Bernie Sanders at his best

[Daldaen]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think everyone should pay their fair share, both rich and poor. But most of the time when people complain about people not paying their fair share, it's people who pay 0% in taxes complaining about people paying 20-25% in taxes and thinking they should be paying more like 40-50%+. I think it's much more of a problem that nearly half our country pays $0 in federal income taxes than the hedge fund managers that are taxed at an average of 23.8%.

All I ask is that if you're going to complain about people not paying their fair share when they're already paying over 20% of their income, that you be one of the ones who is actually chipping in a decent amount. If we're at a party and chipping in for pizza and you put in 50 cents, you can't then complain that the guy who put in $10 isn't paying enough.

Paying their fair share is a false catchphrase that people like to use.

Basically what they really want is to increase the top tier (or make a new top tier of earned over X) from 40% to 45 or 50%, and generate the same amount of revenue by taxing millionaires that new rate as you would taxing the lower half of the country 10-15%.

It would work.... But it's certainly not fair. Well, it would work until the tax code is again changed and allows further loopholes to avoid paying their taxes.

I don't really see the fact that half pay nothing in federal taxes as the problem though. Many of those at the very bottom live hand to mouth, it's very difficult to take away 5-10% of their income and still subsist with the bare necessities. It seems more ideological than practical to find the lack of a federal income tax on the lowest earning individuals as a big problem. You're just not going to pull in the revenue required to run our government by making that change. Removing loopholes and increasing the top tier tax bracket may though, and without impacting their lives in a huge way.

Is that fair or people paying their "fair share", no of course not.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by sOurDieSel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Gosh Orruar, don't you know that liberals are hypocrites that don't have to follow their own rules they make up out of thin air?

Don't you disagree with iruinedurday! or he will cry to sirken and 'shut this thread down' if you don't stroke bernie the way he wants.

Don't you DARE ruin his safe space like this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXQkXXBqj_U

[iruinedyourday]

hey hey, lets try to turn this thread around.

look first of all, all the examples you gave of me being a dick, are examples from me reacting to you after YOU started attacking me out of nowhere.

Second off I was PO'd because not only were you attacking me, but you made the mistake in the conversation, and you still attacked me.

That said Im over it and dont want to turn this into an endless thread where we just attack each other personally over and over page after page.

Ill just have to assume that everyone here thinks the other person they're spending all this time writing posts to communicate with, are complete and total fucking retards. SO WERE GOING TO MAKE SOME REAL PROGRESS HERE EH!?

Anyway, yea... enjoy you're guys's "debates", where you all hate each other and have zero respect for anyone each others e opinion... You'r opinion, orraur I have respected and even tried to understand when it was the polar opposite of mine.

Anyway as usual the liberal here is going to try to be the bigger man and I will apologize if you think I attacked you in the past and or if you think I am an asshole. I have a low tolerance for ignorance which is why rand/sour get so much flack from me.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Daldaen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Paying their fair share is a false catchphrase that people like to use.

Basically what they really want is to increase the top tier (or make a new top tier of earned over X) from 40% to 45 or 50%, and generate the same amount of revenue by taxing millionaires that new rate as you would taxing the lower half of the country 10-15%.

It would work.... But it's certainly not fair. Well, it would work until the tax code is again changed and allows further loopholes to avoid paying their taxes.

I don't really see the fact that half pay nothing in federal taxes as the problem though. Many of those at the very bottom live hand to mouth, it's very difficult to take away 5-10% of their income and still subsist with the bare necessities. It seems more ideological than practical to find the lack of a federal income tax on the lowest earning individuals as a big problem. You're just not going to pull in the revenue required to run our government by making that change. Removing loopholes and increasing the top tier tax bracket may though, and without impacting their lives in a huge way.

Is that fair or people paying their "fair share", no of course not.

You also have to look at it in the context of the wider economics. Right now the United States is descending into a state of neo-feudalism in which labor is indentured. This is only a slight exaggeration. There are three statuses currently:

1. Primary owners: own vast amounts of property, licenses, institutions including banks, controls the political process. These are your .1%

2. Secondary owners: Middle and lower class people who own their own home.

3. Serfs: Middle and lower class people who don't own property, and barely even own their own labor because of student loan debt, home loan debt, etc.

The crisis of the last few decades can be summarized like this: Group #2 is being squeezed into group #3 by depressed wages and a failing economy*. Group 3's also experiencing depressed wages and decreased opportunity that impedes their ability to move up to group #2. In many ways the ability to be a member of group #2 is one of the primary principles our country was founded upon, and something every person on the political spectrum ultimately aspires to (liberals, conservatives, fascists, libertarians, socialists, etc). Right now that model is falling apart.

* The economy is failing. The Great Recession was declared over because the only metric that is used to differentiate a Recession or Depression from the normal state of things is GDP growth. Although the GDP is technically growing, that increase in prosperity is concentrated in financial institutions and other large corporations. Real unemployment (not the kind they measure, but the kind that actually exists) is still extremely high, wages are low and staying low, the cost of living is increasing, and the job market still sucks.

The rules of 'fairness' and the 'free market' dictate that everything that is happening right now is okay. Financial institutions competed and won, labor lost. I mean, tampering with it would be redistribution, right? And that's communism/socialism. Taxing the poorest 50% of the population the same or even close to the highest 10% is fair (using the simplest most surface-level definition of the word). But it's not the right thing to do. Right now the lower and middle classes need to be subsidized, and the factors that are working toward their destruction need to be addressed. Having wealth is conducive to generating more wealth (rather, acquiring a larger share of society's aggregate wealth), and left unchecked, it will only continue to get worse.

I'm curious as to whether you classical liberals in here truly view that as an acceptable outcome. I mean, you can't exactly blame the federal government for the country's elite becoming our country's owners, because a true free market would make it even easier for them to expand their wealth and property. I think one of the most accessible ways to reverse this would be wider participation in unions, expanded labor laws, and tax reform. Private enterprise has become extremely good at smothering unions before they begin, and countering those that exist, and union participation is at an all time low. Many unions that do exist are corrupt and do a poor job representing their members. This is something in desperate need of reform, at both a cultural and legislative level, and is hardly even talked about.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

during the whole time I never once attacked you.

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

look first of all, all the examples you gave of me being a dick, are examples from me reacting to you after YOU started attacking me out of nowhere.

You say two completely contradictory statements within the span of about 15 hours. This is a marked improvement over your 10 hour turnaround in the dem debates thread.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You say two completely contradictory statements within the span of about 15 hours. This is a marked improvement over your 10 hour turnaround in the dem debates thread.

god man you are seriously killing me with this shit...

I said it like 9 times, I called you an asshole for attacking me. up until that point I never once attacked you, never once.

[Raev]

It's just incredible to watch you blame the failures of government on the free market. I'm going to take 20 minutes out of my day to explain 'carry trading' to you. A carry trade works like this:

• Borrow 100 million in JPY from a Japanese bank using 5 million in collateral
• Use money to buy US dollars and then US stocks (or bonds, or EM securities, or whatever)
• Watch asset go up because everyone else is doing the same thing
• Sell stocks/bonds for 125 million. Buy back devalued yen for 75 million. (USDJPY has gone from 75 to 120+ over the past three years)
• Make 50 million profit on a 5 million investment, or 1000% nearly risk free over a few years

Or, let's say you don't like carry trading. You're the CEO of Alcoa. You decide you like money. So:

• You borrow 1 billion from a bank at 0.25%
• You buy back 10% of your stock.
• Suddenly your earnings divided by net capitalization are 10% higher
• Share prices rise, and you cash in your stock options for 20 million

The 0.1% have been making money hand over fist because of government controlled central bank free money. Even if all you do is buy SPY/QQQ, you just made 150% on your investment over the past 5 years, taxed at 20% capital gains. The poorest 20% don't benefit from this, because they are too poor to invest in stocks and bonds. If the central banks stopped printing, none of this would be happening.

How exactly do you consider this to be 'unrestricted capitalism' ?

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's just incredible to watch you blame the failures of government on the free market. I'm going to take 20 minutes out of my day to explain 'carry trading' to you. A carry trade works like this:

• Borrow 100 million in JPY from a Japanese bank using 5 million in collateral
• Use money to buy US dollars and then US stocks (or bonds, or EM securities, or whatever)
• Watch asset go up because everyone else is doing the same thing
• Sell stocks/bonds for 125 million. Buy back devalued yen for 75 million. (USDJPY has gone from 75 to 120+ over the past three years)
• Make 50 million profit on a 5 million investment, or 1000% nearly risk free over a few years

Or, let's say you don't like carry trading. You're the CEO of Alcoa. You decide you like money. So:

• You borrow 1 billion from a bank at 0.25%
• You buy back 10% of your stock.
• Suddenly your earnings divided by net capitalization are 10% higher
• Share prices rise, and you cash in your stock options for 20 million

The 0.1% have been making money hand over fist because of government controlled central bank free money. Even if all you do is buy SPY/QQQ, you just made 150% on your investment over the past 5 years, taxed at 20% capital gains. The poorest 20% don't benefit from this, because they are too poor to invest in stocks and bonds. If the central banks stopped printing, none of this would be happening.

How exactly do you consider this to be 'unrestricted capitalism' ?

Yep, you've found one way in which financial institutions use non free-market mechanisms to make money. Many more exist, and it's beside the point. Government and the elite have colluded in many ways to precipitate this situation. That's what you get when political representation can be bought with money.

Let's look at this from premises to conclusions:

Premise 1: The more capital you have, the easier it is to get more.

Premise 2: The free market has no mechanism to prevent wealth from becoming concentrated in the hands of the most successful individuals or organizations.

Conclusion: The free market can't save the middle class from the current situation, because it can only remove barriers associated with premises #1 and #2.

Which of these is wrong? The concentration of wealth is a universal constant in human history, and it's one of the realities of capitalism. It is only New Deal type socialist institutions, and the labor movement toward unions, that have only slightly countered this during the last 100 years or so. Now those institutions are failing. The labor movement is almost nonexistent in the US. The government primarily serves the economic elite. I'm not focusing on how it became this way, but how we fix it. What aspect of free market economics do you believe has the capacity to effect redistribution?

Why is it that countries with strong labor movements and more socialist governments aren't having their middle and lower classes plundered like we are?

[Lojik]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You also have to look at it in the context of the wider economics. Right now the United States is descending into a state of neo-feudalism in which labor is indentured. This is only a slight exaggeration. There are three statuses currently:

1. Primary owners: own vast amounts of property, licenses, institutions including banks, controls the political process. These are your .1%

2. Secondary owners: Middle and lower class people who own their own home.

3. Serfs: Middle and lower class people who don't own property, and barely even own their own labor because of student loan debt, home loan debt, etc.

The crisis of the last few decades can be summarized like this: Group #2 is being squeezed into group #3 by depressed wages and a failing economy*. Group 3's also experiencing depressed wages and decreased opportunity that impedes their ability to move up to group #2. In many ways the ability to be a member of group #2 is one of the primary principles our country was founded upon, and something every person on the political spectrum ultimately aspires to (liberals, conservatives, fascists, libertarians, socialists, etc). Right now that model is falling apart.

* The economy is failing. The Great Recession was declared over because the only metric that is used to differentiate a Recession or Depression from the normal state of things is GDP growth. Although the GDP is technically growing, that increase in prosperity is concentrated in financial institutions and other large corporations. Real unemployment (not the kind they measure, but the kind that actually exists) is still extremely high, wages are low and staying low, the cost of living is increasing, and the job market still sucks.

The rules of 'fairness' and the 'free market' dictate that everything that is happening right now is okay. Financial institutions competed and won, labor lost. I mean, tampering with it would be redistribution, right? And that's communism/socialism. Taxing the poorest 50% of the population the same or even close to the highest 10% is fair (using the simplest most surface-level definition of the word). But it's not the right thing to do. Right now the lower and middle classes need to be subsidized, and the factors that are working toward their destruction need to be addressed. Having wealth is conducive to generating more wealth (rather, acquiring a larger share of society's aggregate wealth), and left unchecked, it will only continue to get worse.

I'm curious as to whether you classical liberals in here truly view that as an acceptable outcome. I mean, you can't exactly blame the federal government for the country's elite becoming our country's owners, because a true free market would make it even easier for them to expand their wealth and property. I think one of the most accessible ways to reverse this would be wider participation in unions, expanded labor laws, and tax reform. Private enterprise has become extremely good at smothering unions before they begin, and countering those that exist, and union participation is at an all time low. Many unions that do exist are corrupt and do a poor job representing their members. This is something in desperate need of reform, at both a cultural and legislative level, and is hardly even talked about.

I think what has started us down this road is unrealistic expectations...everyone thinks they have a god given right to go to college, buy a house, have a cushy job, get 6 weeks vacation every year, a company that pays your retirement...the american dream right? But how many people actually know what it takes to get there... what have we really done as a nation to make this sort of thing a reality for most people?

We try to subsidize higher education by making it easy to get student loans (that would be cheaper than normal) and what happens? Tuition prices go up every year, and this makes sense now that most high school graduates can get into some kind of college. What they don't realize is that education isn't necessarily going to get them a whole lot, and half the population that goes to college gets saddled with debt for a degree they didn't need, or that they didn't even earn because they failed out. Instead of making it easier to get student loans, they should make it more difficult: prove to the lender that not only are you a great candidate, but that you actually have intentions of doing something with your degree. I actually think a state run university system that was fully paid for would be better than the subsidies we have. We could focus more on vocational or technical two year universities, make unemployed go to mandatory classes on job searching or career building that are actually useful...do something to make the american worker more productive, not just blame rich people for being rich.

Same with healthcare...I could potentially be behind a state run healthcare system, but the way it is now is a joke, and no this is not a rail against obamacare. It started decades ago when they made medical benefits non taxable (essentially a subsidy.) The result is expected: a higher demand for an artificially low priced item (for some at least.)

Defense spending: Do I really need to explain why we don't need to spend as much on defense as the next 14 highest countries combined? (Or whatever the number is.) But good luck getting a defense budget slashed, I live near DC and half my friends either work for the DOD or some defense contractor. And remind me, is it republocrats or demuplicans who support a smaller defense budget...I forget.

Politics: How much money is wasted every year on electing people who promise all this crap, but really the only difference is what special interest groups have them in their pocket: yes there are some politicians who aren't like that (maybe?) Aren't contributions to a political party tax deductible? It's no wonder political spending is out of control.

Unions...UNIONS. Don't get me started, I'll just mention that in LA unions supported a $15 minimum wage, then wanted an exemption. Talk about looking out for your workers. Unions aren't the solution, we just flat out need to make american workers more productive, not try to just protect them.

rant over

[Pokesan]

what's a special interest group. i always hear about how bad they are but never more than that. who should we eat?