Bernie's plan to pay for "Free College"

[slimreaper]

You must be registered for see images

Not until he sources his information.

He has no proof that the New york commerce commission isn't a government funded program

 

[Jiraiyathesannin]

You must be registered for see images

Not until he sources his information.

He has no proof that the New york commerce commission isn't a government funded program

I'm not doing your homework for you. Google it

 

[slimreaper]

I'm not doing your homework for you. Google it

You can't. I have googled it there isn't even any mention of the New York Free Trade Commission. You're lying


You asserted it, You back your claim Or you have no claim.

 

[Jiraiyathesannin]

You can't. I have googled it there isn't even any mention of the New York Free Trade Commission. You're lying


You asserted it, You back your claim Or you have no claim.

I think I'll have a better time identifying every single logical fallacy that you use. They're called logical fallacies because they are errors in your argument. Today's lesson is "black and white fallacy". Black/white fallacy: asserting that only 2 choices are possible, and either one or the other is the correct one. Either you back your claim or I have no claim. Proof this argument is invalid through counter-example: The seventeenth letter of the u.s. constitution is "U". This is a fact. Whether or not I have backed my claim has no bearing on its accuracy.

Do you get tired of being wrong? You will never win an argument when you abuse logical fallacies, especially if you try to apply them incorrectly yourself.

 

[slimreaper]

I think I'll have a better time identifying every single logical fallacy that you use. They're called logical fallacies because they are errors in your argument. Today's lesson is "black and white fallacy". Black/white fallacy: asserting that only 2 choices are possible, and either one or the other is the correct one. Either you back your claim or I have no claim. Proof this argument is invalid through counter-example: The seventeenth letter of the u.s. constitution is "U". This is a fact. Whether or not I have backed my claim has no bearing on its accuracy.

Do you get tired of being wrong? You will never win an argument when you abuse logical fallacies, especially if you try to apply them incorrectly yourself.

And now I teach you about the burden of proof....


When someone asserts something(you've asserted the NYFCC is a privately funded commission, and therefore not reliable) the burden of proof falls to them to provide their source of information.


You obviously can't or you would have already. My study posted stands until you provide the proof.


That's not a logical fallacy, that's simple logic.

If you're argument consists of discrediting someone, you must source it.

You've not proven me wrong once, You're intellectually inferior to myself, and you'll run because you can't prove your argument

 

[Jiraiyathesannin]

You must be registered for see images

Slimreaper at it again, but this time he got rekt within half a dozen posts.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

You must be registered for see images

And now I teach you about the burden of proof....


When someone asserts something(you've asserted the NYFCC is a privately funded commission, and therefore not reliable) the burden of proof falls to them to provide their source of information.


You obviously can't or you would have already. My study posted stands until you provide the proof.


That's not a logical fallacy, that's simple logic.

If you're argument consists of discrediting someone, you must source it.

You've not proven me wrong once, You're intellectually inferior to myself, and you'll run because you can't prove your argument

And he finishes the trifecta of disgruntled commentor tropes with a reference to his intellect. Man, "straw man" "i have proved you wrong" "my intellect...". You're a walking cliche. Everything you have said is made invalid before it even starts with evidence that the system HAS worked. To be honest, I didn't HAVE to say that the company that financed the study is not a government agency and is in fact private sector. It didn't matter. I can create a study explaining with concise reasoning why glass is a harder substance than diamond and back it up with pages of detailed mathematics. At the end of the day, diamond is in fact harder than glass and has cut glass many times.

Ok tough guy. I'll do your homework for you. The study you listed, written by tim worstall and published in 2011 in westminster was published by the institute of economic affairs

You must be registered for see links

. They are a right wing (notice they do not even identify themselves as a neutral party) "think tank"

You must be registered for see links

The term "institute" is a misnomer. They have an agenda and publish works designed to further their agenda. They are not a neutral agency at all. Notice the second link explaining their role includes an example of the same "think tanks" that published the pro smoking studies. They are funded by a number of groups, most notably the Earhart foundation.

You must be registered for see links

They are known for funding conservative think tanks, including rightist newspapers such as "Illiberal democracy". THEIR primary backers are the likes of exxon.

So a company that finances a number of anti liberal institutes and is themselves funded by several large corporations like exxon and who are themselves worth tens of millions is the primary funder of an think tank that prides themselves on creating right wing articles. That group publishes a paper saying that "taxing the rich won't net revenue" and you're telling me THAT article isn't biased?

These aren't government run independent studies. These are foundations paid by large companies to create literature promoting low taxes on industry, and those companies fund think tanks like the institude of economic affairs who make bullshit articles trying to disprove a system that has worked for centuries.

Sorry i didn't feel like link hunting on mobile until I got home after work. I've done my homework. you sorry piece of shit.

 

[Jiraiyathesannin]

You must be registered for see images

 

[Funky Tiger]

You're trying to re frame the argument.


Whether or not "free" education exists is one thing.


MY whole post is how bernie has proposed to pay for it isn't a way to generate revenue. How about you read How is he going to fund it? His pan would not work.

Btw there's a reason most European countries don't send anyone who wants to go to college to college for free. Because they don;t want to waste their money.


Tax services for some American's and not others based on test scores will never work in America

just for the record, i am not american and my only relation with this whole election fiasco is laughing at the ol' trump man whenever he says and/or does something dumb. idk who bernie is, apart for the "feel the bern" meme

read your fucking post again ffs. yes, this huge piece of shit right here.

"i dont care that free education exists in a lot of places in the world, i care about how free education is to be implemented in the nation trump-sama is gonna make great again." what the other dude tried to tell is THAT THE SAME EXACT THING THIS BERNIE PERSON IS TRYING TO IMPLEMENT FUCKING EXISTS IN MANY COUTNRIES, which means that your "lol taxes are steling money from da poor, cuz i read on le reddit so itz gutta b true amirite ppl" is pure unadulterated bullshit. i am from india, and i am doing my engineering in a college that is in the country's top 10, and most of my tuition fee is subsidized by the government. yes, "stolen" taxpayers money, but not every ****ing person is given free education because of our huge ass population. it is fucking possible.

honestly ive read a few of your posts/threads before and i cant tell if you're trolling or not most of the time. btw, its guys like you that are most active on dumb "debate" threads like these. this is not a fucking debate, this is you being dumb and trying hard to cover that up with huge ass posts.

 

[Hawker]

And he finishes the trifecta of disgruntled commentor tropes with a reference to his intellect. Man, "straw man" "i have proved you wrong" "my intellect...". You're a walking cliche. Everything you have said is made invalid before it even starts with evidence that the system HAS worked. To be honest, I didn't HAVE to say that the company that financed the study is not a government agency and is in fact private sector. It didn't matter. I can create a study explaining with concise reasoning why glass is a harder substance than diamond and back it up with pages of detailed mathematics. At the end of the day, diamond is in fact harder than glass and has cut glass many times.

Ok tough guy. I'll do your homework for you. The study you listed, written by tim worstall and published in 2011 in westminster was published by the institute of economic affairs

You must be registered for see links

. They are a right wing (notice they do not even identify themselves as a neutral party) "think tank"

You must be registered for see links

The term "institute" is a misnomer. They have an agenda and publish works designed to further their agenda. They are not a neutral agency at all. Notice the second link explaining their role includes an example of the same "think tanks" that published the pro smoking studies. They are funded by a number of groups, most notably the Earhart foundation.

You must be registered for see links

They are known for funding conservative think tanks, including rightist newspapers such as "Illiberal democracy". THEIR primary backers are the likes of exxon.

So a company that finances a number of anti liberal institutes and is themselves funded by several large corporations like exxon and who are themselves worth tens of millions is the primary funder of an think tank that prides themselves on creating right wing articles. That group publishes a paper saying that "taxing the rich won't net revenue" and you're telling me THAT article isn't biased?

These aren't government run independent studies. These are foundations paid by large companies to create literature promoting low taxes on industry, and those companies fund think tanks like the institude of economic affairs who make bullshit articles trying to disprove a system that has worked for centuries.

Sorry i didn't feel like link hunting on mobile until I got home after work. I've done my homework. you sorry piece of shit.

just for the record, i am not american and my only relation with this whole election fiasco is laughing at the ol' trump man whenever he says and/or does something dumb. idk who bernie is, apart for the "feel the bern" meme

read your fucking post again ffs. yes, this huge piece of shit right here.

"i dont care that free education exists in a lot of places in the world, i care about how free education is to be implemented in the nation trump-sama is gonna make great again." what the other dude tried to tell is THAT THE SAME EXACT THING THIS BERNIE PERSON IS TRYING TO IMPLEMENT FUCKING EXISTS IN MANY COUTNRIES, which means that your "lol taxes are steling money from da poor, cuz i read on le reddit so itz gutta b true amirite ppl" is pure unadulterated bullshit. i am from india, and i am doing my engineering in a college that is in the country's top 10, and most of my tuition fee is subsidized by the government. yes, "stolen" taxpayers money, but not every ****ing person is given free education because of our huge ass population. it is fucking possible.

honestly ive read a few of your posts/threads before and i cant tell if you're trolling or not most of the time. btw, its guys like you that are most active on dumb "debate" threads like these. this is not a fucking debate, this is you being dumb and trying hard to cover that up with huge ass posts.

These guys: the left fighter
Slimreaper: the right one (pun intended lol)



OT: isn't it clear that if free college is working in other countries, it could work in the US too?

 

[slimreaper]

And he finishes the trifecta of disgruntled commentor tropes with a reference to his intellect. Man, "straw man" "i have proved you wrong" "my intellect...". You're a walking cliche. Everything you have said is made invalid before it even starts with evidence that the system HAS worked. To be honest, I didn't HAVE to say that the company that financed the study is not a government agency and is in fact private sector. It didn't matter. I can create a study explaining with concise reasoning why glass is a harder substance than diamond and back it up with pages of detailed mathematics. At the end of the day, diamond is in fact harder than glass and has cut glass many times.

Ok tough guy. I'll do your homework for you. The study you listed, written by tim worstall and published in 2011 in westminster was published by the institute of economic affairs

You must be registered for see links

. They are a right wing (notice they do not even identify themselves as a neutral party) "think tank"

You must be registered for see links

The term "institute" is a misnomer. They have an agenda and publish works designed to further their agenda. They are not a neutral agency at all. Notice the second link explaining their role includes an example of the same "think tanks" that published the pro smoking studies. They are funded by a number of groups, most notably the Earhart foundation.

You must be registered for see links

They are known for funding conservative think tanks, including rightist newspapers such as "Illiberal democracy". THEIR primary backers are the likes of exxon.

So a company that finances a number of anti liberal institutes and is themselves funded by several large corporations like exxon and who are themselves worth tens of millions is the primary funder of an think tank that prides themselves on creating right wing articles. That group publishes a paper saying that "taxing the rich won't net revenue" and you're telling me THAT article isn't biased?

These aren't government run independent studies. These are foundations paid by large companies to create literature promoting low taxes on industry, and those companies fund think tanks like the institude of economic affairs who make bullshit articles trying to disprove a system that has worked for centuries.

Sorry i didn't feel like link hunting on mobile until I got home after work. I've done my homework. you sorry piece of shit.

really now?

You must be registered for see links

So basically you just wikipedia'd me. Not only wikipedia, known left wing wikipedia.


That's you're source? this whole argument was about why the article was funded by the NYFCC(never saw proof of this) and now you want to tell me it's funded by exxon(this isn't a climate change paper).


This is sad. You want so hard to deny information presented to you that you attack any source. you likened this study to diamond vs glass which tells me no matter the source you were going to deny it either way.


You bias is clear, i'm done here. Come back with actual proof

 

[Lightbringer]

Your original source has nothing to do with Bernie's plan and you wonder why I constantly mock you.

Your source never mentioned Bernie Sanders even once. What's even funnier is that it has nothing to do with the U.S. at all entirely!!! Your source is about the U.K. genius!

I constantly tell you that you have no idea what your sources are or what you're talking about.

All of your arguments are just finding google links and leaving it at that.

You can't explain your own source or your own argument; you simply plagiarize everything without sufficient knowledge of what it is you're plagiarizing.

And when you're proven wrong, you just google another link, and another link, and another link, and it's never ending because you simply can't admit to being wrong.

You have no clue as to what those links are or what you're talking about.

This is why everyone thinks you're an idiot and why you have no credibility.

 

[paratise]

Free universities (or universities with small fees) exist in other countries too and not just in European ones. My country, Republic of Turkey has them too and we have a much smaller economy than USA. Heck all other countries have smaller economies yet they manage. And no, nobody is poor because of the tax paid for them, they are infact the reasons why many young minds could have opportunity to get educated and help progression of country in many accounts including economy.

 

[slimreaper]

Your original source has nothing to do with Bernie's plan and you wonder why I constantly mock you.

Your source never mentioned Bernie Sanders even once. What's even funnier is that it has nothing to do with the U.S. at all entirely!!! Your source is about the U.K. genius!

I constantly tell you that you have no idea what your sources are or what you're talking about.

All of your arguments are just finding google links and leaving it at that.

You can't explain your own source or your own argument; you simply plagiarize everything without sufficient knowledge of what it is you're plagiarizing.

And when you're proven wrong, you just google another link, and another link, and another link, and it's never ending because you simply can't admit to being wrong.

You have no clue as to what those links are or what you're talking about.

This is why everyone thinks you're an idiot and why you have no credibility.

I knew the paper was from europe as I can freaking read... That however has nothing to do with it's credibility as applied to america.

The paper is research into a Financial Transaction Tax.


Bernie Sander's Wall Street Speculation Tax is exactly the same thing they just don't call it a wall street tax.

You must be registered for see links

Here from NPR.org(liberal as ****) we get an outline of What Bernie's tax is


"Sanders has proposed something he calls a speculation tax, a small levy on every stock, bond or derivative sold in the United States."


That is the definition of a financial transaction tax. Notice the Study done in europe of a financial transaction tax isn't targeting a specific tax plan, but the idea of these kinds of taxes generating revenue at all.


If you want a more specific argument though(that actually sources this paper)

You must be registered for see links

This article is written by the man who wrote said research paper



And stop saying "they already have it in europe". We aren't planning on paying for it or implementing it in the same way as Europe so it's apples and Oranges. I'm saying the current way we are planning on paying for it isn't going be be effective

 

[Lightbringer]

I knew the paper was from europe as I can freaking read... That however has nothing to do with it's credibility as applied to america.

The paper is research into a Financial Transaction Tax.


Bernie Sander's Wall Street Speculation Tax is exactly the same thing they just don't call it a wall street tax.

You must be registered for see links

Here from NPR.org(liberal as ****) we get an outline of What Bernie's tax is


"Sanders has proposed something he calls a speculation tax, a small levy on every stock, bond or derivative sold in the United States."


That is the definition of a financial transaction tax. Notice the Study done in europe of a financial transaction tax isn't targeting a specific tax plan, but the idea of these kinds of taxes generating revenue at all.


If you want a more specific argument though(that actually sources this paper)

You must be registered for see links

This article is written by the man who wrote said research paper



And stop saying "they already have it in europe". We aren't planning on paying for it or implementing it in the same way as Europe so it's apples and Oranges. I'm saying the current way we are planning on paying for it isn't going be be effective

Oh I'm sure you can read, just very poorly.

You literally just contradicted yourself.

You just told me to stop saying that: "they already have it in europe. We aren't planning on paying for it or implementing it in the same way as Europe so it's apples and Oranges."

So why are you comparing what the source says about the FTT (which isn't the same as the wall-street tax anyhow) in Europe and how it won't work in the U.S.A?

You're a moron.

 

[slimreaper]

Oh I'm sure you can read, just very poorly.

You literally just contradicted yourself.

You just told me to stop saying that: "they already have it in europe. We aren't planning on paying for it or implementing it in the same way as Europe so it's apples and Oranges."

So why are you comparing what the source says about the FTT (which isn't the same as the wall-street tax anyhow) in Europe and how it won't work in the U.S.A?

You're a moron.

I didn't contradict anything.

Can you link me to some evidence of a FTT being implemented and directly paying for education in Europe? Probably not. Then no they aren't paying for it in the same way Bernie plans to.

I'm not arguing that they tax people and pay for "free education"( again smaller populations and even smaller are even allowed to go to college) just the way bernie sanders plans to pay for it isn't effective.


Please elaborate on how it differs from a wall street tax. It doesn't they're literally the same thing, read you ****ing imbecile. They're both referred to as the "Robin Hood Tax"

You must be registered for see links

The FST (also known as a financial transactions tax or the Robin Hood tax) is a tiny tax – at rates
of a fraction of a percent – on Wall Street trading of financial instruments such as stocks, bonds,
derivatives, futures, options, and credit default swaps.


From this ^^^ Here it's just called a financial speculation tax


A financial transactions tax is, as the name suggests, a tax on each and every financial transaction. Such taxes have
been proposed by economists of the stature of J. M. Keynes and James Tobin in past decades and interest has been
revived recently by the Robin Hood Tax campaign and a variety of official bodies such as the European Commission.


From the Main study

You must be registered for see links

Specifically tying bernie to a robin hood tax^^

BOOM, **** you

I'm sick of shitting on you so easily. Hawker stop cheering for people who're clearly outmatched

 

[Lightbringer]

I didn't contradict anything.

Can you link me to some evidence of a FTT being implemented and directly paying for education in Europe? Probably not. Then no they aren't paying for it in the same way Bernie plans to.

I'm not arguing that they tax people and pay for "free education"( again smaller populations and even smaller are even allowed to go to college) just the way bernie sanders plans to pay for it isn't effective.


Please elaborate on how it differs from a wall street tax. It doesn't they're literally the same thing, read you ****ing imbecile. They're both referred to as the "Robin Hood Tax"

You must be registered for see links

The FST (also known as a financial transactions tax or the Robin Hood tax) is a tiny tax – at rates
of a fraction of a percent – on Wall Street trading of financial instruments such as stocks, bonds,
derivatives, futures, options, and credit default swaps.


From this ^^^ Here it's just called a financial speculation tax


A financial transactions tax is, as the name suggests, a tax on each and every financial transaction. Such taxes have
been proposed by economists of the stature of J. M. Keynes and James Tobin in past decades and interest has been
revived recently by the Robin Hood Tax campaign and a variety of official bodies such as the European Commission.


From the Main study

You must be registered for see links

Specifically tying bernie to a robin hood tax^^

BOOM, **** you

I'm sick of shitting on you so easily. Hawker stop cheering for people who're clearly outmatched

Oh boy, here we go with the denial again.

I prove you wrong, you deny it, and you just post more useless links which you skim through.

You plagiarize all of your sources. You have no actual first-hand knowledge of anything you talk about.



Pretty sure you just compared apples and oranges, when you yourself with your own words just instructed me not to do so because they don't work the same in two different countries.

That's called a contradiction, and hypocrisy.

 

[slimreaper]

Oh boy, here we go with the denial again.

I prove you wrong, you deny it, and you just post more useless links which you skim through.

You plagiarize all of your sources. You have no actual first-hand knowledge of anything you talk about.



Pretty sure you just compared apples and oranges, when you yourself with your own words just instructed me not to do so because they don't work the same in two different countries.

That's called a contradiction, and hypocrisy.

Its apples and oranges on how they finance it and how bernie plans to. Literally the entire point of my thread.

You got shit on, deal with it

Wants me to site sources, calls me a plagiarist if I do.

 

[Lightbringer]

Its apples and oranges on how they finance it and how bernie plans to. Literally the entire point of my thread.

You got shit on, deal with it

How many people agreed with you on this thread? 0

Wow, you really shit on me there bro.

 

[slimreaper]

How many people agreed with you on this thread? 0

Wow, you really shit on me there bro.

So they're morons like you.


You said

"So why are you comparing what the source says about the FTT (which isn't the same as the wall-street tax anyhow) in Europe and how it won't work in the U.S.A?"

I proved they're the same thing(correct) you have no counter and instead suggest that because these morons don't agree that I won.

You got shit on, you have no evidence, where as I do.

Even the dude who tried to discredit the study as biased, originally said it was the NYFCC that funded the study, but never provided any evidence, then suggested it was Exxon(from what amounts to wikipedia)

you lose, nice deflection attempt yet again though

You must be registered for see images

 

[Lightbringer]

So they're morons like you.


You said

"So why are you comparing what the source says about the FTT (which isn't the same as the wall-street tax anyhow) in Europe and how it won't work in the U.S.A?"

I proved they're the same thing(correct) you have no counter and instead suggest that because these morons don't agree that I lost.

You got shit on, you have no evidence, where as I do.

Even the dude who tried to discredit the study as biased, originally said it was the NYFCC that funded the study, but never provided any evidence, then suggested it was Exxon(from what amounts to wikipedia)

you lose, nice deflection attempt yet again though

You must be registered for see images

So everyone who says you're wrong is a moron?

That's what being delusional is Slimreaper.

You're grasping for straws just because you're so damn eager to look smart. Just face the facts that you're not that bright.