becomes president and either DOES NOT work towards enacting said tax policy OR does so and avoids or tries to avoid paying said higher tax, I would grant you hypocrisy. Until then, it's a straw man position to call him hypocritical. Meaning I think you are not a fan of his tax policy proposal and you find it easier to undermine his credibility than to slog through a debate about his actual tax policy (which is a little disappointing, because I know you have the ammo for that! ). Of course that was the entire point of the moderator asking the question of him in the first place. I find Bernie to be more credible than most, even if I disagree with him on almost everything, and his answer to this (kind of absurd) question does not change my mind.

 

[Brett]

I can only assume that was directed at me, though I'm not sure what I said that makes you think that. Mostly this just seems like a deflection.

Bernie is proposing a tax increase. Unless that increase becomes law, he or anyone else are not going to voluntarily pay additional taxes. Suggesting him or someone else do otherwise is silly and undermines the potential point you are trying to make.

This is a better response than mine:

@Danoff

I still don't think you've articulated well enough what exactly Bernie has done that is hypocritical.

-Bernie wants wealthy Americans to pay more taxes (true or false?)
-Bernie is seeking to achieve the office of the President, in part to carry out this goal (true or false?)
-Presumably, if Bernie wins he will work towards enacting tax policy in line with his campaign pledge (speculation, but again I haven't seen reason to doubt him)
-Presumably, if this tax policy is enacted, he will pay the higher rate he would then owe. (speculation, but again I haven't seen reason to doubt him)

Now, if Bernie becomes president and either DOES NOT work towards enacting said tax policy OR does so and avoids or tries to avoid paying said higher tax, I would grant you hypocrisy. Until then, it's a straw man position to call him hypocritical. Meaning I think you are not a fan of his tax policy proposal and you find it easier to undermine his credibility than to slog through a debate about his actual tax policy (which is a little disappointing, because I know you have the ammo for that! ). Of course that was the entire point of the moderator asking the question of him in the first place. I find Bernie to be more credible than most, even if I disagree with him on almost everything, and his answer to this (kind of absurd) question does not change my mind.

 

[Danoff]

It sure was. The fact that you keep returning with such vehemence to this topic

You're reading vehemence in. BTW, have you met me? I behave like this all the time.

Just seems like a really silly thing to take issue with, and if it's the one "flaw" he has, that makes him better than a large percentage of politicians.

I didn't say it's the one "flaw" he has. I said it's a flaw* . Not the same thing.

(btw, don't deflect to other awful politicians, it's irrelevant)

*actually what I said was that he's a hypocrite, but close enough

I would buy the cries of hypocrisy if he rolled back that rhetoric. But he hasn't.

Yes that would also be hypocritical.

Not currently paying what he wants to raise it to in the future, I mean, I just don't see that as hypocritical, no more than any other person out there ever has been at some point anyway.

Ok, let me try to explain this another way. Let's say that your neighbor threw a block party for everyone in the neighborhood. And they all came and had fun. And you told everyone in your neighborhood that it would only be fair for each of you to contribute $10 to this guy for throwing the block party. Let's say all of your neighbors said "no way". You respond by saying "look, that's not fair, this guy threw a block party for us and you're obligated to pay $10 to him".

Ok take all of that as a given. You don't think it's right for everyone to not pay this guy, you think he is owed it. I don't care whether you actually think this, it's a hypothetical. The hypothetical you thinks it is true.

Now let's say that when you find out that nobody else will pay him, you also do not pay him. You say "well if they're not going to pay him, I'm not going to either". But you were earlier arguing that the guy is owed this money and that it's not right for them to refuse.

Does that help?

@Danoff

I still don't think you've articulated well enough what exactly Bernie has done that is hypocritical.

-Bernie wants wealthy Americans to pay more taxes (true or false?)
-Bernie is seeking to achieve the office of the President, in part to carry out this goal (true or false?)
-Presumably, if Bernie wins he will work towards enacting tax policy in line with his campaign pledge (speculation, but again I haven't seen reason to doubt him)
-Presumably, if this tax policy is enacted, he will pay the higher rate he would then owe. (speculation, but again I haven't seen reason to doubt him)

All presumably true.

Now, if Bernie becomes president and either DOES NOT work towards enacting said tax policy OR does so and avoids or tries to avoid paying said higher tax, I would grant you hypocrisy.

Yes that too would be hypocritical.

Until then, it's a straw man position to call him hypocritical.

That's not how you use the term "straw man".

Meaning I think you are not a fan of his tax policy proposal and you find it easier to undermine his credibility than to slog through a debate about his actual tax policy (which is a little disappointing, because I know you have the ammo for that! ).

That's closer to a straw man. But it's really more like ad hominem. You see, you've gotten pretty far from the topic, which is that Bernie is being a hypocrite.

Bernie is proposing a tax increase. Unless that increase becomes law, him or anyone else is not going to voluntarily pay additional taxes. Suggesting him or someone else do otherwise is foolish; it undermines the potential point you are trying to make.

The only point I'm trying to make is that it is hypocritical of Bernie to say that rich people are not paying their fair share, and then refuse to pay his fair share. If he thinks it's fair, he should pay it. Otherwise he's attacking people for doing what he himself is doing, which is what hypocritical means.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The only point I'm trying to make is that it is hypocritical of Bernie to say that rich people are not paying their fair share, and then refuse to pay his fair share. If he thinks it's fair, he should pay it. Otherwise he's attacking people for doing what he himself is doing, which is what hypocritical means.

I think you are getting hung up on his rhetoric more than you should. At the end of the day, he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. That's kind of it. He's plainly been pretty effective in getting people talking about it.

 

[Danoff]

I think you are getting hung up on his rhetoric more than you should. At the end of the day, he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. That's kind of it. He's plainly been pretty effective in getting people talking about it.

Not just that he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. If that was it, I wouldn't see a problem with him not paying more than he owes. He thinks it's unfair that the wealthy pay "so little" right now. He thinks they're not paying what's "fair". It's not just rhetoric, it's an attempt to frame the situation as a moral or ethical question. The way he's selling his tax increase is to suggest that rich people are not doing what they should be if things were fair. That's how he's selling it.

Which makes it hypocritical when he runs afoul of that. I think maybe you're not listening to him closely enough.

 

[Dotini]

The claim lacks a bit of nuance. The title is kind of clickbaity. You make it Sound he compared the two directly. He was only pointing out that both are at the far end of the the political spectrum. That is the only similarity he was comparing. He was making a case of how the Centre has lost its appeal. That said, without concrete policy points he doesn’t actually make a case of how he is going to revive the centrist position. In the USA somehow being centrist is a bad thing for both democrats and republicans.

Obviously you can make up your own mind.
But his Democrat opponents are beating him about the head and shoulders with his own words, so it was in fact a blunder on his part. Our politics are a rough game, and little quarter is given to rookies trying to climb the tree and get ahead of those who started the climb earlier in the morning.

Being centrist is bad in primaries, for sure. But could be better in the general election.

 

[McLaren]

You know, its gotta be said, if all we have to hang up Sanders with is the fact that he isn't currently paying a tax rate that he wants to implement in the future, wtf are you actually complaining about? I mean, really, with all of the crazy crap that politicians actually do, this really seems like an asinine issue to hold so much contention over.

You really think Sanders only has his tax hypocrisy to be concerned over? Old man had to name drop the Boston Marathon bomber as someone who deserves to vote in the last few days.

And, Sanders said, enfranchising people like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev -- the US citizen who helped bomb the Boston Marathon in 2013, killing three and injuring hundreds of others -- is a part of that.

"Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, 'Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Well, that person did that. Not going to let that person vote,' you're running down a slippery slope," Sanders said when asked by a student if sex offenders, the Boston Marathon bomber, terrorists and murderers should have voting rights.

He added: "So I believe people commit crimes and they paid the price and they have the right to vote. I believe even if they're in jail they're paying their price to society but that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/22/politics/bernie-sanders-voting-rights/index.html

Ordinarily, this is a topic most people would be willing to agree or discuss; felons should typically be allowed to vote, depending of course, on the severity of their crime. The government already does something similar with certain people who have been jailed, not being allowed to purchase weapons after their sentence.

Tsarnaev however, took away 4 others' right to vote & injured over 200 others. Could have exampled nearly any other kind of criminal, but Sanders decides to throw up a convicted terrorist & is now in the headlines screwing himself once again when he could've completely avoided it. Tsarnev has not "paid his price to society", he's sitting on death row. When he's dead and thrown in a ditch, then he's paid his price to society as decided by the District of Massachusetts.

 

[the_boy]

You're right that it's not complicated. The whole thing is a "gotcha" straw man argument. Nobody would realistically pay more taxes than they owe. I think the only people finding hypocrisy in Bernie's statements are the ones opposed to his tax policy. Note that the concept of Collective Action applies here. There is very negligible collective benefit if only Bernie pays this higher top mariginal rate. If everyone (everyone in the bracket anyways) pays the higher top marginal rate, there would indeed be a collective benefit. If Bernie is solely interested in the collective benefit of higher tax rates for the wealthy (which I'm definitely going to say that he is) than he has no incentive to pay more if nobody else is.

If Bernie was elected president, and with a sympathetic congress enacted changes to the tax codes that resulted in him owing a 52% top marginal rate, and he paid it, would you still find him hypocritical?

They would still find a way to debate it in bad faith

Not just that he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. If that was it, I wouldn't see a problem with him not paying more than he owes. He thinks it's unfair that the wealthy pay "so little" right now. He thinks they're not paying what's "fair". It's not just rhetoric, it's an attempt to frame the situation as a moral or ethical question. The way he's selling his tax increase is to suggest that rich people are not doing what they should be if things were fair. That's how he's selling it.

Which makes it hypocritical when he runs afoul of that. I think maybe you're not listening to him closely enough.

You have a point, if they do pay their fair share.

 

[Rallywagon]

You really think Sanders only has his tax hypocrisy to be concerned over? Old man had to name drop the Boston Marathon bomber as someone who deserves to vote in the last few days.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/22/politics/bernie-sanders-voting-rights/index.html

Ordinarily, this is a topic most people would be willing to agree or discuss; felons should typically be allowed to vote, depending of course, on the severity of their crime. The government already does something similar with certain people who have been jailed, not being allowed to purchase weapons after their sentence.

Tsarnaev however, took away 4 others' right to vote & injured over 200 others. Could have exampled nearly any other kind of criminal, but Sanders decides to throw up a convicted terrorist & is now in the headlines screwing himself once again when he could've completely avoided it. Tsarnev has not "paid his price to society", he's sitting on death row. When he's dead and thrown in a ditch, then he's paid his price to society as decided by the District of Massachusetts.

It would appear that a student in fact named dropped, not Sanders. Seems to me Sanders is just sticking to his position and someone is trying to force a "gotcha" moment out of it. Again.

 

[Famine]

I still don't think you've articulated well enough what exactly Bernie has done that is hypocritical.

-Bernie wants wealthy Americans to pay more taxes (true or false?)
-Bernie is seeking to achieve the office of the President, in part to carry out this goal (true or false?)
-Presumably, if Bernie wins he will work towards enacting tax policy in line with his campaign pledge (speculation, but again I haven't seen reason to doubt him)
-Presumably, if this tax policy is enacted, he will pay the higher rate he would then owe. (speculation, but again I haven't seen reason to doubt him)

- Bernie attacks billionaires (used to be millionaires too; he stopped the moment he became one) for "not paying their fair share" of tax
- Bernie has a value for what "fair share" is
- Bernie pays tax at the same rate as the billionaires, not at the "fair share" rate
∴ Bernie does not believe he pays his own "fair share", despite the option for him to pay what he considers the fair share to be open to him

 

[TexRex]

Seems to me Sanders is just sticking to his position and someone is trying to force a "gotcha" moment out of it. Again.

That does appear to be the case, but it also appears that he stated outright that those presently incarcerated deserve to vote, and I think that the time when countless rights are stripped of an individual as a result of acts for which they've been convicted is a time when that particular right ought to be stripped as well. It's common sense. Once their debt has been paid, as defined by the terms of sentencing, I'm pretty firmly* of the belief that that right should be restored along with others.

Kamala dodged that one, but I like what I understand was Pete's position.

*I'll admit that I'm hesitant to believe that those convicted of certain heinous acts should have that right restored, but my gut says it should regardless. Gun ownership is another nut entirely.

 

[McLaren]

It would appear that a student in fact named dropped, not Sanders. Seems to me Sanders is just sticking to his position and someone is trying to force a "gotcha" moment out of it. Again.

Sanders is agreeing a convicted terrorist should be allowed his voting rights. Should’ve shot that example down right away but didn’t.

There is no gotcha, but you seem quick to ignore Sanders’ criticisms as nothing. I’ll assume you agree with him as well.

 

[Danoff]

*I'll admit that I'm hesitant to believe that those convicted of certain heinous acts should have that right restored, but my gut says it should regardless. Gun ownership is another nut entirely.

There's no reason why that has to be the case. People who have committed heinous acts have forfeit their rights. If they still have the right to vote, it's because someone thinks it's a good idea, not because it's a logical, moral, or ethical requirement of human rights.

 

[TexRex]

There's no reason why that has to be the case. People who have committed heinous acts have forfeit their rights. If they still have the right to vote, it's because someone thinks it's a good idea, not because it's a logical, moral, or ethical requirement of human rights.

I mean...my thinking is right there with you, but I feel as though the terms of sentence should cover the amount of time that the privilege (because that's what it is) is revoked. If the act is heinous enough that the revocation should exceed incarceration, isn't it possible that the term of incarceration was itself insufficient? If it's deemed that they've paid their debt for the acts they committed by meeting the terms of their sentencing and endured any subject probationary period, shouldn't they get to have a say in how they live their life by voting as everyone else (provided they meet the same requirements that everyone else must)?

 

[Danoff]

I mean...my thinking is right there with you, but I feel as though the term sentence should cover the amount of time that the privilege (because that's what it is) is revoked. If the act is heinous enough that the revocation should exceed incarceration, isn't it possible that the term of incarceration was itself insufficient? If it's deemed that they've paid their debt for the acts they committed by meeting the terms of their sentencing and endured any subject probationary period, shouldn't they get to have a say in how they live their life by voting as everyone else (provided they meet the same requirements that everyone else must)?

I think we're slowly moving away from incarceration as the sole means of sentencing criminals, and I think that's healthy and a better long term solution.

 

[PocketZeven]

Consider the upload date; it appears to refer to him winning the election. That the channel displays a video they uploaded two years ago so prominently, with more recent uploads taking a backseat, is rather telling.

I was referring to his speech around release, after Barr's letter. Where he said "I won" referring to the report repeatedly.

Yes you can pay extra and no it does not carry over if you do.



He doesn't think the current law is just and yet doesn't do what he thinks is just. Hypocritical.

It's really not complicated.

Ah ok. Interesting fact about american Tax. humorme , but can you deduct it as a donation in next years tax return? How does the treasury book that acces in taxes?

- Bernie attacks billionaires (used to be millionaires too; he stopped the moment he became one) for "not paying their fair share" of tax
- Bernie has a value for what "fair share" is
- Bernie pays tax at the same rate as the billionaires, not at the "fair share" rate
∴ Bernie does not believe he pays his own "fair share", despite the option for him to pay what he considers the fair share to be open to him

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

Not true. His postitions have not shifted. Because he released his tax returns, the right have chosen this opportunity to accuse him of unfounded hypocrisy. It would be hypoctitical if he voted against higher tax for larger incomes.

 

[Danoff]

Ah ok. Interesting fact about american Tax. humorme , but can you deduct it as a donation in next years tax return? How does the treasury book that acces in taxes?

I don't think the IRS is a US government recognized charity for the purpose of deductions.

It would be hypoctitical if he voted against higher tax for larger incomes.

It would be also hypocritical.

 

[Famine]

Not true.

Which bit isn't true? You quoted literally everything.

That aside, he definitely says billionaires aren't paying their fair share, definitely says a 52% tax bracket would be their fair share, definitely doesn't pay tax at that rate, and definitely refuses to voluntarily overpay...

Hypocrisy is the appearance of believing one thing while acting in a contrary manner. So it appears to be apt.


What's the relevance of the generic pledge link?

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't think the IRS is a US government recognized charity for the purpose of deductions.




It would be also hypocritical.

In my country any surplus will automatically be deducted from any other tax etc. So you cant pay more then you are required. Does the US have a surplus?

Accusing Bernie of hypocrisy is unfounded. JHis policy havent changed. The only thing changed is he is millionair according to his tax returns. The right have seized this opportunity to accuse him of hypocrisy to discredit him.

 

[Joey D]

Does the US have a surplus?

Nope, we're like $22 Trillion in debt.

 

[Danoff]

In my country any surplus will automatically be deducted from any other tax etc. So you cant pay more then you are required. Does the US have a surplus?

Not like that. You can choose to defer your refund to cover next year's taxes I think.

Accusing Bernie of hypocrisy is unfounded. JHis policy havent changed. The only thing changed is he is millionair according to his tax returns. The right have seized this opportunity to accuse him of hypocrisy to discredit him.

I'm not accusing him of hypocrisy based on shifting views. I'm accusing him of hypocrisy because his actions are not consistent with his rhetoric.