The Housing Bubble

Big Government is in Big Trouble.

Everywhere you turn, those who believe they are your betters are destroying your future.

And in a very real way.

No matter where you live, no matter your financial status.

Like it?

Comment by SV guy
2010-06-05 10:37:02
I didn’t mean to literally run somewhere.

My belief is our present system is unsustainable. Any revenue shortfall will be made up through QE. Unless we can exhibit some self control and pull the crack pipe from our lips Mr. Market will do it for us. We are rent-a-cops for a corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia. We are also the largest consumer of Chinese crap. These sovereign lenders have a vested interest in keeping this charade going. When the problems in their own countries become insurmountable and/or they realize it no longer makes sense the lending stops. Then the charade unravels at light speed. Thus my belief in converting pictures of dead presidents into something tangible.

Who really knows? I may be right, I may be wrong. Either way I end up with things I’ve always wanted anyway while continuing to forgo all debt.

YMMV

The staggering stupidity of the 95% ensures endless taxpayer bailouts of the banks, it’s true.

Me too. I’m also expecting an epic Chinese flight to quality that sees physical gold sales soar as the average Chinese citizen loses faith in markets and governments.

Put to a vote it would pass overwhelmingly. Very few will not vote for “free money.”

Isn’t that the underlying logic of the existence of the Fed?

Read “The Creature from Jekyll Island” if you have a sincere interest in understanding the underlying logic of the Fed. The Federal Reserve from its inception was designed to be the oligarchy’s chief instrument of plunder against the 99%, working with Wall Street to create boom-bust cycles to concentrate all wealth and power in the hands of a venal and corrupt .1% in the financial sector, while dumbing down the population to the point of passive acquiescence.

Mission accomplished….

So should our monetary policy be set democratically or by some semi-democratic or non-democratic institution, raymond ?

We shouldn’t have private banking cartels running our central bank. That institution needs to be independent but accountable to We the People. The Fed is neither.

That institution needs to be independent but accountable to We the People

How?

Note that the case against private owned banks is not an argument against capitalism, but an argument against crony capitalism. Fractional reserve banking is the criminal feature of the Federal reserve. It’s fraud and made legal only because of government dictates. If we had no central currency but privately minted currency the fractional reserve system would not last year.

And I’m pleased to have you in my corner, MacBeth. Among the shuffling, dead-eyed zombie hordes, it’s good to see another awake, aware soul still carrying the fire.

How sweet. Two repeating robots have found each other. A match made in heaven!

Oddfellow simply hates America.

I hardly think challenging a robot who endlessly repeats that democracy will not work constitutes hating America. Quite the opposite, really.

What won’t work is mobocracy, where a debased, amoral, ignorant, and feckless majority vote themselves benefits that the producers and the honest have to pay for. Rome fell for that reason, and we are going down the same road to ruin.

, where a debased, amoral, ignorant, and feckless majority vote themselves benefits

This message brought to you by the kremlinbots at Russia Times.

The Founding Fathers had quite a bit to say about it too, moron.

That’s why they wrote the Constitution, and why we don’t have a direct democracy.

Blah, blah, blah. A bunch of Bastiat quotes complaining about the law being misused.

But I want a real world example of how and when morality and ethics should trump the law. Let’s hear it, if you robots are capable of thinking for yourselves, instead of mindless repetition and irrelevant quotes from others.

But I want a real world example of how and when morality and ethics should trump the law.

Indeed, the reason we have to have laws is because people either don’t have morals and ethics or they have different definitions of what is moral and ethical.

But I want a real world example of how and when morality and ethics should trump the law.

The Nazis were scrupulously legalistic as they went about rounding up Jews and other “undesireables” and committing mass murder. Everyone involved was “just following orders” and the entire process was codified with the requisite statutory and legal authorities and laws. Perhaps morality and ethics, aka common decency, could have trumped the Nuremburg Laws, no?

The Nazis were scrupulously

Godwin’s Law. I win! (Thanks for not even trying, tj).

We may soon have to watch Trump zombies similarly round up undesirables by his definition.

We may soon have to watch Trump zombies similarly round up undesirables by his definition.

But don’t we already kill millions of undesirables by means of wars/abortion, what have you?

But don’t we already kill millions

Wow. The rationalizations for the roundups is already starting.

“And I’m pleased to have you in my corner, MacBeth. Among the shuffling, dead-eyed zombie hordes, it’s good to see another awake, aware soul still carrying the fire.”

Ben Carson is a rather remarkable individual.

It’s the “trump” (small t) part that I’m trying to get him to explain, if he’s capable. Is he suggesting mob violence and vigilantism?

Rather than providing a response to that, I think I will let you think about it for a while.

MightyMike and “thinking” - what’s wrong with this picture?

It’s hard to say what he’s getting at with that statement.

No, Mikey, it’s not hard at all to say what he’s getting at - it’s rather simple, even for a simpleton like you. He’s saying that you can’t legistlate morality - in any healthy society people are essentially self-governing because they have an innate sense of right and wrong and try to do the right thing even when nobody’s looking, or when it costs them. That’s basic integrity. On the other hand, if you have a society where the great mass of people have become amoral and feckless, you can pass all the laws you want but it will do little to deter wrongdoing, since the population has become debased and corrupt. We are now at or past that point as a nation. The intelligent, moral 5% cannot continue to sustain and defend our liberty or the Republic when the vast majority of the populace, and 100% of registered Democrats, is better suited for an oligarchical plantation presided over by rapacious neofeudal robber barons.

I think I will let you think about it for a while.

That’s tj for you. When challenged to explain the ideas he reads somewhere else and breathlessly repeats here, he’s incapable and retreats into tj world: “I know, but you have to guess.”

Weak.

We are now at or past that point as a nation.

So when, where, and how should morality and ethics be trumping the law?

No, Mikey, it’s not hard at all to say what he’s getting at - it’s rather simple, even for a simpleton like you. He’s saying that you can’t legistlate morality - in any healthy society people are essentially self-governing because they have an innate sense of right and wrong and try to do the right thing even when nobody’s looking, or when it costs them.

Well, maybe it’s clear to you because you and he have the same crackpot right wing ideology. If you’re correct about his meaning, he’s misusing the word trump.

Why not both? Why not…

Why does Trump never mention these easily-done things and instead only focus on the most fantastic, expensive and unlikely option?

Is it because the easily done things would get him and his fellow 1%ers busted, while the wall is a great ruse for the rubes?

Trumplings bemoaning the stupidity of others… That’s a rich vein of comedic irony.

He does mention those things. You just get your info from left wing blogs. You’ve never listened to a whole speech of his. You’ve never read the book he put out. You want to stay comfortably in denial and ignorance.

He wrote about immigration law in one of his books? Which book was that?

Show us the quotes.

I will tell you how it feels to quit voting. My conscience is clear by not voting. OTOH, I voted for GWB in 2004. I will forever feel guilty about that. I had no right to complain about Bush because I voted for him and he screwed the pooch.

Every ruler the U.S. had screwed up in some way, but the sheep still vote.

What is gained by voting?

What is gained by voting?

No gain at all. Look at the results - Congress and the presidents since the death of LBJ were all authoritarians and crooks.

since the death of LBJ

I mean since the death of JFK.

Which reminds me. We have a shadow government. The doofuses on the HBB who think Trump or Sanders will keep true to their word are in a huge denial.

The NSA runs the show. Glenn Greenwald’s book “No Place to Hide” makes that case. There are no real small government right wing politicians. There are no peace-loving left wing politicians. But they all want to grab your firearms.

Voting is futile. The best case for not voting is to show you know who really rigs the system. Otherwise remain fooled.

What would happen if we opened the boarder but nobody came ?

“For the first time in more than four decades, more Mexican immigrants are returning to their home country than coming to the United States, according to a report released Thursday.

From 2009 to 2014, an estimated 870,000 Mexicans came to the United States while 1 million returned home, a net loss for the United States of 130,000, according to the report from the Pew Research Center. That historic shift comes at a time when immigration has become a contentious focal point in the 2016 presidential race, as Republicans and Democrats argue over how best to modernize the nation’s immigration system.”

If you think nobody’s coming still, you are delusional. Very. And the Pew Research center is garbage.

It was a reasonable guess on his part. A Google search suggests that you were referring to the Canadian band. That’s just as bad, if not worse. They’re crackpot words were set to lousy music. Limbaugh just speaks his nonsense.

“The military’s communications are EMP resistant.”

Different than being EMP proof.

“The military’s communications are EMP resistant.”

Different than being EMP proof.

I suppose some might go down, but I really doubt we would be unable to retaliate.

A repeating robot of anti-democracy.

Oddly, neither of you gentlemen can contest my basic premise: that members of the 99% who vote against their own interests and for those of a corrupt and venal .1% in the financial sector are stupid.

neither of you gentlemen can contest my basic premise

I question your rationale for endlessly repeating your basic premise.

Obama orchestrated a massive transfer of wealth to the 1 percent

By Michael Gray
January 17, 2016 | 6:00am

When people use the term Great Recession, they are playing into the charade laid out by Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.

The years 2008 through 2015 should be known as the Great Fleecing.

During that time, the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world occurred. Some $4.5 trillion was given to Wall Street banks through its Quantitative Easing program, with the American people picking up the IOU.

This is the primary reason the US economy has not been able to recovery from the bank implosion of 2008.

Surely if you inject $4.5 trillion into the economy, you will get economic growth. You will get a 4% to 5% increase in Gross Domestic Product for at least a year or two.

Yet the Obama administration is the first two-term presidency that has not posted a 3% GDP growth on an annualized basis for 8 years. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt posted 3% growth year during the Great Depression

That’s because the $4.5 trillion was not given to any infrastructure program — it was given to banks, under the misguided notion that they needed the money to remain solvent. The banks promptly invested this money, which kept the stock market humming, but did nothing for jobs, wages or the GDP.

This was by design. The Fed could not allow the bank’s largesse to be circulated into the public for fear of rapid inflation.

The banks also funded company mergers, company debt offerings and stock buybacks. This activity kept the money sequestered and allowed a greater return for the banks. After all, they were getting free money to invest — there was no way to lose.

Who did this help? The 1%, and pretty much only the 1%.

These actions are the reasons the American middle class has been decimated and no longer makes up the majority of the population.

If liberals are angry about inequality, they should look no further than President Obama. He has done more to contribute to the gap between rich and poor than anyone.

The middle class has seen the wholesale export of good-paying jobs, while on the hook for crushing mortgages and higher taxes to pay down the growing US debt to fund the banks.

Is it any wonder that in all of the 3,007 US counties, parishes and territories just over 50% of the population in each county is on government assistance of some sort?

Now comes the punch line. After the Fed finally decided to stop the QE program, asset bubbles are growing weak and some say about to pop. The stock market is in correction mode — off more than 10% from its highs last year. After seven years of getting no interest on your savings, after little opportunity for job advancement and raises, now your 401(k) will take a hit anyway.

The US has “the strongest, most durable economy in the world,” Obama boasted Tuesday. But only for the few.

Sending in the deflectors! Hi phony. Where are you misdirecting us today?

Did you expect anything else from The Obama Kremlin?

I question your rationale for endlessly repeating your basic premise.

When people like you cease to be stupid, I’ll no longer feel the need to endlessly repeat my basic premise.

So endlessly repeating that Americans are too stupid and greedy for democracy to work will somehow make people less stupid and greedy and democracy will then work? Is that the plan?

What I’m pointing out is that people who vote for the status quo have no right to complain about the status quo. Yet I hear them do it all the time, and it’s tiresome. So if you voted for Obama, McCain, or Romney, then you whine incessantly about the direction the country is headed in, the only fitting course of action is for you to STFU and voluntarily abstain from voting, since it’s sadly obvious, but obvious nonetheless, that you lack the intelligence or judgement to be entrusted with that civic responsibility.

A progressive badge licker? Most progressives hate cops. And most badge lickers are not for gun control. They are NRA members.

You are thinking back in time to the “progressives” of the 1970s. Macbeth noticed and I noticed there is a big cross pollen of the “progressives” and NeoCons the last 15 or 20 years. I’ve known lieberals working in the DOD since the 1980s.

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

–Thomas Jefferson, Kremlin Spokesman

Ooh, a quote to hide behind! Did Thomas Jefferson think the American public was too stupid for democracy to work?

Jefferson almost certainly never made any such statement. The word inflation wasn’t used in that sense in his day.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

Nothing says Soros like snopes.

Nothing says Soros like snopes.

It’s just like all those darn lying scientists!

Although these statements likewise lack documentation establishing them as authentically Jeffersonian, the former is a reasonably close paraphrase of the closing sentence in Jefferson’s 28 May 1816 letter to John Taylor:

And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

– http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

Scientist leading effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO ‘paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from govt climate grants for part-time work’

By: Marc Morano September 20, 2015 11:42 PM

Leader of 20 scientist effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO revealed as ‘Climate Profiteer’! ‘From 2012-2014, the Leader of RICO 20 climate scientists paid himself and his wife $1.5 million from government climate grants for part-time work.

George Mason University Professor Jagadish Shukla ( jshukla@gmu.edu) a Lead Author with the UN IPCC, reportedly made lavish profits off the global warming industry while accusing climate skeptics of deceiving the public. Shukla is leader of 20 scientists who are demanding RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) charges be used against skeptics for disagreeing with their view on climate change.

Shukla reportedly moved his government grants through a ‘non-profit’. The group “pays Shukla and wife Anne $500,000 per year for part-time work,” Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. revealed.

“The $350,000-$400,000 per year paid leader of the RICO20 from his ‘non-profit’ was presumably on top of his $250,000 per year academic salary,” Pielke wrote. “That totals to $750,000 per year to the leader of the RICO20 from public money for climate work and going after skeptics. Good work if you can get it,” Pielke Jr. added.

Oh yeah. The Worldwide Scientist Conspiracy.

Occam’s Razor laughed that one out of the house. Try again.

Try what again? You didn’t refute anything.

You didn’t refute anything.

OK, I’ll run it under Occam’s Razor again. Shave it back down to its stump:

Either:

Scientists in countless institutions, many with tenure in academia, in every country of the world, under every type of democratic or authoritarian model of government, pretty much all agree that “global warming” is occurring. This is occurring because they are all lying and actually are part of a giant conspiracy with the intent for some group to take over the world.

Or:

Burning hundreds of millions of years worth of stored carbon over the course of a couple hundred years has altered the world’s atmosphere.

Which is the simpler, more likely explanation?

The likeliest explanation is that they like to get paid, and they only get paid if they agree.

There’s no evidence for that. It’s not all likely.

Scientists in countless institutions, many with tenure in academia, in every country of the world, under every type of democratic or authoritarian model of government, pretty much all agree that “dietary fat/cholesterol/sodium” is bad for you. This is occurring because they are all lying and actually are part of a giant conspiracy with the intent for some group to take over the world.

Oh wait.

“dietary fat/cholesterol/sodium” is bad for you.

And in excessive amounts they are, the science was right.

Someone was just telling me the great dangers of salt yesterday.

“Global Warming” is a cover for Globalism.”

“Says the guy Exxon College grad who works in the oil industry.”

I love watching Oddie try to put the Climate scam Genie back in the bottle.

Global warming is cover for Climate Exchange. Goldman and big banks are the big winners.

You can say that again.

It does make a good slogan to mindlessly repeat, instead of thinking about the issue.

Mindless repetition seems to be the basis and form of several of our regular posters’ political beliefs. Evidence of how well-programmed they are? Or are they attempting to program us? Or both?

The question that was being asked by NASA climate scientists…

Where else can we hide the sea level rise and Global Warming?

“Miami (AFP) - As glaciers melt due to climate change, the increasingly hot and parched Earth is absorbing some of that water inland, slowing sea level rise, NASA experts said Thursday.”

NASA Study Reveals Oceans Temporarily Hide Global Warming

July 12, 2015

The answer came earlier this week…

10,000 years in the future!

By Chris Mooney February 8, 2016

A large group of climate scientists has made a bracing statement in the journal Nature Climate Change, arguing that we are mistaken if we think global warming is only a matter of the next 100 years or so — in fact, they say, we are locking in changes that will play out over as many as 10,000 years.

“The next few decades offer a brief window of opportunity to minimize large-scale and potentially catastrophic climate change that will extend longer than the entire history of human civilization thus far,” write the 22 climate researchers, led by Peter Clark, from Oregon State University.

The author names include not only a number of very influential climate scientists in general but several key leaders behind major reports from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, including MIT’s Susan Solomon and Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern in Switzerland.

The researchers’ key contention is that we have been thinking about climate change far too narrowly by only projecting outward to the year 2100, which the research says “was originally driven by past computational capabilities.” Rather, we should consider that the long-term consequences of human emissions for global temperatures and sea level will play out over many millennia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…/ -

People all over the world also began drinking bottled water and continue to do so.

It has been shown numerous times that it is no better than tapwater.

People also all over the world pretend they can distinguish wines and vodkas. Again something proven false time and time again.

No conspiracy required. Just self interested delusion.

People drinking bottled water proves there’s no global warming.

Fair enough, and I’ll concede the point. I despise corruption and detest those who enable it with their votes or complicity. So let’s just call them slimeballs instead.

but dehumanizing them is too dangerous a path,

But that’s raymond’s whole method and point. “They” are a writhing mass of zombie vermin voting themselves your money, because democracy doesn’t really work anymore. There’s only one logical solution to it, and although raymond walks us right up to it, he lets us make the final logical connection.

The only “solution” I’m advocating is for decent people to make themselves as resilient as possible and to get ready for the inevitable collapse of our financial system, which has become too riddled wth fraud and unsustainable levels of debt to continue on its present trajectory for much longer. I intend to look out for my family and as many other good people as I can, and the rest are going to have to deal with the consequences of their own making.

If you really believed what you repeat every day, shouldn’t you be getting your family out of this doomed country full of FSA zombies?

This country is my home, moron, and I happen to love it despite its faults. I’m not going anywhere.

I’m not going anywhere.

Wow. If I believed what you believe, I’d be getting my family out of Dodge.

Maybe you don’t really believe your own propaganda? I mean, according to you, we’re a nation of 95% zombie vermin, but there’s nowhere else you’d rather be with your family?

It just doesn’t make sense.

If you really believed what you repeat every day, shouldn’t you be getting your family out of this doomed country full of FSA zombies?

FWIW, that’s easier said than done. Without visas you aren’t emigrating anywhere. And contrary to popular belief, if you are an average Joe they are harder to get than Chinese Algebra.

Plus, who says anywhere else is better?

The only “solution” I’m advocating is for decent people to make themselves as resilient as possible and to get ready for the inevitable collapse of our financial system

That might very well be impossible. If the system truly collapses its not like there will be anything to buy at the store with the money/gold/bitcoin you salted away.

Plus I doubt there will be a total collapse. Mexico was going through a financial crisis when the big earthquake hit Mexico City in 1985. The lights stayed on and it wasn’t “go time”.

FWIW, that’s easier said than done.

I know. But we’re not talking about moving somewhere because you like the climate or the culture or something. We’re talking about getting your family away from the FSA zombie vermin 95%. The world is full of ex-pats, it’s not impossible.

Assuming be actually believes what he writes, which apparently he doesn’t.

Mexico was going through a financial crisis when the big earthquake hit Mexico City in 1985. The lights stayed on and it wasn’t “go time”.

Now you’re upsetting Ray and so many others.

The world is full of ex-pats, it’s not impossible.

Just try to get an immigrant visa without a wheel-barrel full of money or a corporate sponsorship. Lacking those two, your best bet is being married to a foreigner or claiming foreign citizenship through family ties.

Most expats I met when I lived overseas where of the corporate sponsored type (most were also on temporary visas and did not have the equivalent of a green card). Second place were those who got the visa via marriage (which is how my dad and I got our visas)

That said, many countries will give you a retiree visa, IF you can demonstrate that you have money/pensions and won’t be looking for a job. But the notion that you can just waltz in and get a full immigrant visa on your own is risible.

If you don’t need a work visa and can support yourself, you can go live in all sorts of countries. Surely, being in the slim 5% of self-aware Americans, and making money betting against the central bankers, raymond has enough money to go live in some tropical land away from the madding zombie vermin hordes.

Again, assuming he really believes what he daily preaches.

No, it goes back to their Scythian and Mongol origins. They’ve always had a brutish, orc-like tinge to their national character and a sick adulation for leaders like Stalin or Ivan the Terrible.

Dictatorship hurts quite a bit more.

Thanks but no thanks Lola. I’ll take capitalism instead. Keep your communists dictatorships.

ED Zachary! Nailed it. I was going to go into some long-winded response about how Russia is poorly understood and its history and the Russians who lived next door to me, etc. etc. But that’s the crux of the whole thing.

Socialism is dictatorship by committee.

But that’s the crux of the whole thing.

What is?

No, it goes back to their Scythian and Mongol origins.

Wow, the manifestations of your collectivism are amazing.

“No, it goes back to their Scythian and Mongol origins.”

but, but, Meryl Streep sez we’re all Africans.

“Socialism is dictatorship by committee.”

Democracy is dictatorship by morons.

Democracy is dictatorship by morons.

The socialists who run the committee are morons, too.

“Maybe so. But Bernie or Trump would be a better alternative than what the establishment political elites have to offer, i.e. more of the same.”

I would agree with that on both points but free sh#t ain’t free and all this money is not coming from the Wall Street Banksters and it never does.

“As part of his single-payer healthcare plan, Sanders would institute a 6.2 percent tax on employers to finance healthcare premiums for his new federally-run system,”

I don’t bid jobs where the Unicorns graze so 6.2 percent tax on payroll would just about put me out of business.

What kind of margins does this old Socialist think we are starting out with?

Here’s a list of Bernie Sanders’ $19.6 trillion in tax hikes
By Philip Klein (@philipaklein) • 1/19/16 12:01 AM

Taken together, Sanders is proposing $19.6 trillion in new taxes over a decade, according to an analysis by the Washington Examiner, of which $14 trillion would come from his healthcare plan alone. To put that in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal revenues over the next 10 years will be a total of $41.6 trillion, meaning that Sanders would raise taxes by 47 percent over current levels.

Business healthcare premium tax — $6.3 trillion

As part of his single-payer healthcare plan, Sanders would institute a 6.2 percent tax on employers to finance healthcare premiums for his new federally-run system, which he said would raise $630 billion per year. Though the tax would technically be imposed on employers, economic studies have shown that such taxes are ultimately passed onto workers. Sanders has argued that workers would be better off in the end anyway because of the money they’d save on insurance.

Payroll tax hike — $319 billion

Sanders would increase the payroll tax burden by 0.4 percent (split by workers and employers) to finance mandatory family leave.

Energy tax — $135 billion

(Gee, who is this going to get passed on to?)

To finance plans to boost alternative energy subsidies, Sanders would raise taxes on oil companies.

Raising marginal income tax rates — $1.1 trillion

Another way that Sanders would pay for his healthcare plan would be to hike income tax rates on those earning above $250,000 — creating a top marginal tax rate of 52 percent on income above $10 million.

(Bernie wants 39.2% from the people who make $250,000 to $500,000 before they pay property tax and state tax where applicable. Thems the people that hire people like me and many other small businesses, Fifteen dollar an hour people, not so much.)

GOPcentral told you to shift to Bernie, eh phony? Oh well, another day, another dollar. Still, a good sign for us Bernie fans.

Bernie wants 39.2% from the people who make $250,000 to $500,000 before they pay property tax and state tax where applicable.

Has he said anything about property tax or state income taxes? Has he proposed ending their deductibility?

“Still, a good sign for us Bernie fans.”

I thought you were holding your nose and voting for Hillary?

So now you are going to lift your dress and vote for Barney?

“Has he said anything about property tax or state income taxes? Has he proposed ending their deductibility?”

The only thing I saw about Barney ending tax deductions on was employer paid health insurance.

But he says it’s ok because you will have your healthcare paid for and be able to look out the window and watch the Unicorns grazing.

I strongly suspect that if a Dem is elected prez s/he will still have to deal with a GOP controlled House and Senate. So, there won’t be higher taxes and there won’t be socialized healthcare.

So the dollar value of those deductions would increase. Other than stating that fact, state and property taxes are irrelevant to Sanders’s proposals.

Barney Sanders is pro-debt slavery.

Bernie Sanders Says Proposed Payroll Tax ‘Would Hit Everyone’

By Ali Dukakis

Oct 18, 2015, 2:22 PM ET

However, when pressed by Stephanopoulos about whether the proposed Senate tax legislation he backs, which would use a payroll tax to fund a mandate for 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave from all U.S. employers, Sander confirmed that the bill would require taxing all citizens -– not just the top 1 percent.

“[The payroll tax] would hit everyone –- yeah, it would. But it would mean we would join the rest of the industrialized world and make sure that when a mom has a baby she can in fact stay home with that baby for three months, rather than going back to work at the end of one week,” Sanders said.

abcnews.go.com/…/bernie-sanders-proposed-payroll-tax-hit/story?id=34546554 -

Exclusive: Sanders Open to Raising Middle-Class Taxes for Healthcare

Sam Frizell @Sam_Frizell
Jan. 17, 2016

Bernie Sanders told TIME on Sunday that he would be willing to raise taxes on the middle class in order to guarantee universal healthcare, after months of weathering attacks from Hillary Clinton.

When asked in an interview in Charleston, South Carolina, on Sunday which of his big-ticket proposals would cost the middle class more in taxes, the insurgent presidential candidate said “I think if we can guarantee healthcare to all people comprehensive healthcare, no deductibles, and if we can cut people’s healthcare bill substantially.”

Sanders disputed to TIME it was a middle-class tax hike, saying it would ultimately save taxpayers money by cutting out private health insurers.

“What media sometimes does, what my opponent does, what Republicans do, is they really try to take a cheap shot. If you were paying $10,000 in private health insurance and I said to you, guess what, you ain’t going to pay that $10,000 and more but you’re going to pay $5,000 more in healthcare premiums, you’d be jumping up and down for joy. You save $5,000 on your healthcare bills,” Sanders told TIME.

“It’s disingenuous. I’ve heard this my whole life,” Sanders continued, arguing the legislation would save money.

time.com/4183856/bernie-sanders-middle-class-taxes-health-care/ - 116k -

And then this for Colorado who either gets to pay income tax on his ($16k?) a year employer provided health insurance or $5,000 a year for Bernie healthcare premiums.

Sounds like he would pay an extra $5,000 a year either way.

Here’s a list of Bernie Sanders’ $19.6 trillion in tax hikes
By Philip Klein (@philipaklein) • 1/19/16 12:01 AM

Ending tax free status of employer health insurance — $3.1 trillion

Sanders says he would raise $310 billion per year by ending the tax breaks for employer sponsored health insurance, which his campaign said would become “obsolete” if his single-payer plan were implemented.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/…/article/2580846 - 154k -

Most high school boys could not care less about a chick who identifies as a guy showering with them. However, most parents of high school girls could have strong opinions about a self-described girl who happens to have junk showering with their daughters. But really, as a country, we’ve got bigger problems than gender-confused individuals picking out the right shower or bathroom.

Only if they find out.