Hillary vs Bernie

[crazy canuck]

I don't understand your point re "Liberals were just elected on a platform of deficit spending to finance infrastructure spending." what I posted re infrastructure is bernie sanders's goal under a republican congress. not bernie sanders's goal under a canadian congress.

I now see what Grumbler was talking about.  You made the claim that Sander's policies were not similar to existing Canadian policies.  My post was refuting your claim.  Now you tell me you this?

[Admiral Yi]

LaCroix, I didn't see anything unconstitutional in Bernie's proposals.  Taxing is not taking.  Though arguably the distinction is semantic.

[Valmy]

takings clause. legit government purpose (or whatever the test is). wealth redistribution, which is what "it's wrong that .1% owns equal to 90%" essentially suggests, doesn't fit that.

If that is true then why wasn't the entire New Deal ruled unconstitutional between then and now? Besides I would imagine Sanders can find some legit government purposes to put that money to if he is planning on doing trillion dollar infrastructure investments.

[LaCroix]

LaCroix, I didn't see anything unconstitutional in Bernie's proposals.  Taxing is not taking.  Though arguably the distinction is semantic.

I could have been wrong that gross over-taxation (designed to destroy/redistribute with seemingly no legitimate purpose) would fall under takings clause. it falls under something, though, and that would be unconstitutional. we're talking about a world where bernie sanders has congressional votes to pass a law that recreates america into the vision outlined in his policies. it's impossible to create that vision.

Now you tell me you this?

I didn't know which direction you were going with that point. you switched from talking about whether sanders policy could be implemented in the US to how similar a policy was to canadian policy. point #1 -> implement in US; point #2 -> similar to canada; #4 -> implement in US. #3, "Liberals were just elected..." could have gone either way, so I said "I don't understand your point" and went with implement in US rather than similar to canada angle. make sense?

[LaCroix]

If that is true then why wasn't the entire New Deal ruled unconstitutional between then and now? Besides I would imagine Sanders can find some legit government purposes to put that money to if he is planning on doing trillion dollar infrastructure investments.

nothing in American history has come close to wealth redistribution on the scale that OWS types suggest. we're talking about some gross high number like 70-80% taxation on wealthy. some real Victoria II shit

[Valmy]

If that is true then why wasn't the entire New Deal ruled unconstitutional between then and now? Besides I would imagine Sanders can find some legit government purposes to put that money to if he is planning on doing trillion dollar infrastructure investments.

nothing in American history has come close to wealth redistribution on the scale that OWS types suggest. we're talking about some gross high number like 70-80% taxation on wealthy. some real Victoria II shit

What were the highest tax brackets prior to the 60s again?

In any case the Constitution makes no such distinction that I am aware of. That doing something a little bit is Constitutional but doing it to some other amount is un-Constitutional. Things are either Constitutional or they are not.

[LaCroix]

If that is true then why wasn't the entire New Deal ruled unconstitutional between then and now? Besides I would imagine Sanders can find some legit government purposes to put that money to if he is planning on doing trillion dollar infrastructure investments.

nothing in American history has come close to wealth redistribution on the scale that OWS types suggest. we're talking about some gross high number like 70-80% taxation on wealthy. some real Victoria II shit

What were the highest tax brackets prior to the 60s again?

In any case the Constitution makes no such distinction that I am aware of. That doing something a little bit is Constitutional but doing it to some other amount is un-Constitutional. Things are either Constitutional or they are not.

no idea. are you making a statement by asking a question, or are you asking a question? I don't know tax history

??? makes no distinction on what? if congress tried to destroy an entire classification of people by stripping away their wealth, you can be damn sure it'd be ruled unconstitutional. and your last point is incorrect: "doing something a little bit is constitutional but doing it a lot is unconstitutional" is pretty much how constitutional law works in a lot of different con law topics. the very first example that comes to mind is police interrogation -- you can be a little aggressive, but you can't be extremely aggressive.

[dps]

The Vietnam War is over

So, perhaps Bernie should stop fighting to end it.

[Valmy]

no idea. are you making a statement by asking a question, or are you asking a question? I don't know tax history

You don't know tax history...yet you know for a fact nothing has come close to 70-80% taxes. Interesting. You would be wrong BTW.

??? makes no distinction on what?

Exactly what I said and you responded to in such a way as to suggest that you understood exactly what I was trying to say?

if congress tried to destroy an entire classification of people by stripping away their wealth

A tax bracket with 70%-80% is not the same thing as confiscating 70%-80% of somebody's assets. You are aware of that right?

you can be damn sure it'd be ruled unconstitutional

Ok then why wasn't it in the past?

and your last point is incorrect: "doing something a little bit is constitutional but doing it a lot is unconstitutional" is pretty much how constitutional law works in a lot of different con law topics. the very first example that comes to mind is police interrogation -- you can be a little aggressive, but you can't be extremely aggressive.

Well that is different. We are talking about tax rates not something with as much as a judgement call as law enforcement.

[LaCroix]

no idea. are you making a statement by asking a question, or are you asking a question? I don't know tax history

You don't know tax history...yet you know for a fact nothing has come close to 70-80% taxes. Interesting. You would be wrong BTW.

??? makes no distinction on what?

Exactly what I said and you responded to in such a way as to suggest that you understood exactly what I was trying to say?

if congress tried to destroy an entire classification of people by stripping away their wealth

A tax bracket with 70%-80% is not the same thing as confiscating 70%-80% of somebody's assets. You are aware of that right?

you can be damn sure it'd be ruled unconstitutional

Ok then why wasn't it in the past?

and your last point is incorrect: "doing something a little bit is constitutional but doing it a lot is unconstitutional" is pretty much how constitutional law works in a lot of different con law topics. the very first example that comes to mind is police interrogation -- you can be a little aggressive, but you can't be extremely aggressive.

Well that is different. We are talking about tax rates not something with as much as a judgement call as law enforcement.

re: income tax bracket

interesting! I just looked it up

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-would-you-feel-about-a-94-tax-rate/

why were you such a prick about telling me this?

I guess when I was thinking 70-80% tax, I meant stripping away someone's assets. someone's wealth. that's what bernie sanders is getting at. .1% own as much wealth as 90%. not income, right? you seem to be attacking me more on semantics related to my ignorance on tax/financial stuff rather than the core of what I'm saying. that's a pretty dickish way of debate

[Admiral Yi]

A much less insane way of framing the issue LC is trying to get at is that redistribution for the sake of redistribution has never been a stated policy objective in the US.  Tax the rich to provide a safety net: yes.  Tax the rich to lift people out of poverty: yes.  Tax the rich because they have more and we want some: hasn't been done.

[LaCroix]

  (edit) I absolutely admit that I don't always explain myself on languish in the best way possible

[Valmy]

I guess when I was thinking 70-80% tax, I meant stripping away someone's assets. someone's wealth. that's what bernie sanders is getting at. .1% own as much wealth as 90%. not income, right?

Ah I see. No that is not what Bernie is getting at. I think he is saying there are structural injustice problems blah blah that cause that problem and he is going to fix them through noble socialist worst. Not that he is just going to take everybody's shit. Because that would be insane, like all his supporters would have to be certifiably crazy. Somehow I do not think Ank is a fucking sociopath so I do not think that is what Sanders is saying he would do. It would be unprecedented and impossible anyway. That is not a tax that is something else. I guess I did not get that you were suggesting he was suggesting such a thing because it would be Soviet Union-esque rather than Sweden-esque which is more what I thought Sanders was going for.

you seem to be attacking me more on semantics related to my ignorance on tax/financial stuff rather than the core of what I'm saying. that's a pretty dickish way of debate

I am not attacking you on semantics at all. I thought you were saying a 70%-80% tax bracket was unconstitutional and I was saying it most certainly is, as we have had it before. So I misunderstood.

[Valmy]

A much less insane way of framing the issue LC is trying to get at is that redistribution for the sake of redistribution has never been a stated policy objective in the US.  Tax the rich to provide a safety net: yes.  Tax the rich to lift people out of poverty: yes.  Tax the rich because they have more and we want some: hasn't been done.

Wait so a tax bracket at 70% is ok so long as you don't say anything about redistribution?

And anyway I thought LaCroix just said he was not talking about taxes but confiscation of assets?

[Phillip V]

Sanders refuses to concede defeat in Iowa due to the coin tosses.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucuses-218643