tax gain

Longest words

These are some of the supposed longest words in different European languages:

Irish - “rianghrafadóireachta” - photography

French - “Anticonstitutionnellement” - unconstitutionally

Croatian - “Prijestolonasljednikovica” - wife of an heir to the throne

Greek - “ηλεκτροεγκεφαλογραφήματος” - of an electroencephalogram

Latvian - “Pretpulksteņrādītājvirziens” - counter-clockwise

English - “Antidisestablishmentarianism” - against the disestablishment of the Church of England

Swedish - “Realisationsvinstbeskattning” - capital gains tax

Czech - “Nejneobhospodařovávatelnějšímu” - to the least cultivable ones

Polish - “Konstantynopolitańczykowianeczka the daughter of a man from Constantinople

Norwegian - “Menneskerettighetsorganisasjonene” - the human rights organisations 

Lithuanian - “Nebeprisikiškiakopūsteliaujantiesiems” - people who no longer are able to pick up wood sorrels.

Ukranian - “Нікотинамідаденіндинуклеотидфосфат” - nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate

Serbian - “Семпаравиливичинаверсаламилитипиковски” - (this is actually the last name of a family from Yugoslavia)

Portuguese - “Pneumoultramicroscopicossilicovulcanoconiotico” - a disease caused by breathing in the dust from a volcano

Welsh - “Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch” - St Mary’s Church in the Hollow of the White Hazel near a Rapid Whirlpool and the Church of St. Tysilio near the Red Cave

Agglutinative languages. Things get even weirder here:

Estonian - “Sünnipäevanädalalõpupeopärastlõunaväsimus” - the tiredness one feels on the afternoon of the weekend birthday party

Dutch - “Hottentottententententoonstellingsterrein” - exhibition ground for Hottentot huts

Hungarian - “Eltöredezettségmentesítőtleníttethetetlenségtelenítőtlenkedhetnétek” - (apparently untranslatable) 

Finnish - “Lentokonesuihkuturbiinimoottoriapumekaanikkoaliupseerioppilas” - (something to do with the Finnish Air Force. Hard to translate but impressively long)

Icelandic - “Vaðlaheiðarvegavinnuverkfærageymsluskúraútidyralyklakippuhringur” - key ring of the key chain of the outer door to the storage tool shed of the road workers on the Vaðlaheiði plateau (Icelandic isn’t even really an agglutinative language which makes this even more impressive)

Turkish - “Muvaffakiyetsizleştiricileştiriveremeyebileceklerimizdenmişsinizcesine” - as though you are from those we may not be able to easily make a number of unsuccessful ones 

And then the longest word is, of course, German. It’s 79 letters long and almost impossible to use in context: 

German - “Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerk-bauunterbeamten­gesellschaft” - Association for subordinate officials of the head office management of the Danube steamboat electrical services. 


If you know any more impressively long words that I missed, please let me know so I can add them! 

theatlantic.com
Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds
But a new study finds that reductions of capital gains taxes and top marginal rate taxes have led to greater income inequality
By Derek Thompson

“ … In 1990, President George H. W. Bush raised taxes, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 1993, President Bill Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 2001 and 2003, President Bush cut taxes, and we faced a disappointing expansion followed by a Great Recession. … “

“ … But it does suggest that there is a lot more to an economy than taxes, and that slashing taxes is not a guaranteed way to accelerate economic growth. ,,, “

“ … That was the conclusion from David Leonhardt’s new column today for The New York Times, and it was precisely the finding of a new study from the Congressional Research Service, “Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945.” … “

“ … Analysis of six decades of data found that top tax rates “have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth.” However, the study found that reductions of capital gains taxes and top marginal rate taxes have led to greater income inequality. Past studies cited in the report have suggested that a broad-based tax rate reduction can have “a small to modest, positive effect on economic growth” or “no effect on economic growth.” … “

“ … In short, the study found that top tax rates don’t appear to determine the size of the economic pie but they can affect how the pie is sliced, especially for the richest households. … “

Read All

Phroyd

10 Reasons Why I Think I Made My Worst Investments Ever

I’ve been thinking about my investment style and how it’s changed over the years.

My first few years were pretty rough. I dove right in. I put some money in a brokerage account and just started. I was buying and selling with really no real idea. It was pretty reckless. But everyone starts somewhere.

The other day I started my taxes. That had me looking back at some old trades. Some of them are just awful. But hilarious. I had to include two examples in this post (see them below). I hope by writing this all down I’ll avoid making these mistakes in the future:

1. The P/E ratio is the absolute worst metric ever. It needs to be burned off the front page of every finance website. It is a backward looking metric. The stock market is forward looking. WTF. Avoid this. If a company has a really low P/E ratio, it generally has one for a reason.

2. Stay away from any and all foreign exchange risk. If you buy stock in an ADR or a company based in a country outside the US, and that country’s currency takes a hit, your portfolio is going to feel it. Managing investments is hard enough, you should not have to also worry about currency fluctuations.

3. Picking bottoms and calling tops is Russian roulette. A stock that’s down 50% from its highs can still drop another 50% from there. A stock that’s up 100% over a year can still climb another 100% in the next year.

Here’s one trade where I tried to be the man and short NVIDIA after a massive run

And here’s another. Yes, I actually said this. I thought the tech trade was over

4. Know where you’re going to get out before you make the investment. This makes life much easier. Before you buy a stock, know why and when you’re going to cut it out of your life if it goes against you. Don’t get trapped. Don’t waste time.

5. You need to be a master at avoiding FOMO (fear of missing out). There’s nothing worse than watching a stock spike, and so you buy it. You don’t want to miss out. You just need to join in. F that. Don’t do it. Chasing a stock rarely ever works.

6. Never buy a stock because of buyout rumors or because you think it will get acquired. You want to own strong companies not rumors or theories.

7. Always know your shareholder yield. Does the company pay dividends or have a history of buying back stock? That’s money being returned to you. If there’s no shareholder yield (dividends or buybacks), you’re basically left with a bet on growth. Know the difference. It will change your timeframe and expectations for any single investment.

8. You can’t ignore the overall market. In bear markets, they say all correlations go to 1. It’s hard to find quality stocks in bear markets. Everyone makes money in bull markets so don’t let it get to your head.

9. Study the tax code. It will immediately change the way you invest or trade. Trading can be a lot of fun. But at tax time it sucks. It’s a lot of work and even more taxes. You can save up to 20% on capital gains taxes when you hold a stock for more than a year.

10. The Internet is your best friend in the world of financial markets. But you have to double check everything. There’s so much free research available. There are also so many smart people writing and sharing ideas each day. But you still need to double check it all. If you like a trading or investing idea from someone online, make sure you corroborate the data yourself.

Things Refurb has opinions on:

  • Fighting hunger by adding two more meals to each day
  • Building a border wall around the dog’s kennel
  • Cheese Inequality (it’s not just for humans - Make America Grate Again)
  • Capital gains taxes
wsj.com
Mnuchin Says Trump Will Offer ‘Biggest Tax Cut’ in U.S. History
To spur economic growth, President Donald Trump plans to propose what his Treasury Secretary said Wednesday would be the largest tax cut in the country’s history.
By Richard Rubin and Nick Timiraos

“What this is not going to be is a loophole to let rich people who should be paying higher rates pay 15%,” [Mnuchin] said.

It wasn’t clear Wednesday how the administration planned to do that.

Most U.S. businesses are pass-throughs, called that because their income and deductions pass through to their owners’ individual returns. That group includes many small firms, but also large global law firms, hedge funds and Mr. Trump’s own real-estate and branding businesses. These businesses don’t pay the corporate tax rate.

(cont.)

Breaking news: Trump’s tax plan benefits Trump.

I thought we already figured out that cutting taxes for business owners doesn’t jumpstart the economy? The owners just take their tax savings and stick it back in their pockets. Mnuchin says the cuts will pay for themselves without causing a deficit because the economy will grow, but that theory only works in a rose-colored view of Americans where ever business owner invest their savings back into their business.

So basically, rich people get to keep more of their money. That’s the net gain.

Justice Democrats - Democrats That Represent People, Not Corporations

Operation Democratic Backbone.

It’s time to face the facts: the Democratic Party is broken and the corporate, establishment wing of the party is responsible. Republicans now hold most state legislatures, most governorships, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the presidency. So in 2018, hundreds of Justice Democrats will run a unified campaign to replace every corporate-backed member of Congress and rebuild the party from scratch. This is our plan:

Pass a constitutional amendment to put an end to Washington corruption and bring about election reform. Super PACs should be banned, private donations to politicians and campaigns should be banned, and a clean public financing system should be implemented to end the takeover of our government by corporations and billionaires. Americans deserve free and fair elections – free from the corruption of big money donors. The Supreme Court has effectively legalized bribery. It’s time for an Article 5 convention to take our democracy back from the brink of oligarchy. Prior to passing this amendment, all members of the Justice Party should reject billionaire and corporate donations when running for office to show the American people we don’t just talk the talk, we walk the walk. Ranked choice voting should also be implemented to make smaller parties a viable option. All provisions of the voting rights act should be reinstated, and gerrymandering for partisan gain should be banned.

Re-regulate Wall Street and hold white-collar criminals accountable. Despite engaging in systemic fraud and causing a subprime mortgage meltdown and the great recession, you can count the people from Wall Street who are in prison for their crimes on one hand. It’s time to prosecute the criminals, bring back Glass-Steagall, and re-regulate Wall Street to prevent another crash. Prison is not just for the poor and the middle class anymore. We will have cops on Wall Street, not just Main Street.

End billionaire and corporate tax dodging, fix the system to benefit middle-class and poor people. Corporations dodge $450 billion a year in taxes by using offshore tax havens. We should end this injustice, as well as chain the capital gains tax to the income tax, increase the estate tax, and implement the Buffet rule so that no millionaire CEO pays less in taxes than his or her secretary. It’s time for a tax system that benefits the middle-class and the poor, and makes the top 1% and multinational corporations pay their fair share.

Defend free speech and expression. We support the right to express unpopular opinions without fear of censorship. We support free speech on college campuses. The marketplace of ideas should be embraced. A vibrant debate is healthy for democracy, and we should cherish our first amendment. We also support net neutrality for a free and open internet.

Oppose bigotry. We must speak out against racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all forms of bigotry. Non-discrimination protections that currently apply to race, religion, and gender should be expanded to include the LGBTQ community and the atheist community. Making all Americans equal is not asking for special privileges, it’s asking for the rule of law – justice and equality for all as outlined in the United States Constitution.

Make the minimum wage a living wage and tie it to inflation. This is about justice and basic human decency. If you work hard and you work full time you shouldn’t live in poverty.

Ensure universal healthcare as a right. The United States should catch up to every other modern nation and implement a single-payer, medicare-for-all system. There’s no reason we can’t be #1 in the world instead of #37. It’s time to end the destruction of American healthcare by rapacious, price gouging, for-profit, private health insurance middlemen.

Ensure universal education as a right. Educating the citizenry of a nation pays dividends in the long run, with the economy getting back much more than is initially put in. Crushing student debt for higher education would no longer burden young men and women trying to improve their lives through hard work. We should strive to have the best education system in the world.

End unnecessary wars and nation building. The United States maintains 800 military bases worldwide at a cost of $100 billion a year, this is money that can be spent at home creating jobs, rebuilding infrastructure, and investing in the future of the people. The disastrous war in Iraq cost trillions, the war in Afghanistan is 15 years in with no end in sight, and we’re currently bombing 7 different countries. We spend more on our military than the next 8 countries combined. Despite countless lives lost and destroyed, terrorism has only gotten worse. It’s time to end the wars and the perverse monetary-incentive structure that makes politicians flippant about sending young men and women to die. Unilateral U.S. military force should only be used as a last resort to defend the nation. The current budget could be cut drastically if we used our department of defense for what it was intended – defending us, instead of waging interventionist wars.

End the failed war on drugs. The goal is legalization, taxation, and regulation. Prohibition only makes drug cartels more powerful, increases crime, and makes drugs more dangerous due to lack of enforced safety standards. What you put in your body is your own business, and your right. A free society should allow individuals to make their own choices about their bodies. While most users are recreational and moderate, rehabilitation and treatment should be available for people struggling with addiction. Additionally, those serving time for non-violent drug offenses should be pardoned.

Create the new new deal. Our infrastructure gets a grade of D from the Society of Civil Engineers. The government should invest billions in rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, schools, levees, airports etc. There’s no reason why we can’t have the world’s #1 infrastructure.

Create the renewable energy revolution. Scientists are sounding the alarm on climate change. In order to avoid the worst case scenario and a dystopian future we need a massive green revolution. It’s time to drastically and immediately move away from fossil fuels and develop the technologies of the future. This will be a giant boon to both the private and public sector, as well as a necessary response to a global crisis. We can and we must be #1 in sustainable energy production in the world.

Block the TPP and all outsourcing deals that will further damage the middle-class. As a result of NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China and the WTO, Americans have lost millions of decent paying jobs. It’s time to end the race to the bottom and renegotiate these rigged deals that only benefit elites. We should not sacrifice our sovereignty, the only people who are allowed to make laws for the United States should be the American people, not multinational corporations.

End Constitutional overreaches. Ban the NSA from bulk data-collection and warrantless spying. Shut down Guantanamo Bay and all extrajudicial prisons. Prosecute torturers and those who violated the Geneva Conventions, Nuremberg Tribunal, International law and US law. Return habeas corpus and due process. Pardon whistleblowers like Edward Snowden. We shouldn’t be leading from behind on human rights, we must be the home of liberty. We should practice the values we preach.

Ban arming human rights violators. We recently gave Saudi Arabia billions in weapons and watched the civilian death toll in their vicious bombing campaign in Yemen tick up. We continue sending Egypt arms as they violently crack down on peaceful protesters. Israel received $38 billion in aid and promptly announced new settlements. The first step to peace is not enabling nations who regularly violate international law. We must be bold enough to stand up to human rights violators who aren’t just our enemies, but our allies. We don’t weaken our allies by holding them accountable, we strengthen them.

Enact common-sense gun regulation. 92% of Americans want expanded background checks, 54% want a ban on assault weapons, and 54% want a ban on high capacity magazines. This should be implemented along with a federal gun buyback program to cut down on the 300+ million firearms in circulation. Over 30,000 Americans die every year from gun violence, including over 10,000 homicides. The time to act is now to address this public health crisis.

Ensure paid vacation time, sick time, maternity leave, childcare. The United States is one of just three countries in the world that doesn’t offer paid maternity leave, the others being Oman and Papua New Guinea. We are the only industrialized nation that doesn’t offer paid vacation time. This should be changed immediately.

Abolish the death penalty. Humans are fallible, we’ll never get the right answer 100% of the time. 4% of the people on death row are not guilty of a crime and have been wrongly convicted. A system that puts innocent people to death is indefensible and should be reformed. We want justice for the American people but killing innocent people on death row is the exact opposite.

Defend and protect women’s rights. We support the Paycheck Fairness Act. We oppose Republican cuts to Planned Parenthood and women’s health clinics all across the country. In 2016 alone, 60 TRAP laws targeting abortion were passed in 19 states. We will vigorously oppose all efforts to dismantle reproductive rights.

“The elect of an assassin...and not of the people”


There are reasons for the absence of smiles and the prevalence of furrowed brows in the photographs of Andrew Johnson.  His life was not easy.  Born into poverty, his family was plunged deeper into it when his father died when Johnson was just three years old.  Johnson’s mother did her best to provide for Andrew and his older brother, William, but her work as a weaver and spinner was ultimately not enough.  At the age of 14, he and his brother were bound as apprentices to a tailor in Raleigh.  An indentured servant, Johnson was living only a little better than a slave, and despite learning a valuable trade, could hardly bear his life.  Two years after he was bound to the tailor, Johnson and his brother broke their contract and escaped to South Carolina, returning briefly to Raleigh to gather up his mother and move to Greeneville, Tennessee where he opened his own tailor shop at the age of 17.

Because of his situation, Andrew Johnson never attended a day of school.  During his apprenticeship in Raleigh, several men who frequented the tailor shop read to Johnson as he worked and with a book he received as a gift, Johnson labored hard in free moments at night to teach himself how to read.  Upon moving to Greeneville, the 17-year-old Johnson met 15-year-old Eliza McCardle.  A student at a local school, Eliza and Andrew were married less than a year after they met and since was thoroughly educated in comparison with Johnson, Eliza taught him how to write, do basic arithmetic, and improve his reading skills.

Johnson was a quick learner, a skilled orator, and had a gift for politics which he began to exploit early relying on his ability to connect with common people and his popularity as a first-class tailor with a thriving local business.  Elected an Alderman in Greeneville just two years after moving to Tennessee, Johnson became Mayor in 1830 at the age of 22.  By his 27th birthday, Johnson was serving in the Tennessee House of Representatives.  At 33, he was elected to the Tennessee State Senate.  In 1843, Johnson headed to Washington as a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he would serve five terms.

In 1852, Johnson’s rapid rise in politics led him to Nashville as Governor of Tennessee where, in two terms, he championed education and agricultural advancements at home and support pro-slavery Democrats and the Kansas-Nebraska Act nationally.  In 1857, the Tennessee State Legislature unanimously elected Johnson as Tennessee’s newest United States Senator.

Johnson’s Senate term became historic and not just because he was the architect of the Homestead Act – the most influential, lasting accomplishment of the Lincoln Administration not directly related to the Civil War.  As the Civil War approached, Johnson was a steadfast defender of slavery, unsurprising due to the his Southern roots and his unabashed white supremacy.  What was unique about Andrew Johnson was his vehement opposition to secession.  Johnson harshly criticized President Buchanan (a fellow Democrat) for his inaction in the face of secession and his failure to suppress the Confederate insurrection.  In a stunning reversal, Johnson – who supported Stephen A. Douglas in the 1850’s and John C. Breckinridge for President in 1860 – voiced his support for Abraham Lincoln.

As the nation headed to war, Johnson worked with passion and diligence to keep Tennessee in the Union – a battle he ultimately lost.  Despite constant threats to him and his family and being labeled a traitor in his beloved South, Johnson defied his state and became the only Southern Senator to refuse to join the Confederacy.  In the North, Johnson’s actions made him a courageous hero; in the Tennessee, he was burned in effigy and his hometown of Greeneville erected a banner over it’s main street which read “Andrew Johnson, Traitor”.

In March 1862, Johnson was appointed the Military Governor of Tennessee by President Lincoln and given the rank of brigadier general.  Johnson returned to his home state, now occupied by Union forces, with orders to establish law and order and return Tennessee to federal authority.  With virtually dictatorial powers, Johnson slowly and bravely restored order to Tennessee by shutting down anti-Union newspapers, seizing railroads and bridges, arresting priests for sermons that sympathized with the Confederate cause, enacting martial law, requiring state officeholders to swear oaths of allegiance to the federal government, levying and collecting taxes, and gaining a measure of support in the state by urging Lincoln to exempt Tennessee from the Emancipation Proclamation.  Johnson didn’t rule from afar or hide from a disgruntled population, either – he valiantly remained in Nashville, which was frequently under siege by Confederate forces, declaring that “I am no military man but any one who talks of surrender I will shoot.”

In 1864, President Lincoln urged Republicans to dump Vice President Hannibal Hamlin from Lincoln’s re-election bid and form a coalition party (the National Union Party) with pro-Union Democrats.  With an eye to the future and the need for quick national  reconciliation Lincoln dumped Hamlin in favor of Johnson, partly as a reward for Johnson’s unwavering loyalty to the Union and partly to balance the coalition ticket with a Democrat who just happened to be a Southerner.

Johnson’s Vice Presidency got off to an inauspicious start.  Ill from typhoid fever, Johnson took a few shots of whiskey prior to his inauguration in order to get through the long ceremonies.  Unfortunately, the effect was a long, drunken rant against aristocrats and wealthy businessmen and politicians as Johnson spoke to the Senate chamber (Vice Presidents gave their own inaugural addresses at that time) which ended only when outgoing Vice President Hamlin yanked on Johnson’s coattails and steered him away from the speaker’s lectern.  Lincoln was embarrassed and the nation was worried that their new Vice President might be an alcoholic.

The nation’s worries grew larger less than a week after the happy news that the Confederates had surrendered at Appomattox and ended the Civil War and not quite six weeks after Johnson became Vice President.  Shortly after his alcohol-infused outburst at his inauguration, the New York World worriedly said of Johnson, “To think, that one frail life stands between this insolent, clownish creature and the Presidency."  On April 15, 1865, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln led to Andrew Johnson becoming the 17th President of the United States.  Johnson’s ascension to the Presidency was not what anyone wanted or hoped for, including Johnson himself.  A stunned nation suddenly found itself with a very different leader as its chief executive.  The thoughts of many Americans echoed the words that Benjamin F. Butler would later say, "By murder most foul, he succeeded to the Presidency, and is the elect of an assassin to that high office, and not of the people.”

Johnson’s Presidency was dominated by the challenges of Reconstruction, the opposition of Radical Republicans in Congress opposed to Johnson’s conciliatory policy towards the conquered South, and his staunch refusal to recognize the basic human rights of blacks whom Johnson saw as an inferior race.  Johnson had a long history of vivid racism, punctuated by his bombastic speaking style.  Among his comments on African-Americans, Johnson had said “You can’t get rid of the negro except by holding him in slavery” and asked “If you liberate the negro, what will be the next step?  It would place every splay-footed, bandy-shanked, humpbacked negro in the country upon an equality with the poor white man.”

As his unpopularity in the country and in the Capitol grew, Johnson faced an unprecedented challenge from the Congress.  In 1867, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, which prohibited the President from firing his Cabinet members without the approval of the Senate.  On paper, this meant that the President not only required Senate confirmation of his appointments, but Senate confirmation of any potential change in his government’s top officials.  In reality, the Tenure of Office Act was a clear provocation of Johnson’s authority, basically daring Johnson to violate the law and face impeachment.  It was a legislative coup d'état.  Johnson didn’t respond well to challenges; he quickly violated the act, firing Secretary of War (and favorite of the Radical Republicans) Edwin Stanton for “disloyalty”.  Every bit as stubborn as the President, Stanton barricaded himself in the War Department and the Congress impeached Johnson on February 24, 1868.

The first President to be impeached (Bill Clinton would join the dubious club 130 years later), Andrew Johnson prepared for a trial in the Senate.  Needing a two-thirds majority to convict Johnson and remove him from office, Republicans worked zealously to secure the 36 votes necessary for conviction.  Facing eleven articles of impeachment (nine more than President Clinton was tried on in 1999), Johnson narrowly escaped conviction and removal from office.  The Senate voted 35-19 to convict Johnson on three articles of impeachment, but as they were 1 guilty vote short of a two-thirds majority, Johnson was able to remain in office and finish out his term.  After the first three articles of impeachment successfully went Johnson’s way, the other eight articles were abandoned and the case was closed.  Johnson’s Presidency was salvaged by seven courageous Republican Senators who risked their careers by voting with Democrats to acquit President Johnson.  Those seven Senators – William P. Fessenden (Maine), Joseph S. Fowler (Tennessee), James W. Grimes (Iowa), John B. Henderson (Missouri), Edmund G. Ross (Kansas), Lyman Trumbull (Illinois), and Peter Van Winkle (West Virginia) – were later lauded in John F. Kennedy’s Profiles of Courage for acts of Senatorial bravery.

Andrew Johnson cried upon hearing the news of his exoneration.  While his Presidency was salvaged, he had little real power and no support remaining.  Like John Tyler before him, Johnson was also a President without a party and though he hoped to seek election in his own right in 1868, no party was willing to nominate him as their candidate so the former tailor returned to Tennessee, declaring that “I intend to devote the remainder of my life to the vindication of my own character." 

It was his return home, however, that changed his spirits forever.  When Johnson refused to support the Confederacy and remained the only Southern Senator in the United States Senate during the Civil War, Johnson’s hometown of Greeneville had famously adorned its main street with a banner that read ”Andrew Johnson, Traitor“.  Now, as the former President rode back into Greeneville, he found that the burning effigies were gone, the insults were no longer flying, and the banner over his hometown’s main street said something entirely different: ”Andrew Johnson, Patriot“.

Johnson remained active in local and state Democratic politics in his final years and in 1875, he was rewarded with what he considered the highest honor of his life.  The Tennessee Legislature elected Johnson to the United States Senate.  Not only was Johnson returning to Washington as the only former President to serve in the Senate, but in one of history’s great coincidences, he was returning to the very legislative body that had nearly ended his political career and removed him from office less than a decade earlier.  When Johnson learned that he had been elected to the Senate in 1875, he told his family, "I’d rather have this information than to learn that I had been elected President of the United States.  Thank God for the vindication.”

Sadly, Johnson’s resurgent political career didn’t last long.  Returning home to Tennessee during a Senate recess, Johnson suffered a series of strokes in the final days of July 1875 while visiting his daughter in Carter County, Tennessee.  On July 31, 1875, the former President and loyal Unionist died at the age of 66.  In his will, Johnson requested one last act of patriotic devotion:  “Pillow my head with the Constitution of my country.  Let the flag of the Nation be my winding sheet."  With his body blanketed in the American flag and his head resting on a copy of the United States Constitution inside of his pine casket, Andrew Johnson was buried under a willow tree on a hill he personally chose in what is now known as Andrew Johnson National Cemetery in Greeneville, Tennessee. 

The two opposing Presidents of the Civil War both spoke respectfully of Andrew Johnson during the great war between the states.  Confederate President Jefferson Davis ignored Johnson’s stubborn opposition against the Confederacy and recognized Johnson’s connection with the common people.  "One of the people by birth, he remained so by conviction, continually referring to his origin…He was indifferent to money and careless of praise or censure."  Prior to choosing Johnson as his running mate in 1864, Abraham Lincoln understood his sacrifices: "No man has a right to judge Andrew Johnson in any respect who has not suffered as much and done as much as he for the Nation’s sake.”

Labour will put 10,000 more police on the streets to cut crime

Labour is today committing to provide funding to the 43 forces across England and Wales to hire an extra 10,000 officers operating in community policing roles. We will provide the framework to enable community engagement and funding to ensure at least the equivalent of one more bobby per electoral ward. 

It will mean an extra police officer dedicated to community policing in each electoral ward in England and Wales to tackle crime for the many not the few.

  • Labour will add 10,000 new police officers for England and Wales
  • Paid for by reversing cuts to Capital Gains Tax
  • Reported crime is rising under the Tories, up for almost every police force
  • Under Theresa May, the Tories have cut over 20,000 police officers since 2010
  • They have also broken their pledge to protect the police budget
  • Labour will protect current police levels and not cut the police budget

Almost every police force in the country recorded an increase in crime over the last year, with worrying rises in some of the most violent offences, including gun and knife crime and homicide. Since 2010, under Theresa May, police numbers have been cut by 20,000. Labour will reverse cuts to Capital Gains Tax which will more than fund these new officers in addition to guaranteeing current police levels.

Jeremy Corbyn MP, Leader of the Labour Party, will make the pledge on a visit to Southampton on Tuesday 2 May. He will say:

“Cutting police numbers especially when there is more crime to deal with is unacceptable. That’s why Labour will put 10,000 new police officers on our streets. The safety of our communities is vital to us all.

“Community policing means uniformed officers being visible, local and accessible. They engage with the public, have a detailed local knowledge and build a network of relationships.

“That’s why Labour will reduce crime by putting more police in the community to make sure policing works for the many not the few.”

Diane Abbott MP, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary, she will say:

“Theresa May failed to protect communities as Home Secretary and has continued to fail them as Prime Minister.

“Labour will reverse the Tories’ tax breaks for the rich, providing new money that can be used to put a bobby on the beat in every electoral ward in the country.  We will reinforce confidence in our police forces, with a renewed focus on working with communities, and for communities to fight crime.”

When Obama was running for office in 2008, he claimed that, “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” He lied, of course.

Politicians, writes Alfred Cuzan “have no incentive to redistribute income and wealth from ‘the rich’ to ‘the poor.’ A politician gains nothing taxing well-organized, well-informed, high-income groups and spending the money among a larger number of unorganized low-income people who might not even realize the benefits of the action. On the contrary, the organized, high-income groups will oppose him while the unorganized poor will do nothing.” “Political profit is made,” Cuzan continues, “by taxing the uninformed and the unorganized and spending on the informed and organized.” The former tend to be the poor; the latter the rich. Cuzan terms this the “iron law of political redistribution.”

Far from representing the interest of the public at large, as claimed by the pluralists, the interest group system is, in fact, almost ideally suited to the interests of a wealthy elite. Thus, neither political parties nor interest groups prevent the emergence of a ruling elite. Nor, it would seem, do they prevent that elite from using its position to benefit itself.
—  David Osterfeld, “Caste and Class: The Rothbardian View of Governments and Markets”, Man, Economy, and Liberty: Essays in Honor of Murray N. Rothbard, (1989) Ed. Walter Block and Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. p. 322
Jeremy Corbyn vows to block £3bn of Tory 'tax breaks for the rich' and use cash for new police

Jeremy Corbyn will pledge to block almost £3bn of planned “tax breaks for the rich” in order to pay for 10,000 new community police officers in England and Wales.

The Labour leader believes money saved from scrapping a Conservative plan to lower capital gains tax will easily cover the cost of his pledge and enable him to guarantee current funding levels for 43 police forces.

Writing exclusively for The Independent, shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott accused the Conservatives of having failed people from less well-off, ethnic and other minority backgrounds who are more likely to fall victim to crime, claiming “few of us live in gated communities with their own private security firms”.

Mr Corbyn will claim the move to put a beat bobby in “every electoral ward” is needed due to recent rises in some types of crime and deep cuts to police funding which have seen officer numbers drop 20,000 under Conservative administrations.

He planned to say: “Cutting police numbers especially when there is more crime to deal with is unacceptable.

“That’s why Labour will put 10,000 new police officers on our streets. The safety of our communities is vital to us all.

“Community policing means uniformed officers being visible, local and accessible. They engage with the public, have a detailed local knowledge and build a network of relationships.”

In the 2016 Budget it was announced that the higher rate of capital gains tax will be cut from 28 per cent to 20 per cent and the basic rate from 18 per cent to 10 per cent, costing the public purse £2.75bn over the next five years.

Recent data from the Office for National Statistics suggested that in the year ending 2016 there were “genuine increases” in some “high harm category” offences, including knife crime and homicide, while Home Office data shows the number of police officers plummeting from around 142,000 in 2010 to 122,000 last year.

Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott said: “Labour will reverse the Tories’ tax breaks for the rich, providing new money that can be used to put a bobby on the beat in every electoral ward in the country.”

In her article for The Independent, she went on: “Crime affects all of us. But very few of us live in gated communities with their own private security firms.

“It is ordinary people who suffer most from crime, and women, people from ethnic minorities, religious communities and the LGBT community who are all more likely to be victims of crime. On this, as with its entire policy, Labour stands for the many, not the few.”

A Conservative spokesperson responded: “This is just another nonsensical Jeremy Corbyn idea which he can’t pay for because his sums don’t add up and he’s already spent the money for it three other ways.

“Jeremy Corbyn promises all sorts of things, but we all know he can’t deliver. He and his supporters want to take away the powers the police need to keep us safe, and his coalition of chaos would undermine the Brexit negotiations. That would put the growing economy that funds the police at grave risk.

“Under Theresa May, the police have cut traditionally-measured crime by a third, and with her strong and stable leadership we will be able to make communities even safer.”

Buffett says Trump's tax plan would be good for Berkshire, but won't change how they do business

(Donald TrumpSpencer Platt/Getty Images)
Warren Buffett thinks that President Donald Trump’s massive tax cut plan will help Berkshire Hathaway’s bottom line but won’t change the way it invests in its business.

Buffett noted that the possibility of a corporate and investment tax cut will likely be beneficial to the profits of Berkshire Hathaway. The Berkshire CEO said that the drop in the investment tax would lower their deferred tax obligations for gains on their investment would drop.

“We have $90 or $95 billion in gains, and our owners, dollar for dollar, will participate in that,” Buffett said. “If the rate were to drop 10%, that $9.5 billion is real.”

At the same time, Buffett said that the possibility of tax credits intended to spur investment wouldn’t move the needle much.

Asked by journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin about the possibility of investing in capital projects if the Trump administration follows through on its promise of an investment tax credit, Buffett said it “depends on how it’s worded,” but said a change in the law wouldn’t motivate the company to sink more money into capital-heavy businesses like Burlington Northern railroads.

“I can’t recall sending anything out to our managers saying ‘let’s do this because the tax law is going to change’,” Buffett said.

Charlie Munger, Buffett's partner, agreed with the assessment.

“We’re not gonna change anything at the railroad just for some little tax jiggle,” Munger said.

Buffett and Munger seemed to agree that most businesses would likely not substantially change their large-scale investment decisions due to the incentive. “I doubt there would be any dramatic change” to business investment Buffett said.

The only difference it could make, said Buffett, would be to the timing of a scheduled investment. The legendary investor gave the example of an airline considering buying a bunch of planes in December of a year. If a tax credit would only be applicable to that year, the airline would be incentivized to hustle and make the purchases. If the credit will start the next year, the airline would likely delay the investment until then.

That’s why he said it was important for lawmakers to announce the effective date of any tax breaks well in advance.

Overall, however, Buffett wasn’t too enthused about the impact of the credits. 

“It’s so speculative anyway in terms of what the law will be,” Buffett concluded. “It doesn’t change anything for us big time at all.” 

NOW WATCH: This animated map shows how religion spread across the world



More From Business Insider
Amber Rudd refuses to rule out further police cuts

The Home Secretary has refused to rule out further police cuts following a Labour election pledge to put 10,000 more police officers on the beat

In an interview on Tuesday it was suggested to Amber Rudd that she had made “no promise on numbers, no promise on budget”.

“We will have to see what comes out with the manifesto,” the Conservative MP told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“But be in no doubt that a Conservative budget will put security first and what we’ve seen in recent years is a protected police budget.”

20,000 police officers have been cut since the Conservatives came to power in 2010. George Osborne belatedly protected the police budget in the 2015 spending review.

Labour says it will fund an extra 10,000 officers by reversing the Conservatives’ cuts to capital gains tax.

But Ms Rudd dismissed the pledge and being “without credibility” and said the police Budget needed to be kept under “control”.

“I think the important statistic is that crime has fallen by 2010 by a third. We believe that we can control the Budget and reduce crime,” she said.

“Labour’s proposal is totally without credibility, they’ve spent the money already that they say they’ve got for it several times before and they have no reputation on looking after security at all.”

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott however said the police were “crying out for is more manpower”.

Speaking in Southampton today announcing the new policy Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will say: “Cutting police numbers especially when there is more crime to deal with is unacceptable. The safety of our communities is vital to us all.

“Community policing means uniformed officers being visible, local and accessible. They engage with the public, have a detailed local knowledge and build a network of relationships.

US election 2016: Bernie Sanders' and Hillary Clinton's policies compared

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are in a pitched battle for the Democratic nomination, fighting for the hearts and minds of left-leaning voters across the US.

But where do they stand on the issues? While the candidates often agree on substance if not style, here’s a look at five areas where they differ - not just from each other, but from their presidential predecessors, as well.

Bernie Sanders promises he will reduce income inequality through changes to US through tax policy. He has called for a 10% tax surcharge on billionaires, raising the top three tax brackets and creating a new top rate, boosting capital gains and estate taxes, extending Social Security taxes, going after income made abroad by US corporations, and creating a new 0.2% tax on all earners to fund a paid family leave programme.

Hillary Clinton’s tax plan is basically Sanders-lite. She wants a 4% surtax on income over $5 million, an increase in capital gains taxes, the closing of “tax loopholes” for the wealthy, taxing hedge fund managers’ “carried interest” income at higher rates and increasing the estate tax rate.

Bernie Sanders has set the bar when it comes to higher education policy in the modern Democratic Party, with his call for free college for all Americans funded by taxing Wall Street financial transactions. He points to the runaway costs of higher education as one of the driving forces behind growing income inequality in the US.

Hillary Clinton supports a plan to make two-year community college free, but her higher education policies are more modest. She has called for lowering student loan interest rates, providing $17.5 billion to improve the quality of higher education and encouraging colleges to set affordable tuition rates that don’t require student loans.

For Bernie Sanders, however, that particular half-loaf is far from enough. He wants to institute a single-payer government-run health insurance system fashioned on Medicare. He has also called for allowing the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies in order to lower prices and permitting Americans to import medication from Canada, where it is less expensive.

Hillary Clinton has said Mr Sanders is advancing an unrealistic proposal that threatens hard-won healthcare reforms made during Mr Obama’s tenure. Instead she wants to expand existing law to improve coverage for prescription drugs and allow the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers for better prices.

Hillary Clinton is the first prominent Democratic presidential candidate to openly run on a gun-control platform since Al Gore’s losing campaign in 2000. She supports holding gun manufacturers liable for deaths caused by their products, expanding background checks and prohibiting those on no-fly list from purchasing firearms. She has also supported reinstating the ban on semi-automatic “assault” rifles.

Bernie Sanders, a senator from the rural state of Vermont, has a more moderate position on guns - although he has moved to the left over the course of the campaign. He supports expanded background checks on gun purchases and an assault weapons ban, but opposes holding gun manufacturers liable for deaths. He voted against a gun purchase waiting period multiple times in the early 1990s and for allowing guns in national parks.

Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, was one of the more hawkish members of Mr Obama’s cabinet. It’s no surprise then that as a presidential candidate she is well to the right of Mr Sanders and even Mr Obama. She has called for greater US involvement in the Syrian civil war, including enforcing a no-fly zone, and supports a continued US military presence in Afghanistan.

Bernie Sanders generally agrees with Barack Obama’s foreign policies - limited involvement in Syria and an emphasis on working with US allies. He contrasts himself with Mrs Clinton by noting the past US military action that she supported and he opposed - in Libya and Iraq. He supports a full US withdrawal from Afghanistan and no US training of rebels in the Syrian civil war.

My conclusion - I believe in the future with Bernie Sanders. Hillary’s measures I consider not enough. This is when we forget that she’s a liar, racist and was involved in a number of political scandals. And we must remember her sponsors from the Wall Street. I wanna say “I trust you, Mr. President”. And that’s why I’ll #Go Bernie.

#GoBernie! #AFuturetoBelievein #BernieSandersforPresident!

mattykinsel  asked:

What are some good examples besides C-51 that demonstrate how the federal Liberals under Trudeau are becoming more right leaning? Thanks ! :)

He Allowed Bill Blair to run as a candidate (AKA the Police Chief who oversaw the G20 mass arrests and carding). He has said he has no issues with his past behaviour.

The Liberals recruited Eve Adams a member of Stephen Harper’s party and her husband Dimitri Soudas (Former director of communications for Stephen Harper).

The Liberals supported the dangerous Investment Protection agreement with China:

A great betrayal: Trudeau and the Liberals voted for Harper’s sell-out FIPA

Like the conservatives their economic platform favours the very wealthy:

Liberal election platform shifts the chips for the rich, takes a pass on the middle class

Here are some quotes:

[Justin Trudeau] He’s called the now-defunct, Liberal-created long gun registry a failure and asserted that guns are an important part of Canada’s identity.

He’s come out strongly in favour of the takeover of Nexen Inc. by the Chinese state-owned oil company, even chiding Prime Minister Stephen Harper for not being open enough to investment by state-owned enterprises in the oilsands.

Two of Trudeau’s most serious challengers have similarly positioned themselves as so-called blue or business-friendly Liberals.

Montreal MP Marc Garneau, Canada’s first astronaut, has called for wide open competition in the telecommunications sector. And he’s lamented government interference in free markets when it comes to encouraging innovation.

“Instead of more government handouts, let’s eliminate all capital gains tax on investment in Canadian start-ups,” he told a Toronto business audience in a recent speech larded with conservative catchphrases.

Source (x)

Trudeau is for expanding development of the tar sands and more oil pipelines:

Pipeline policy in general is one of the most important responsibilities of a Canadian prime minister and of a Canadian government – to make sure we can get our resources to market. We are a natural resource economy and we need to be able to do that. However, we need to do that in the right way. A right way that is sustainable, that has community support and buy-in, and that fits into a long-term strategy of not just a sustainable environment but a sustainable economy.

Because of that I have been a strong promoter of the Keystone XL pipeline and also a harsh critic on the way the prime minister has approached pushing the Keystone XL pipeline. To my mind, the only thing that has prevented Keystone XL from getting approved already in the United States – and what has allowed it become such a polarizing issue, with celebrities weighing in and all sorts of people having very strong opinions even though there is not necessarily all that many facts going around in many of the conversations – is that the prime minister hasn’t done a good enough job of demonstrating a level of commitment to doing it right and upholding environmental protections and regulations. That’s what President Obama has said many times – that he needs to see concrete action from Canada – and what we get is all words. So I’m very much a proponent of Keystone XL.

For similar reasons, I’m not a proponent of the Northern Gateway Pipeline … which runs through the Great Bear Rainforest, which has spectacularly failed at getting community buy-in from First Nations communities and from local communities that could be potentially affected by it. And it’s not just an environmental argument, it’s also an economic argument. There are 20,000 British Columbians who make their living on the sea around Haida Gwaii and on the Pacific Coast. They would all be in peril – those jobs, those livelihoods – with a catastrophic accident, which, unfortunately, is all too capable.

So, my intent is to make sure we send Enbridge back to the drawing board for that. I am, however, very interested in the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline that is making its way through. I certainly hope that we’re going to be able to get that pipeline approved. And I hope that Kinder Morgan learns from Enbridge’s experience of short-cutting or going too light on community buy-in. Ultimately governments grant permits, but only communities grant permission.

Source (x)

And the Liberals support the Energy East Pipeline as well:

“I am in favour of the Keystone, I am very much in favour of the west-east pipeline, I am in favour of the Line 9.”
– Justin Trudeau, Your McMurray Magazine, May 29, 2014  

I don’t think I can document the entire liberal party’s rightward shift, but this is a start.

satelliteunicorns  asked:

How do you feel about legalized prostitution? Do you think that would solve some of the problems in the sex industry? Prostitution is something that has been present throughout history, so I'm not sure if it would work to try to eliminate it entirely, but maybe there is a way to do it in a safe and less harmful way. Perhaps legalizing and regulating prostitution would be an answer to this?

Hey :)
I live in a country with a (regulated) legalisation prostitution model (hence the name of my blog: Legalised Lies) and most of my friends live in a neighbouring country that has unregulated legalisation. So i know a thing or 2 about legalisation. ;)

It’s a failed experiment and i do believe that the liberals who implemented the law 15 years ago had good intentions, the same intentions you vocalised right now. They thought the same thing: prostitution would be a job, done by independent businesswomen who’d become “sex workers” and it would be safe, because the women (and men) would be able to hire a security person, pimps would disappear.

2 years after the new law was implemented, the cracks already were starting to show, even the leader of the very pro-prostitution Green party admitted in an interview they had been too naive. In the years after, lots of sextourists started to visit the country, pimps didn’t go away and with the EU expanding, there was a big influx of Eastern European women who didn’t speak the language and drove down the market.
Human trafficking skyrocketed, we had a bunch of murder cases of prostituted women and more and more stories started to surface of the rise if very specific kind of pimp: a “soft pimp”* who made young girls fall in love with them, to later persuade them to enter prostitution. The media dubbed them “loverboys”.

As a side effect, regulated legalisation also creates 2 classes of prostitution: “legal” and “illegal”, wich can re-criminalises prostituted women. If prostitution is a regular job, one has to pay taxes, but prostitution isn’t a regular job for the overwhelming majority of prostituted women. So you end up with a group of “happy hooker” type women in the legal sector and a bulk of illegal prostitution for the most vulnerble: children, illegal migrants, addicts, homeless people (this included me when i was in the sextrade) and some forced sexslaves.
For the law, most of these people aren’t victims, they are independent sex workers who choose to evade taxes, for personal financial gain.

So i think that by now we can conclude that legalisation doesn’t work: it increases sex trafficking, it doesn’t lead to less violence, it doesn’t make pimp obsolete and it sometimes even victimizes people twice. And most of all: it’s still women who are coerced by poverty or violence to be bribed of their consent to have sex. I consider this rape, but however you want to spin it: it’s not okay, i think we can agree on that, right?

A long explanation, but it’s good to get plenty of information out there. :) Did this answer your question?

* A bit of a misleading term, i admit, because they’re not soft at all, they’re really violent.

anonymous asked:

My economics professor that simply increasing the taxes on the 1 percent would result in an increase in income for the rest of "us" and allow more funding to education and such. What do you think would be an good counter argument to this?

Your professor is an ideological stooge and is effectively doing what is presented in the comic below.


This is the story we hear from leftists all the time. “If we just raise the taxes on the top 1% we can do so much!” They often try to maintain that the 1% is this group of people that are born rich, remain rich, never work a day in their life and the only reason you’re poor is because they’re rich.

It’s an effective narrative because it sounds good and takes very little thought to believe. The 1% is just that, 1% of the population had has very little power as far as voting goes. 55% of Americans think the 1% doesn’t pay enough.

First let’s establish the current state of taxation in America. What does it take to be in the 1%

To be in the top 1%. You don’t have to be a billionaire. You don’t have to be a millionaire. You don’t have to make half a million per year. To be in the 1% you have to make roughly $390k per year. To be in the top 10% you have to make $114k per year. Ask your parents how much they make a year and you’d be surprised how high you might be. I’m only going to address federal income tax as state and local taxes vary depending where you live. We’ll also ignore how the top 1% tends to pay more of other taxes such as capital gains tax since generally speaking, they own more investments.

In 2014, the federal government took in 1.4 Trillion dollars in income tax revenue. The top 1% pays 37% of those taxes. They payed 45.7% of their income to the federal government in 2014 as it is.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of earners pay 2% of the tax burden. 

The bottom 40%, not only pays nothing to the government, they get money from the government.

(screenshot from this video)


Your professor’s idea that we can tax the rich to solve our problems has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Despite being an economics professor, he completely ignored what in economics is called The Laffer Curve. 

The Laffer Curve postulates that at a certain point, tax revenue will decrease as tax rates increase. This was proven to exist during the Reagan administration as Reagan cut taxes, revenue increased.

A study by Christina Romer, one of the most left wing economists, found that the curve existed around tax rates of about 33%, far below what current rates are for the wealthiest Americans.

So if your professor was honest, and really wanted more revenue to spend, he would support lower taxes on the rich.
Further your professor assumes that our income is related inversely to our income. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that income is individual. Just because someone is rich, doesn’t mean you get paid less. People get paid based on what their labor is worth and the competition they face in the market. 

TL;DR Version: He’s a shitty professor using his position to spread his ideology not education.

Who the Heck is Bernie Sanders? A Primer.

When I first heard about Bernie Sanders, I really didn’t know who he was. I thought he might be some Libertarian Tea party guy coming in from the fringes. Or maybe a rogue Republican like Rand Paul. I was resigned to the idea that Hillary is the only Democrat contender, and therefore, it was going to be another business-as-usual campaign season that I’d try desperately to ignore.

But then I started seeing memes of things he was saying. Things I wholeheartedly agree with. Who the heck is this guy? Eventually, I saw so many of these that I decided to do a bit of research. That’s when I discovered that he’s a political unicorn. By all evidence of politicians before him, he shouldn’t exist. Yet, the evidence was solid. He’s the real deal.

Here’s what I discovered:

Before he started his political career, in the early 60’s, he was very active in the Civil Rights Movement and in college was a student organizer for the Congress of Racial Equality and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. He coordinated sit-in protests against segregation. He was a member of the Young People’s Socialist League.

His start in politics was in 1971. He was a member of the Liberty Union Party, which grew out of the anti-war and people’s party movements. He ran for senator in 1972 and 1974. IN 1974 he finished third, only 4.1% behind the victor. In 1979 he directed the American People’s Historical Society, where he made a documentary about Eugene Debs.

In 1981 he ran for and became mayor of Burlington, VT and won three more times, beating out both Democrat and Republican candidates. While there, he funded Community Trust Housing and his administration sued the local cable company and won reduced rates for customers.

After four terms, he didn’t run and taught political science at Harvard and Hamilton College.

In 1990, he ran for Congress as an Independent and won with 56% of the vote. He described himself as openly Socialist.

He voted against the use of force in Iraq in 1991 and 2002 and opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He has been very vocal against the Patriot Act. When it passed, he sponsored several amendments to curtail the power of the act and voted against every reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

He repeatedly called for an investigation into the Bush administration for their actions leading up to the Iraq war and for the illegal leak of Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA agent.

In 2005 he proposed an amendment to disallow the gov’t from obtaining people’s library and book buying records. He consistently voted against every attempt to censor or surveil the internet.

He ran for Senate in 2006 and beat Republican Rich Tarrant by a 2-1 margin. He was re-elected in 2012 with 71% of the vote. During this time, both the NAACP and the NHLA gave him voting scores of 100%.

He very vocally opposed bailing out the banks and inspired many online petitions to oppose the same.

In 2015 he became the ranking minority member of the Senate Budget Committee and presented a report aimed at rebuilding the middle class, raising the minimum wage, and increasing Social Security payments.

On April 30, he announced his run for President, refusing any SuperPAC funding, saying  "I don’t believe that the men and women who defended American democracy fought to create a situation where billionaires own the political process.“ Elizabeth Warren, who chose not to run, openly endorses Sanders. After four days, his campaign raised $3 million, all from small individual donations averaging $43.

In the last month, he has drawn larger crowds than every other candidate, regardless of party.

His platform includes:

Income and Wealth Equality

Raising taxes on capital gains and the wealthiest 2% of Americans, which he would use to lower the taxes of middle and lower classes.

Introduced legislation to break up the "too big to fail” banks.

Opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would dwarf CAFTA and NAFTA.

Rebuilding America’s infrastructure of bridges, roads, and creating a modern rail system on par with what is in Europe and Japan, which would create millions of jobs.

Introduced legislation to aid the creation of worker-owned co-ops, something he’s openly supported since 1976.

Eradicating student loans by making public universities tuition-free.

Seriously tackling global warming by transforming our energy from oil and fossil fuels to sustainable energy like wind, solar, and hydro energy.

Ending wiretapping and other forms of mass surveillance.

Increasing benefits for veterans.

Creating a true universal health care system on par with that of most of Europe.

Creating a guaranteed paid family, sick and vacation leave, including 12 weeks of paid maternity leave.

Calling for police accountability.

Also, he’s a non-practicing Jew (atheist), and is strongly in favor of separation of church and state.

Creating equality of pay for women.

To back all of this up, and show that he doesn’t just give lip service, but actively fights for these things, throughout his career he has sponsored the following (this is a short list of just a few. Go to govtrack.us to see everything he’s sponsored):

S. 1719 Low-Income Solar Act
S. 1631 Keep Our Pension Promises Act
S. 1564 Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act
S. 1373 College For All Act
S. 1364 Medicaid Generic Drug Price Fairness Act of 2015
S. 1206 Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act
S. 922 Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act
S. 731 Social Security Expansion Act
S. 2905 Carbon Pollution Transparency Act of 2014
S. 2901 10 Million Solar Roofs Act of 2014
S. 2450 Veterans’ Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014
S. 2422 Ensuring Veterans Access to Care Act of 2014
S. 2411 United States Employee Ownership Bank Act
S. 1982 Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act of 2014
S. 1583 Mental Health Support for Veteran Families and Caregivers Act of 2013
S. 1581 Survivors of Military Sexual Assault and Domestic Abuse Act of 2013
S. 1168 Restore Our Privacy Act
S. 332 Climate Protection Act of 2013
S. Amdt 210 Requires Labels on Foods with Genetically Modified Ingredients
S. 329 Sustainable Energy Act
S. 3433 Clean Coasts and Efficient Cars Act of 2010

He also co-sponsored these (a partial list, full one at votesmart.org):

S. 2578 Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014
S. 2223 Minimum Wage Fairness Act
S. 2199 Paycheck Fairness Act
S. 815 Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013
S. 47 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
S. Amdt 3058 Expands TRICARE Coverage of Autism
S. Amdt 3018 Prohibits the Indefinite Detention of Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents
S. Amdt 2156 Increases Funding for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
S. Amdt 2111 Prohibits Pharmaceutical Companies from Delaying the Release of Generic Drugs
S. Amdt 2108 Prohibits FDA Approval of Genetically Engineered Fish
S. 2230 Establishes a Minimum 30 Percent Tax Rate for High-Income Taxpayers
S. Amdt 3989 Debit Card Fee Regulations

This track record of fighting for civil rights, equality, sustainability, fairness, and overall humanity proves he is for real. He has never been for sale. He has never wavered in doing right by all of us. He supports everything that most of my friends support. His words and his voting and sponsoring record aligns consistently.

No other candidate, in this or any other election, has had a level of integrity, consistency of vision, and progressiveness that even approaches Bernie Sanders. They had nice words, but their records did not match those words, and therefore we ended up fooled again.

Every other candidate either wavers their position with public opinion, takes corporate funding, or their words do not match their record, which itself often fluctuates with political winds.

Please, try to find some dirt on him. Find evidence of wrongdoing. Show accusations of corruption. Find a scandal. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

In the meantime, consider this: just once, wouldn’t you like to cast your vote for someone who has always supported the things you support? If the above isn’t the kind of thing you support, then by all means, vote for someone else. However, the vast majority of my friends are in alignment with the same values Bernie Sanders has always had.

If he loses, what we’ll be left with is the same crap we’ve had all our lives. A President that panders to corporate interests and is for sale. Just once, let’s support real hope, not a campaign slogan of hope.

youtube

WHY IS THE RACIAL WEALTH GAP WIDENING? AND WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO REVERSE IT?

Wealth inequality is even more of a problem than income inequality. That’s because you have to have enough savings from income to begin to accumulate wealth – buying a house or investing in stocks and bonds, or saving up to send a child to college.

But many Americans have almost no savings, so they have barely any wealth. Two-thirds live paycheck to paycheck.

Once you have wealth, it generates its own income as the value of that wealth increases over time, generating dividends and interest, and then even more when those assets are sold.

This is why wealth inequality is compounding faster than income inequality. The richest top 1% own 40% of the nation’s wealth. The bottom 80% own just 7%.

Wealth is also transferred from generation to generation, not only in direct transfers, but also in access to the best schools and universities. Young people who get college degrees are overwhelmingly from wealthier families.

Which is why kids from low-income families, without such wealth, start out at a huge disadvantage. This is especially true for children of color from low-income families. Such families typically rent rather than own a house, and don’t earn enough to have any savings.

Throughout much of America’s history, the federal government has given families tax breaks in order to help them save and build assets – such as paying no tax on income that’s put away for retirement, and being able to deduct interest on home mortgages.

But these tax breaks mainly help those with high income and lots of wealth in the first place, who can afford to put away lots for retirement or get a large mortgage on a huge home. They don’t much help those with low incomes and minimal savings.

Families of color are especially disadvantaged because they’re less likely to have savings or inherit wealth, and face significant barriers to building wealth, such as discriminatory policies and practices that thwart home ownership.

These structural disadvantages have built up to the point where the median net worth of white families is now more than 10 times greater than that of African-American or Latino families.

So what can we do to help all Americans accumulate wealth?

First, reform the tax system so capital gains – increases in the value of assets – are taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.

Second, limit how much mortgage interest the wealthy can deduct from their incomes.

Then use the tax savings from these changes to help lower-income people gain a foothold in building their own wealth.

For example:

1. Provide every newborn child with a savings account consisting of at least $1,250 — and more if a child is from a low-income family. This sum will compound over the years into a solid nest egg.

Research shows it could reduce the racial wealth gap by nearly 20% — more if deposits are larger. At age 18, that young person could use the money for tuition or training, a business or a home. Studies show such accounts can change children’s behavior and increase the likelihood they’ll attend college.

1. Allow families receiving public benefits to save. Today a family receiving public assistance can be cut off for having saved just $1,000. Raise the limits on what a family can save to at least $12,000—roughly three months’ income for a low-income family of four—and thereby put that family on the road to self-sufficiency.

All these steps would allow families to invest in their own futures – which is the surest way out of poverty. All of us benefit when everyone has the opportunity to accumulate wealth.