Why is Bernie Sanders rated F by the NRA?

[Reptile]

Maybe because he's a self proclaimed socialist/communist?

I think you're onto something. The NRA may be looking at the total package and not just his record on firearms.

 

[Second Amendment]

I think you're onto something. The NRA may be looking at the total package and not just his record on firearms.

It's just like obama, he claimed guns were not an issue for him until he got elected and now we know the truth. Any statist, socialist, or communist don't want the sheeple to have guns.

 

[Z_Man]

It's just like obama, he claimed guns were not an issue for him until he got elected and now we know the truth. Any statist, socialist, or communist don't want the sheeple to have guns.

difference with him and Obama is Sanders actually has a track record to look back on. you know what you are going to get.

I would say he is neutral to firearms. his biggest issue is the billionairs have more control over the country than normal people. his biggest push will be to reverse the "citizens united" decision.


I'd take him over Hilary or o'mally any day of the week. He doesn't scream government tyranny and oppression like those two

 

[Afrikeber]

According to Obama he is a pot smoking socialist.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

I'd take him over Hilary or o'mally any day of the week. He doesn't scream government tyranny and oppression like those two

Concur.

I believe we have a misbalance of wealth. I'm sure the redistribution of wealth we've been having is from the middle class to the rich. So, I don't really have an issue with a reversal with than trend. And I wouldn't call that contradictory to the Second Amendment.

His vision for collectivism and redistribution of wealth is incompatible with the fundamental concepts of freedom and personal responsibility, which in turn means that his agenda is incompatible with the ownership of firearms.

I have do disagree with Norton for the reasons stated above. It's that "pendulum swing" axiom, and I think it needs to swing back.

 

[Traveler]

Concur.

I believe we have a misbalance of wealth. I'm sure the redistribution of wealth we've been having is from the middle class to the rich. So, I don't really have an issue with a reversal with than trend. And I wouldn't call that contradictory to the Second Amendment.

Sure, because the money being in the hands of the people that earned it is a travesty.

I think you need to head over to France or Russia.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

Sure, because the money being in the hands of the people that earned it is a travesty.

I think you need to head over to France or Russia.

You're missing the point. I would prefer to remain here. There is a significant growth in the upper class at the expense of the middle class. I don't believe the current crop of mega-CEOs have earned what they have, they have exploited.

 

[kcbrown]

Sure, because the money being in the hands of the people that earned it is a travesty.

What, specifically, do you mean by "earned"?



(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

 

[Norton]

Concur.

I believe we have a misbalance of wealth. I'm sure the redistribution of wealth we've been having is from the middle class to the rich. So, I don't really have an issue with a reversal with than trend. And I wouldn't call that contradictory to the Second Amendment.



I have do disagree with Norton for the reasons stated above. It's that "pendulum swing" axiom, and I think it needs to swing back.

I want to keep what I've earned, thank you very much and the only redistribution that is going to occur if a socialist like Sanders gets in to office is going to be from me to the hands of those that don't do anything to earn that money.

The rich of this country will never allow their wealth to be tapped. Since most politicians are wealthy, they will ensure that status quo.

mark my words, when you hear people talking about equalizing wealth, they aren't talking about making the wealthy less wealthy, they are talking about making the middle class poor.

 

[kcbrown]

I want to keep what I've earned, thank you very much and the only redistribution that is going to occur if a socialist like Sanders gets in to office is going to be from me to the hands of those that don't do anything to earn that money.



The rich of this country will never allow their wealth to be tapped. Since most politicians are wealthy, they will ensure that status quo.



mark my words, when you hear people talking about equalizing wealth, they aren't talking about making the wealthy less wealthy, they are talking about making the middle class poor.

This is spot on.

Wealth "imbalance" is a direct consequence of the same positive feedback loop that, if left unchecked, yields monopolies.

I put imbalance in quotes because it could easily be mistaken for "inequality", which is not the same thing. "Imbalance" here means that people of otherwise equivalent skill, capability, and effort wind up with very different amounts of wealth due to luck, who they know, government interference (which is often the result of who they know), and a whole host of other factors. Because of the aforementioned positive feedback loop, any initial difference ends up being magnified.

There is little that can really be done about it after the fact, and even less that can be done justly and fairly. About all that can be done is to prevent monopolies from forming and enforce things like truth in advertising.

No, market forces won't take care of the problem, because market forces are precisely why the positive feedback loop exists in the first place. But all the other known options (that I'm aware of anyway) are worse, as history clearly demonstrates repeatedly. Tyranny is not the answer to the inherent trait of the market to create imbalance. Nothing really is. It's just something we're going to have to put up with.

What we CAN do is to insist on government doing its proper job of preventing monopolies and maximizing awareness (e.g., through enforcement of truth in advertising laws) within the market, while insisting that it not engage in preferential treatment of players within the market. We won't fully succeed in that endeavor but it's the only real play we have.


(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

 

[iH8DemLibz]

He has no chance.

With his hair all mussed, he always looks like a mad scientist.

 

[Z_Man]

He has no chance.

With his hair all mussed, he always looks like a mad scientist.

this country needs a mad scientist.... after teleprompter reader extraordinaire and George W **** your civil liberties (a la cheney).

i agree that the biggest businesses are too big, and don't pull their weight. Im not suggesting we take from them, however for a company to make 4 billion in profit and pay 0 taxes (a la GE) for years in a row (well they got a 100's of millions tax credit in 2009 if i remember correctly) something is not right. it would be simple for corporations to pay a 10% tax on (profit + executive compensation) instead of the wierd 35% tax that is complicated. It would be a LARGE tax cut, however the US would generate more revenue from corps than they currently do.


however the first step is to pass a law that effectively kills the citizens united decision. and kill the patriot act while you are at it. that would reduce the two largest sources of tyranny that we have in our country, the ultra large businesses, and the federal government.

however i think he has 0 chance of winning the D nomination. which wouldn't preclude him from running as an independent.

 

[kcbrown]

this country needs a mad scientist.... after teleprompter reader extraordinaire and George W **** your civil liberties (a la cheney).

i agree that the biggest businesses are too big, and don't pull their weight. Im not suggesting we take from them, however for a company to make 4 billion in profit and pay 0 taxes (a la GE) for years in a row (well they got a 100's of millions tax credit in 2009 if i remember correctly) something is not right. it would be simple for corporations to pay a 10% tax on (profit + executive compensation) instead of the wierd 35% tax that is complicated. It would be a LARGE tax cut, however the US would generate more revenue from corps than they currently do.

The right answer is to eliminate corporate taxes altogether. You may balk at that idea, but hear me out.

Ultimately, corporations are businesses with income and expenditures, just like individuals have. However, they compete with each other for business and, more importantly, they compete with other corporations in different countries for the same business. It turns out that this matters quite a lot.

One of the primary things that companies compete with each other on is price. But price is a reflection of the total expenditures on the part of the company in question. In a competitive marketplace, the greater the expenditures of a company, the less competitive it will be, because its competition will be able to offer the same products/services for lower prices.

And taxes on corporations are one of the things that increase the expenditures. Expenditures ultimately always get passed on to the buyer. That has to be the case, because the business cannot survive if it has a continuously negative cash flow.

So if you want domestic businesses to be globally competitive to the maximum degree possible, you have to avoid taxing them. Hence, it follows that we should ditch taxes on domestic companies. Not just certain "special" companies like GE, but all of them.

Similarly, if you want your population to have some combination of a higher standard of living and greater market appeal, you have to minimize the taxes on the population as well. Not only can that increase the population's standard of living, it makes the population potentially more competitive as employees because it reduces the amount of compensation they have to demand from employers in order to maintain the same standard of living.


With all of that, where can the government get its revenue? I suggest a return to the old ways: tariffs. As I understand it, that is the primary means by which the federal government used to get its revenue. Not only will this have the effect of funding the federal government, it does so in such a way as to make domestic production more competitive within the domestic economy than it would otherwise be. If we wish as a country to return to some semblance of self-reliance, that's going to be one of the ways to get there.

 

[Traveler]

I want to keep what I've earned, thank you very much and the only redistribution that is going to occur if a socialist like Sanders gets in to office is going to be from me to the hands of those that don't do anything to earn that money.

The rich of this country will never allow their wealth to be tapped. Since most politicians are wealthy, they will ensure that status quo.

mark my words, when you hear people talking about equalizing wealth, they aren't talking about making the wealthy less wealthy, they are talking about making the middle class poor.

Well said.

I have noticed that it is the pattern of ignorant and angry people to blame others for their laziness and lack of personal responsibility. Part of becoming an adult is taking full responsibility for your choices. As soon as you blame someone else for your situation, you become a helpless victim. Rather pathetic in my opinion.

 

[Z_Man]

With all of that, where can the government get its revenue? I suggest a return to the old ways: tariffs. As I understand it, that is the primary means by which the federal government used to get its revenue. Not only will this have the effect of funding the federal government, it does so in such a way as to make domestic production more competitive within the domestic economy than it would otherwise be. If we wish as a country to return to some semblance of self-reliance, that's going to be one of the ways to get there.

I think we are too far down the rabbit hole for tariffs. that would cost the current corporations far more than reducing the tax rate to a low level. The current government needs to generate revenue to pay its debt, and its proper functions. right now people and the income taxes are covering the majority of that. that is you and me. people who do not get to deduct our "expenses". i need to buy a car to get to my job, still pay tax on that income. a business needs a car to get to its job, they write it off their income.

all i am asking for is equal treatment under the law. Its not like i am suggesting companies pay an income tax on ALL revenue, such as individuals are subject to.

 

[501st]

He voted for the AWB and magazine capacity limitation in 2013.

While he may be from vermont, and may have supported gun legislation in the past, he is not a friend to the second amendment.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

Here is an experiment I like address that shows that the upper 10% don't pay their fair share. Because of this, the middle class foots the bill. This works in my county (St. Mary's) but would be curious how it works in others.

Go to realtor.com and search for houses in your area. Sort by cost from highest to lowest. Take the first 5 houses. Then go look at the SDAT data. You'll find that the asking price versus the tax appraised value does not match. Sometimes asking is twice that of appraised. Then go check yours.

 

[BenL]

You're missing the point. I would prefer to remain here. There is a significant growth in the upper class at the expense of the middle class. I don't believe the current crop of mega-CEOs have earned what they have, they have exploited.

Do you think they won some kind of secret lottery? Touched by the magical money hand of Jesus?

They make a lot of money because the unique knowledge or skill set they provide commands that level of compensation. Don't like your lot in life? Develop a unique skill set and stop whining about the evil rich.

I think Sanders isn't a friend to gun owners, but don't think he's as big an enemy as hildabeast.

 

[camobob]

He voted for the AWB and magazine capacity limitation in 2013.

While he may be from vermont, and may have supported gun legislation in the past, he is not a friend to the second amendment.

++ THIS!
He'll push Hillary to the left and they'll gladly trash the constitution to earn the leftist vote.
I disagree with 90% of what he says but I respect that he says what he means without apology. He's a socialist - that means the government owns everything, no 2A, no privacy, no private property.........

 

[Norton]

Here is an experiment I like address that shows that the upper 10% don't pay their fair share. Because of this, the middle class foots the bill. This works in my county (St. Mary's) but would be curious how it works in others.

Go to realtor.com and search for houses in your area. Sort by cost from highest to lowest. Take the first 5 houses. Then go look at the SDAT data. You'll find that the asking price versus the tax appraised value does not match. Sometimes asking is twice that of appraised. Then go check yours.

Here's an experiment….I'm a teacher and my wife is active duty military. You don't get any more middle class than us.

Our income puts us in the 90th percentile for all earners when looking at income. Yes, we are 10 per centers. So, when you talk about that evil top 10% of earners, you are talking about teachers and NCOs in the military.

Take your MEME politics somewhere else because the numbers aren't going to play here.