FA+
Shop
Because :Draugr: has to Censor others arguments .
10 years ago
General
Draugr and I have always had our differences as far as politics go well just the other day he posts this http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/7363898/ and well Ive been avoiding his journals but I just wanted to debate the facts of his statements with him, lets just say he didnt feel the same and decided to censor what I had wrote unfortunately for him when I spend a long time writing something I copy and past it, here is my arguments."Ive gotta speak out, first off you wanna talk about problems, Hillary can not run under the laws she has broke
The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
Lastly 18 U.S.C. ยง 2071 Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
so at least the Republicans don't have a criminal running.Not that theirs rely much of a difference any more between the parties, I mean the republicans have controlled the house and senate since 2014 and I have seen nothing but liberal win win win. there is no difference between the parties just one big Government Big business ( of their own kind the reps have their oil the dems have their china companies) loving party each play fighting each other.
now let me attack your guy Bernie, were is all this money he claims he is going to payout coming from cause ive done the numbers.
Free medicare $15 Trillion
Free Retirement $1.2 Trillion
Free Infrastructure $1 Trillion
Free Collage $725 Billion
Free Family leave $319 Billion
Free pension funds $29 Billion
Free Job programs $5.5 Billion
All in all were looking at the least at $18 trillion dollars,( 'edit' clarifying that this is over a period of 10 years) but were only going to tax the one percenters you claim, incorrect once again lets look at the math.
If you cut the United States military ENTIRELY and taxed all earnings over 1 Million dollars at 100% you could not pay for this ignoring that no one is going to work for free,so he would have to move down the list and also tax at a hundred percent the top 5%? Any households earning $190,000 or more but even that wouldn't pay for it so top 10% taxed 100% that would be any household earnings over $150,000 well then yes you could pay for it but number one who would work for free and number 2 $150,000 is not very rich. this would kill the middle class,"
I will also point out that under President Eisenhower, the highest income tax bracket was at 91%, and the rich kept working and making more money (the richest among us make far more money in capital gains than in income). That era was also one of the most economically profitable ones in US history, as a matter of fact. Nobody is advocating a 100% income tax rate, but extremely high tax brackets have been in place in our nation's history with no ill effect. For about forty years (the 40's to the 80's) our top income tax bracket averaged around 70%.
Our highest bracket ever was at 94% for couples making over $200,000, but that was due to war costs during WWII - special circumstances, not due to general economic policy.
An $18 trillion spending plan is hefty even over a ten-year period, but not completely unfeasible, even without bumping the top marginal income tax rates up into the 90% range. To my knowledge his platform has specifically spelled out where he plans to get roughly half of this money, and that's with some pretty small income tax increases on the rich, at least compared to historic rates.
Personally, I don't really support Sander's single-payer plan. Medicare has its own set of pitfalls and existing problems. If he wants to start over from scratch, I'd much rather we scrap the ACA & Medicare and move to something closer to Canada's single-payer system (which I've personally experienced). But that's beside the point.
Canada does not have a national single-payer system, they have provincial single-payer systems set up and run by each individual province. I would still prefer a national system here, not a system run by each individual state.
Addressing President Eisenhower's time in office high taxes had nothing to do with our economies growth Higher taxes have never been shown to encourage growth there is no logic behind saying that if I punish you in the form of taxes that take your money you will be encouraged to make more.It doesn't work in children or nations.
The 90% tax was the claim on paper in actual tax numbers of the time taking into account capital gains. the real effective tax rate for millionaires was 49 percent in 1953. The effective rate dropped throughout the decade, reaching 31 percent by 1960.Then we have to look at the tax distribution of that decade. Those earning more than $100,000 paid less than 5 percent of the taxes collected in the U.S.from 50s to the 60s , another reason that the tax claims for Eisenhower is off is even the man himself was pushing for lowering taxes he did not get very far but people understood that taxes were going down which encouraged economic growth on top of the returning soldiers and the creation of thousands of young families at the end of world war 2.
Ah Cannada were wait times for medically necessary treatment ( things like surgery cancer treatment ect) are at the short wait time of 18.2 weeks in 2015 yeah thats the kinda healthcare I want. I wanna make sure im not getting this wrong though so, "a single payer system is one in which the government is effectively the sole insurance company" would you consider that the correct definition? If so Im sure just like in every thing else the Government will choose what is best for the sick not what is cheapest or what medical company holds the Government contracts and lobbies,I lost a old friend to the Government run V.A. he died of cancer well waiting for treatment on a Government run centralized system just like the Canadian system. Government run anything is always second rate to the free market competition.
But this tho