Reasons We Hate Hillary Clinton

[Adam Strange]

HI, @Investigator. I just wanted to comment on some of your statements.

A) Medicare-for-all even when US sports one of the worst deficits in the world.

I assume you that you are making two assumptions here. One, that deficits are bad, and Two, that Medicare-for-all will be more expensive than what we have now.

First, deficits are not necessarily bad. I owe the bank a quarter million dollars but I'm not in financial trouble; it's all about what you get for that deficit. In any case, sovereign states that can print money are not in the same category as households, and they can by definition never go bankrupt in debts which are denominated in their own currency.
Second, here is a bit about what shifting to Medicare-for-all might mean, in terms of savings from lower medical and drug prices: http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press...or-all-battles. Bear in mind that other wealthy countries do have Medicare-for-all, and they are not going broke.

Then claims he will heavily tax the rich when they are reason America is still standing (though Trump tax cut was completely uncalled for).

The statement that taxing the rich will cause America to stop standing is bizarre to me. You do realize that the money gained by taxing the rich will go into the pockets of the rest of Americans, right? How will making the middle class richer cause America to "fall"? Will we lose the world race for the biggest yacht?
Most people have no idea how rich the rich are, and that they got that way by a reduction in their taxes, not by their amazing brilliance at running the world.
Here is something to ponder.
If federal tax rates were returned to the same levels that were in force in Nixon's administration, the government would take in enough revenue to send every wage earner a check that would raise their income to $50,000 every year. Every. Single. Wage earner. That's how much money the rich are taking out of your pocket by having reduced tax rates, compared to 1972. And the country was not going broke in 1972.

Also, I assume you know that the government doesn't tax people in order to get operating income. The government prints money, for Christ's sake. They take those tax dollars that you send them on April 15 and shovel them into a furnace somewhere. They don't need to tax in order to spend.
The government taxes for two reasons. The first is to give the paper that they print some value, and the second is to remove money from the system when the system starts to overheat (inflate) from too much printing. You are an ILI. You should know this stuff. It is fundamental to knowing about money.

I find Bernie supporters tend to care about humanity a great deal, but I also find their actual plan to change things quite naive and not wel, thought out.

Bernie does seem to have a hard time selling his ideas.

B) Well not outright, but Bernie is not a democrat by definition. That’s why he has several years as an Independent. I hope you are being sarcastic about the rigging of the primaries.

C) Culture is very much tied to politics. I would definitely not aay they are the same side on matter of abortion rights and LGBT issues. I mean, that us why they Republicans are so passionate about getting Supreme Court judges. Even if you don’t think Republicans would flip just by the removal of the far left, you definitely can’t say their presence hasn’t scared off the moderate democrats.

D) What you call enormous generosity, I call frustration for bad governance for 3+ years. The senate agreeing to drop sanctions on Russia, abandoning allies in the Kurds, blowing up inflation with unnecessary tax cuts. These are all action a republican party without Trump would bash relentlessly more than any Democrat around (except maybe the tax). I am personally hoping Biden gets elected as the current Republican party has showed quite incapable of watching for the country’s best interests. I was saying democrats should become more like republicans, I was saying they should become more like democrats and less like socialists (not saying they are now socialists, but they are trending towards that side of the political spectrum).

I think Biden will be elected. Whether he can improve things or not remains to be seen.

[Grendel]

HI, @Investigator. I just wanted to comment on some of your statements.



I assume you that you are making two assumptions here. One, that deficits are bad, and Two, that Medicare-for-all will be more expensive than what we have now.

First, deficits are not necessarily bad. I owe the bank a quarter million dollars but I'm not in financial trouble; it's all about what you get for that deficit. In any case, sovereign states that can print money are not in the same category as households, and they can by definition never go bankrupt in debts which are denominated in their own currency.
Second, here is a bit about what shifting to Medicare-for-all might mean, in terms of savings from lower medical and drug prices: http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press...or-all-battles. Bear in mind that other wealthy countries do have Medicare-for-all, and they are not going broke.



The statement that taxing the rich will cause America to stop standing is bizarre to me. You do realize that the money gained by taxing the rich will go into the pockets of the rest of Americans, right? How will making the middle class richer cause America to "fall"? Will we lose the world race for the biggest yacht?
Also, I assume you know that the government doesn't tax people in order to get operating income. The government prints money, for Christ's sake. They take those tax dollars that you send them on April 15 and shovel them into a furnace somewhere. They don't need to tax in order to spend.
The government taxes for two reasons. The first is to give the paper that they print some value, and the second is to remove money from the system when the system starts to overheat (inflate) from too much printing. You are an ILI. You should know this stuff. It is fundamental to knowing about money.


Bernie does seem to have a hard time selling his ideas.



I think Biden will be elected. Whether he can improve things or not remains to be seen.

I'm just gonna leave this here.

[Adam Strange]

This is the bottom line: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...es/#item-start

[Metamorph]

I'm just gonna leave this here.

In other words, Americans need to focus on their states more and less on what's going on in New York, California, and Texas, which are basically just leveraging themselves so smaller states have to pay for all their luxuries. News at 11.

Changing the style of local journalism and local programming in general is one of the first places to start. An American state is more like a European Union country than an Australian province so let's not pretend our federally-assimilated states/countries are equal to a podunk town. This puts the Sinclair Incident in a new light.

[Investigator]

HI, @Investigator



The statement that taxing the rich will cause America to stop standing is bizarre to me. You do realize that the money gained by taxing the rich will go into the pockets of the rest of Americans, right? How will making the middle class richer cause America to "fall"? Will we lose the world race for the biggest yacht?
Also, I assume you know that the government doesn't tax people in order to get operating income. The government prints money, for Christ's sake. They take those tax dollars that you send them on April 15 and shovel them into a furnace somewhere. They don't need to tax in order to spend.
The government taxes for two reasons. The first is to give the paper that they print some value, and the second is to remove money from the system when the system starts to overheat (inflate) from too much printing. You are an ILI. You should know this stuff. It is fundamental to knowing about money.

Knowing the "fundamentals of money" is quite important to my career which has a lot to do with understanding capital markets. Now, I think we are pretty much on the same page, I just think you might be exaggerating some of my statements. I actually have no problem with increasing taxes for the rich, but it has to be done to the right amount. Will a 97% tax on the top 400 richest Americans lead them to keep the finances exposed to the American tax law. This will not only shock the top 400 richest Americans, but the top 2% will get frighten by these changes. What happens when people in charge of large amounts of wealth get scared? They and their wealth runs away and hide (lol). Despite the expenses involved with moving wealth, shocking them would make it seem like a much more viable option. However, it is not only rich Americans that you have to worry about, you have to worry about foreign investors. World wide sentiment will certainly drop which means less of an inflow of international cash affecting America's Balance of Payment. This will will push "Corporate America" to move their business elsewhere. As a result the FED will lower rates to make investing more enticing which drops the currency value. America does not benefit from a weak currency (America runs a large trade deficit) as they rely on capital flow. I haven't gotten on the topic of Bernie's proposal to increasing the tax rate to 50% to those above 2,000,000 income.

Just because money flowing into middle class America is good as it increases Consumer Confidence doesn't mean that it can't come without consequences if done to an extreme. It is very easy to spook markets. There are smart ways to tax the rich, but there are certainly dumb ways.

Some other things to note: Running large debt isn't necessarily bad as long as you monitor it properly. Bernie has mentioned nothing that would benefit America's GDP. You could say he could just ask the Treasury to "print" more money, but you should know that quantitative easing done too long destroys an economy for the short-medium term at least.

[Adam Strange]

You have raised some points that other people have raised before. Let's look at them in detail.

Knowing the "fundamentals of money" is quite important to my career which has a lot to do with understanding capital markets. Now, I think we are pretty much on the same page, I just think you might be exaggerating some of my statements. I actually have no problem with increasing taxes for the rich, but it has to be done to the right amount. Will a 97% tax on the top 400 richest Americans lead them to keep the finances exposed to the American tax law. This will not only shock the top 400 richest Americans, but the top 2% will get frighten by these changes. What happens when people in charge of large amounts of wealth get scared? They and their wealth runs away and hide (lol). Despite the expenses involved with moving wealth, shocking them would make it seem like a much more viable option.

Here is what actually happens when you tax the rich, in contrast to their threats: https://www.theguardian.com/inequali...naires-threats

Personally, for the 2% of billionaires who do leave the country and set up "residence" in a tax haven, I'd propose a law stating that 100% of the income that they derive from activities in their original country would be taxed forever, no exceptions and no returns. If they want to benefit from a country's laws, then they need to pay for that country's infrastructure. I think such a law would be very popular.

However, it is not only rich Americans that you have to worry about, you have to worry about foreign investors. World wide sentiment will certainly drop which means less of an inflow of international cash affecting America's Balance of Payment. This will will push "Corporate America" to move their business elsewhere.

I don't see GM moving their headquarters to China. Nor Microsoft, either. There is a reason that corporations incorporate in the US, and that reason is the stable laws that the US has. The fact that Apple has made Ireland a tax haven simply points out the fact that corporations normally act as sociopaths unless they are held accountable. https://itep.org/fact-sheet-apple-and-tax-avoidance/ Personally, I think that denying Apple access to US markets would fix their tendency to benefit from US laws without actually having to pay for those benefits. Let them see how many iPhones they can sell in China. And how well China respects the patents that presently allow Apple to reap huge profits.

As a result the FED will lower rates to make investing more enticing which drops the currency value. America does not benefit from a weak currency (America runs a large trade deficit) as they rely on capital flow. I haven't gotten on the topic of Bernie's proposal to increasing the tax rate to 50% to those above 2,000,000 income.

Actually, having a "weaker" dollar does help most people in the US, because it means that US products are cheaper for the rest of the world to buy, and cheaper products means that more are sold, and more are produced and therefore more people are employed. It also makes Mercedes more expensive to buy, which means that a rich person might choose to buy a Tesla instead, thus employing Americans. When the money stays in the country, it circulates here, it doesn't go elsewhere where it acts as a claim against our future labor. "A foreigner with a paper dollar can tell an American, "By virtue of me having this dollar, you promised to work for me for a certain length of time, and I'll give you this piece of paper in exchange for your real labor. Lol."

As for Bernie's proposal to increase taxes on millionaires, here is an historical article about tax rates. Please read it carefully, because I discovered that when I started making more than the average income, I started acting like the guys described: https://www.alternet.org/2008/11/why...id_high_taxes/

Incidentally, I pay as little tax as I legally can. I have a tax attorney and bookkeepers to ensure that I pay what I owe and not a cent more. In practical terms, this means that I can stack up dollars past what I need to survive and buy toys with them. If the personal tax rates were higher, I would avoid paying taxes by investing more in my business (since capital gains taxes would be lower in comparison). And so would everyone else. And I'm sure that you know, investment is the key to future earnings, assuming that you aren't paying politicians for favors, which can have much higher returns but is much worse for the country.

Just because money flowing into middle class America is good as it increases Consumer Confidence doesn't mean that it can't come without consequences if done to an extreme. It is very easy to spook markets. There are smart ways to tax the rich, but there are certainly dumb ways.

Another thing to note: Running large debt isn't necessarily bad as long as you monitor it properly. Bernie has mentioned nothing that would benefit America's GDP.

Yes, the term "properly" and Bernie's proposals are both highly uncertain and need more explanation.

[Investigator]

You have raised some points that other people have raised before. Let's look at them in detail.



Here is what actually happens when you tax the rich, in contrast to their threats: https://www.theguardian.com/inequali...naires-threats

Personally, for the 2% of billionaires who do leave the country and set up "residence" in a tax haven, I'd propose a law stating that 100% of the income that they derive from activities in their original country would be taxed forever, no exceptions and no returns. If they want to benefit from a country's laws, then they need to pay for that country's infrastructure. I think such a law would be very popular.



I don't see GM moving their headquarters to China. Nor Microsoft, either. There is a reason that corporations incorporate in the US, and that reason is the stable laws that the US has. The fact that Apple has made Ireland a tax haven simply points out the fact that corporations normally act as sociopaths unless they are held accountable. https://itep.org/fact-sheet-apple-and-tax-avoidance/ Personally, I think that denying Apple access to US markets would fix their tendency to benefit from US laws without actually having to pay for those benefits. Let them see how many iPhones they can sell in China.



Actually, having a "weaker" dollar does help most people in the US, because it means that US products are cheaper for the rest of the world to buy, and cheaper products means that more are sold, and more are produced and therefore more people are employed. It also makes Mercedes more expensive to buy, which means that a rich person might choose to buy a Tesla instead, thus employing Americans. When the money stays in the country, it circulates here, it doesn't go elsewhere where it acts as a claim against our future labor. "A foreigner with a paper dollar can tell an American, "By virtue of me having this dollar, you promised to work for me for a certain length of time, and I'll give you this piece of paper in exchange for your real labor. Lol."

As for Bernie's proposal to increase taxes on millionaires, here is an historical article about tax rates. Please read it carefully, because I discovered that when I started making more than the average income, I started acting like the guys described: https://www.alternet.org/2008/11/why...id_high_taxes/

Incidentally, I pay as little tax as I legally can. I have a tax attorney and bookkeepers to ensure that I pay what I owe and not a cent more. In practical terms, this means that I can stack up dollars past what I need to survive and buy toys with them. If the personal tax rates were higher, I would avoid paying taxes by investing more in my business (since capital gains taxes would be lower in comparison). And so would everyone else. And I'm sure that you know, investment is the key to future earnings, assuming that you aren't paying politicians for favors, which can have much higher returns but is much worse for the country.

Before I get into this, I want to clarify that I am not for tax cuts for the rich. What Trump did with the tax cut was terrible for the economy. In other words, I am very much up for a corrective tax increase.
Three big problems:

1) Shifting America into a country that makes and exports more goods would be a pretty long process. Currently America runs a huge trade deficit (America's Current Account is atrocious), but they make up for it in capital flow. What happens in the mean time as they get used to a lower value currency? I am sure you know the answer to this. In order to have more American goods, the change has to be slow and gradual in order to not to shock the economy's real growth.

2) The three crashes mentioned in the first link are.....well, bad pieces of evidence to show tax cuts will cause the current economy. The 2008 crash did not have that much to do with taxes as it did with bad risk management by banks and other financial institutions. Canada didn't avoid the crash because they had better tax laws, but because their banks took those trash mortgage securities off their books. The other times were not under conditions that are remotely similar to those of the present day (i.e we aren't recovering from WWII and the Vietnam War back to back).This sort of leads into my next point.

3) It is hard to look on recent history to predict what people would do under this level of tax reform: https://www.bernietax.com/#0;0;s. You see, the government doesn't reduce taxes "because the America is the richest country in the world."-Bernie Sanders. While his statement is quite true, it is not a formal reason to raise taxes to the ridiculous levels he is proposing especially in the present day economy.

[Adam Strange]

Before I get into this, I want to clarify that I am not for tax cuts for the rich. What Trump did with the tax cut was terrible for the economy. In other words, I am very much up for a corrective tax increase.
Three big problems:

1) Shifting America into a country that makes and exports more goods would be a pretty long process. Currently America runs a huge trade deficit (America's Current Account is atrocious), but they make up for it in capital flow. What happens in the mean time as they get used to a lower value currency? I am sure you know the answer to this. In order to have more American goods, the change has to be slow and gradual in order to not to shock the economy's real growth.

2) The three crashes mentioned in the first link are.....well, bad pieces of evidence to show tax cuts will cause the current economy. The 2008 crash did not have that much to do with taxes as it did with bad risk management by banks and other financial institutions. Canada didn't avoid the crash because they had better tax laws, but because their banks took those trash mortgage securities off their books. The other times were not under conditions that are remotely similar to those of the present day (i.e we aren't recovering from WWII and the Vietnam War back to back). This sort of leads into my next point.

I pretty much agree with all of the above, with the caveat that it changed for the worse gradually, and it can change for the better just as fast.

3) It is hard to look on recent history to predict what people would do under this level of tax reform: https://www.bernietax.com/#0;0;s. You see, the government doesn't reduce taxes "because the America is the richest country in the world."-Bernie Sanders. While his statement is quite true, it is not a formal reason to raise taxes to the ridiculous levels he is proposing especially in the present day economy.

This raises the question of what constitutes a "ridiculous" level of taxation. During WWII, the tax on income over $1M was 90%, and the US did pretty well during that time. Also, after you reach a point where your basic needs are taken care of, most people (not everyone - for some people, no amount of money is enough to make them feel safe) just don't feel the need to make tons more money. It only represents a marker to them, or a way of comparing their performance (in their minds) with that of the people they know. Absolute levels aren't that important, so much as relative levels. I could be making $25k/yr, and as long as that was more than my brother-in-law, I'd be good. Lol.

So I believe that progressive taxation can make societies more equal, and should be used for that purpose. If you know any really rich people, you will find that they don't usually work for money. They work for glory or recognition or to avoid boredom, or ideally, for some worthy cause. The money is secondary.

As for why I think a more equal society is a worthwhile goal, it is because I read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-.../dp/1608193411

[Adam Strange]

Knowing the "fundamentals of money" is quite important to my career which has a lot to do with understanding capital markets.

@Investigator, if knowing about capital markets is important to you, you might want to read this guy's blog. He's ILI, too. https://ritholtz.com/
He isn't the only sensible guy out there, but he's pretty good.