Comments (229)

Dec 2, 2016

Wall Street has a history of royally screwing up then going into government and swanning like it's ok, taking high positions and passing along the pardons to other wall st members. They're arrogance leads a man like Bernie to simply feel hate. It's quite understandable. Maybe under Trump, things will be different?

Bankers are by tradition supposed to be good stewards of people's fortunes. But you put a bunch of rich, dickhead, entitled ivy students into all of the banks under our nihilistic modernity, it's only sensible that this will happen. That's why I kinda feel for people like Bernie and @go-getter, except I was kidding about this time around being different and I don't trust anyone.

    • 3
    • 1
Dec 2, 2016

Solution: put me in a bank.

How is my grammar? Drop me a note with any errors you see!

Dec 2, 2016
iBankedUp:

Wall Street has a history of royally screwing up then going into government and swanning like it's ok, taking high positions and passing along the pardons to other wall st members. They're arrogance leads a man like Bernie to simply feel hate. It's quite understandable. Maybe under Trump, things will be different?

Bankers are by tradition supposed to be good stewards of people's fortunes. But you put a bunch of rich, dickhead, entitled ivy students into all of the banks under our nihilistic modernity, it's only sensible that this will happen. That's why I kinda feel for people like Bernie and @go-getter, except I was kidding about this time around being different and I don't trust anyone.

You also have to add in the fact that Bernie is literally a communist

    • 2
Dec 2, 2016

he hates anyone who makes decent money. Except himself, of course, his multiple homes, fat pension and government funded life are just fine.

twitter: @CorpFin_Guy

    • 1
Dec 2, 2016

Because he hates everyone who makes more money than he does.

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

sounds like most people

    • 1
Dec 2, 2016

I don't think he (or any politician for that matter) hates Wall Street or even income inequality. It's just very easy to get a bunch of people behind you when you say you do. The general public hates rich people because they aren't rich, therefore you can cater to them and have a solid foundation.

It's the same deal with the whole Trump thing. He might actually harbor some of the feelings he says he does, but it's definitely nowhere to the level of the supporters (and protestors) he can get riled up. Politicians aren't stupid, but they often appear so to appeal to select groups of people. You don't get to that level by wearing your heart on your sleeve.

    • 3
    • 1
Dec 2, 2016

Way to ruin it by telling everyone, lol.

    • 2
Dec 2, 2016

When I was younger I had a teacher who would show the class videos on Occupy Wall Street, the Argentina Default, and other anti-wall street sentiments. They would juxtaposition investment bankers to people in third world countries doing some potentially dangerous work, or regular work but with less pay.

It was propaganda.

How is my grammar? Drop me a note with any errors you see!

Dec 2, 2016

This sounds like a weird question, but who was the president at the time, and was it a public school? I know whoever is the president can effect the level of right or left wing-ness of the curriculum. (I worded that terribly, but you get what I'm saying).

    • 1
Dec 2, 2016
lebron:

I don't think he (or any politician for that matter) hates Wall Street or even income inequality. It's just very easy to get a bunch of people behind you when you say you do. The general public hates rich people because they aren't rich, therefore you can cater to them and have a solid foundation.

It's the same deal with the whole Trump thing. He might actually harbor some of the feelings he says he does, but it's definitely nowhere to the level of the supporters (and protestors) he can get riled up. Politicians aren't stupid, but they often appear so to appeal to select groups of people. You don't get to that level by wearing your heart on your sleeve.

Agreed 100% +1 SB

Dec 2, 2016

That's dumb. His message was literally to go after Wall Street. He refuses to do business with them even if it could help his career. He's filibustered for hours (6+ straight at one point) in quiet-kept legislative meetings against tax cuts. What masses was he appealing to on the senate floor?

Dec 2, 2016
lebron:

I don't think he (or any politician for that matter) hates Wall Street or even income inequality. It's just very easy to get a bunch of people behind you when you say you do. The general public hates rich people because they aren't rich, therefore you can cater to them and have a solid foundation.

It's the same deal with the whole Trump thing. He might actually harbor some of the feelings he says he does, but it's definitely nowhere to the level of the supporters (and protestors) he can get riled up. Politicians aren't stupid, but they often appear so to appeal to select groups of people. You don't get to that level by wearing your heart on your sleeve.

While this is generally true, you can also get a glimpse of a person's thought process by looking into their past and seeing what has influenced their thinking.

Bernie's past has a lot of marxism appreciation.

Dec 2, 2016

as long as I live, I will never give a fuck what Bernie Sanders thinks.

he's a great panderer, but he's economically retarded

    • 2
Dec 3, 2016
Dec 3, 2016

The off-topic section would have been more suitable for this thread.

    • 1
    • 1
Best Response
Dec 3, 2016

If $150K after-tax is 'good enough' for you, I hope you're making at least $650K per year if Bernie wins.

    • 12
    • 3
Dec 3, 2016
DickFuld:

If $150K after-tax is 'good enough' for you, I hope you're making at least $650K per year if Bernie wins.

Bernie doesn't want to tax you @ 80% ... jesus... are you pulling this number out of rear end? Whats with all the fox news propaganda talk??

As for those who oppose things like raising the min wage, etc - you are subsidizing folks who make min wage regardless, e.g. walmart workers who get food stamps and other govt aid.. If you think govt is wasteful why not cut out the middleman (govt) and make sure min wage workers can sustain themselves without needing food stamps..

Lastly, those of you who think folks with mundane jobs should just die off because they did not get into a BB.. Let me explain how a democracy works: Excluding the massive donations some can make to influence the process each citizen has equal voting rights and the will of the majority should ideally be represented in govt instead of the will of the minority... that is what ia democracy is. If you dont like it, go live in kingdoms like saudi arabia/brunei, etc.

    • 4
    • 4
Dec 3, 2016

If you want to help less fortunate people, donate your money to causes that actually have a measurable impact, volunteer your time, mentor under privileged kids, and kick ass in life so that one day you can donate more money to make a larger impact, found a business that has a public benefit, hire smart poor kids to give them that one chance they're looking for, etc.

I can put my money to better work for the public good than the government can. Oh, and if Bernie raises taxes high enough, you can forget about me or many people doing anything I listed above.

    • 9
    • 1
Dec 3, 2016
CRE:

<

p>I can put my money to better work for the public good than the government can.

Bull.

    • 1
    • 2
Dec 3, 2016

i sent this thread to a friend, he loves your comment, as do i

WSO's COO (Chief Operating Orangutan) | My Linkedin

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

I'm still legitimately unsure how less efficient medical services, more youth underemployment and unemployment, and wage stagnation will help those more needy then you.

Remember, this is a guy who doesn't understand the difference between a secured and unsecured loan.

    • 1
    • 1
Dec 3, 2016
AllDay_028:

I'm still legitimately unsure how less efficient medical services, more youth underemployment and unemployment, and wage stagnation will help those more needy then you.

Remember, this is a guy who doesn't understand the difference between a secured and unsecured loan.

Not many do outside of our finance world.

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

Policies need to be constructed in a scientific manner, by looking at data and evidence. I vehemently oppose any policies that are unscientific and as such, nonsensical. For instance, Bernie's proposals on implementing an absolute limit on credit card interest rates is absurd. His investments transaction tax is another baseless and absurd policy. These types of policies show complete ignorance with regards to the fields they affect.

I get the feeling he does not have anyone competent in finance, economics and accounting advising him.

    • 2
    • 2
Dec 3, 2016

Another thing - easy to say you don't need the extra money when you're a 25-26 year old guy working a shitload of hours and basically paying for rent and bar tabs. Think about how you'll feel getting taxed > 50% when you have 2 kids are commuting from some 1 hour+ away town because you can't afford not to and have a shitload of other obligations? Are you going to be happy to give that up to our lazy, inefficient government, where it's probably going to someone's pension who works 40 hours of week, 35 of which they are doing nothing? I think not.

There's a reason why Obama has gotten nothing done. He is an idealist in the ultimate pragmatist's job. Bernie wouldn't be that different.

    • 6
    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

I have yet to come into contact with someone who is a Sanders proponent that I respect intellectually. I'm sure there are some but I don't know them.

It may sound awful but essentially every person that I've seen post on Facebook or flap their gym about the Bern is not very intelligent and is either unemployed and/or has very little education.

Have y'all encountered similar trends?

    • 4
    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

Could not have said it any better. If you're a Bernie supporter please move to Canada or something...

    • 1
    • 2
Dec 3, 2016

I have encountered the same, but in equal doses for Bernie and Trump.

Dec 3, 2016

To like Bernie you had to find your history classes too boring to bear.

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016
BTOWN:

I have yet to come into contact with someone who is a Sanders proponent that I respect intellectually. I'm sure there are some but I don't know them.

It may sound awful but essentially every person that I've seen post on Facebook or flap their gym about the Bern is not very intelligent and is either unemployed and/or has very little education.

Have y'all encountered similar trends?

To answer your question: no.

I'm not a citizen so I don't really have input. I'm a big fan of Bernie (even though I don't think he has a chance to win) because at least he pulls the conversation and the Democrats to the left. The goalpost in the US moves right every election cycle and the entire Republican field is a cynical joke.

I completely agree with the post arguing that you should consider the future of the country. I'm lucky enough to have been born in an upper middle class family, went to an Ivy League, and while I'm not on that "fuck you money" path, I'm doing alright. Nothing will change for me regardless of who wins. Like maybe a few points on my marginal taxes in one direction or the other, but nothing substantial. I can't in good conscience vote for candidates that would curtail abortion access primarily for low-income women, deny climate change, cut taxes for the wealthy on some fake promise of job creation while starving public services (look at Kansas), or rush into some quagmire in the Middle East. It's the people at the margins who bear the brunt of those decisions. Not to mention that the next President will probably appoint two supreme court justices.

I also disagree with the idea that individual money can do better than the government, in aggregate. I mean like yeah there's the charity for your specific cause, but that doesn't build/maintain roads, public services, research at universities, or god knows what else. The Kochs can do whatever they want with their billions in supporting the arts, I still think they're giant turds.

Wealth =/= virtue.

Dec 3, 2016

Bernie supporters are your typical liberal with their heart in the right place but their head nowhere to be found.

Also @hongkonger12345 what makes you think throwing money at problems will solve them? Just look at education and healthcare in America. They are by far the most expensive systems in the world and yet they continue to underperform. Results are going to come from fundamental policy changes not bigger budgets. I'd love to hear your reasons for voting Bernie other than the classic rhetoric his supporters spew out

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

Bernie also can't do math - his budget proposal doesn't actually work. 1% of Americans pay 38% of the federal taxes. Dude wants to raise that to 50%.

The problem is within that 1%, the bottom call it 30/40% or so are not really making it rain post-taxes ...

    • 1
    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

Why can't we cut defense spending to fund some of his proposals. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/0...
Imo we should stop being the police of the world and getting into everyone's business.

    • 2
Dec 3, 2016

Please Bloomberg run for president

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

Bernie is a big footed tyrant. If anyone has dreamed of the day to rule it's Bernie. The only guy out there that is as much of an ideological simp as history's most destructive rulers.

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

I don't know what is worse, a Republican only voting for a candidate because their effective tax rate will go down or for this guy who is voting for Bernie Sanders because "he doesn't need the money".

How about not thinking about yourself and instead think about what would be best for the COUNTRY.

At the end of the day any given presidential candidate's policies will have little effect on the day to day life on a citizen. BUT a presidential candidate will/could have a drastic effect on the trajectory of the country.

Also, Bernie Sanders has no chance of winning the ticket. He will win in New Hampshire tonight, but New Hampshire and Iowa are both super white and relatively young (Bernie territory). The fact that he couldn't win Iowa means he will only come away with sub-par 20% votes in larger state where the voter population better represents the Democratic party (i.e. minorities, not all young college kids, etc.)

    • 2
Dec 3, 2016
modestlocke9:

I don't know what is worse, a Republican only voting for a candidate because their effective tax rate will go down or for this guy who is voting for Bernie Sanders because "he doesn't need the money".

How about not thinking about yourself and instead think about what would be best for the COUNTRY.

At the end of the day any given presidential candidate's policies will have little effect on the day to day life on a citizen. BUT a presidential candidate will/could have a drastic effect on the trajectory of the country.

Also, Bernie Sanders has no chance of winning the ticket. He will win in New Hampshire tonight, but New Hampshire and Iowa are both super white and relatively young (Bernie territory). The fact that he couldn't win Iowa means he will only come away with sub-par 20% votes in larger state where the voter population better represents the Democratic party (i.e. minorities, not all young college kids, etc.)

What scares me is a Trump vs. Bernie election :(

The high school and college kids vote for Bernie because idealism is sexy. His vitriolic blabberinigs draw them like a moth to a flame. I used to be idealistic ... now i need to make money to support my family so that they too can become one of those idealistic college kids ... god i feel old haha

Dec 3, 2016

Please do us all a favor and go tell your MD who you're voting for.

    • 6
    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

I would vote for sanders over Hilary in spite of his anti wall st rhetoric because Hilary is completely annoying. I'd rather have literally any other republican or democratic president than Hilary

Dec 3, 2016

I don't there's been an election where I've hated all of the candidates more than this one, which is why I wouldn't be opposed to Bloomberg running. His views on gun control and some other issues is unfortunate, but at least he's not Hillary, Sanders, Trump, or Cruz.

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

I'd rather see Hillary or Cruz than Bloomberg. Bloomberg has built a nanny-state in NY why the hell would you want this for your country?

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

Sorry Bloomberg ran this city like a BOSS. Look at what DeBlasio is doing - ridiculous. Nanny state - what do you think we live in now? Just because OBAMA instituted the DNI does not mean you're not being watched

    • 2
    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

Bloomberg wants stricter gun control - that is bad why?

Dec 3, 2016

Many other first world countries have tight gun laws and there's a lot fewer deaths. My view is

1) the founding fathers did not mean people should go strapped because they can. Back then you had no choice -- if you didn't have a gun someone else did (the British) and it also carried more symbolic meaning than anything else

2) Plenty of laws have been passed in history that have since been repealed - even amendments to the constitution. Why is it so untenable that such a constitutional right that is now causing more harm than good should be restricted? That part i really don't get. I cannot talk to any pro-gun rights person who look sat me with a straight face and say they want to stop all the senseless killings of innocent children and civilians. It's like the slave owner saying he wished there were other ways to respect human rights ...

    • 1
    • 1
Dec 3, 2016
DebunkingMyths:

Many other first world countries have tight gun laws and there's a lot fewer deaths. My view is

1) the founding fathers did not mean people should go strapped because they can. Back then you had no choice -- if you didn't have a gun someone else did (the British) and it also carried more symbolic meaning than anything else

2) Plenty of laws have been passed in history that have since been repealed - even amendments to the constitution. Why is it so untenable that such a constitutional right that is now causing more harm than good should be restricted? That part i really don't get. I cannot talk to any pro-gun rights person who look sat me with a straight face and say they want to stop all the senseless killings of innocent children and civilians. It's like the slave owner saying he wished there were other ways to respect human rights ...

In all of the polls I have seen, the overwhelming majority of gun owners DO want more regulation. This includes the overwhelming majority of NRA members (excluding leadership).

The issue is that the gun manufacturers and the NRA are opposed to any regulation at all. They are pouring money into the pockets of politicians to ensure that no regulation occurs whatsoever (including background checks). This is the reason politicians won't even ban PEOPLE ON THE TERRORIST WATCHLIST from purchasing weapons.

The USA's biggest problem at the moment, without a doubt in my mind, is campaign finance. The people are sick of the establishment, crony capitalism and legalised bribery. This is the entire reason Bernie and Trump are doing so well against everyone else. If campaign finance wasn't an issue (as in many other developed nations), then Bernie and Trump would not be in the positions they are now. People have just had enough. You can thank the campaign finance laws for the rise of 'anti establishment', 'anti special interest', fringe candidates like Bernie and Trump.

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

Bernie isn't winning the nomination anyways so don't worry about it. He'll win tonight, but that will be it. He'll get shit on in Nevada and South Carolina, discouraging voters in other states, thus effectively ending his campaign.

At least that's what I imagine will happen.

Dec 3, 2016

I understand that individuals will get hurt or helped by Bernie's glorious economics. What I don't understand is what exactly his plans are for the country. For example, a single payer healthcare for all system is inefficient. Look at Taiwan. They've had it now for more than two decades. It's a slow bureaucracy subjected to being bid off by the nation's politicians.

We refuse to look at a population issue that is only getting worse as almost 2 billion people enter into the consumption class over the next 5-10 years. How do we maintain a balanced society without putting structural rules in place today? And will free public colleges actually work? There is evidence that small private universities do far better than large public institutions. And poor/minorities do better when not forced to a school by quota.

And if we help kids graduate with more communications degrees instead of needed skills in math and science then we're all fucked.

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016
monkeybusiness25:

I understand that individuals will get hurt or helped by Bernie's glorious economics. What I don't understand is what exactly his plans are for the country. For example, a single payer healthcare for all system is inefficient. Look at Taiwan. They've had it now for more than two decades. It's a slow bureaucracy subjected to being bid off by the nation's politicians.

Are you kidding me? Who the fuck cares about Taiwan.

Every developed nation has single-payer healthcare because IT IS more efficient AND more effective than any other system thus far. This is indisputable.

The US is so far behind the rest of the world when it comes to healthcare because there are special interests who benefit from keeping healthcare private. The USA's insane campaign-finance system has allowed these special interests to lobby and keep healthcare inefficient and ineffective, at the expense of taxpayers. The evidence for the US failure of a healthcare system vs other developed nations (nearly all of whom have single-payer) is conclusive.

With that said, the issue is not that Bernie Sanders and his supporters advocate for single-payer healthcare. This part is excellent and should have already happened, were it not for special interests. The issue is that they do not have a good understanding of what single-payer healthcare actually is. They are under the delusion that all healthcare will suddenly become free (outside of taxes), which is simply not true. I can't tell who's to blame for this - Sanders for not explaining it thoroughly enough, or the voters who have chosen not to conduct any independent research.

    • 1
    • 5
Dec 3, 2016

The top 1% should really be separated from the top 0.1%.

The top 1% is 400k of gross individual income or i think 500k as a family.

that conveniently gets you taxed at effectively 45-50% if you live in NY. 250k a year to put your say 2 kids to school and save for retirement is not exactly balling out.

So the whole let's go after the top 1% is a bit ludicrous

Dec 3, 2016

While I typically lean towards the fiscally conservative side of the spectrum, there are a few Bernie Sanders points that I can get behind if A. reduced in scale and B. stated in a much less vitriolic and dogmatic way.

  1. I am not opposed to the idea of all citizens having catastrophic event health insurance, i.e., if you get cancer or end up in a horrible car accident, you end up with a maximum of, say, 100k in debt vs millions. Private healthcare could make up the rest of the gap. It would also make healthcare plans much less expensive if an individual wanted to add private coverage, as the tail risk that impacts the average price more than the median is a large driver of the cost of insurance.
  2. Some amount of redistribution of wealth may be necessary due to the coming automation of a huge % of lower and middle class jobs in order to maintain a stable societal structure. The potential downside is enormous in this scenario and I do believe that it has to be planned for, as it is an inevitability. I think that most in the 1% would agree that a stable society is a prerequisite to the existence of a large white collar sector, and this is something worth preserving.

Outside of this, I find Bernie Sanders to be more or less insufferable. He just continuously repeats the same trite points. I can't figure out if he's pandering to his voting base or if he actually is that simple, nor am I sure which of those two scenarios is worse.

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

it never ceases to amaze me that people get their undies in a bundle about things they have no control over.

    • 2
Dec 3, 2016

In an ideal world. Bernie Sander's vision would be optimal. A basic standard of living (translating to lower crime) and then still possibility for luxury. But the problem is we are so separate from the vision we'd have to severely 'disrupt' the quality of life (i.e luxury) of the upper class to help instill this basic level of societal welfare.

In an ideal world, his ideas would be awesome. Where we are at as a country though it'd be impossible? But we have to fix something. Poor people and the middle class are starting to realize how well off the upper class is compared to them. I've heard some crazy stuff from poor people lately.

"It is better to have a friendship based on business, than a business based on friendship." - Rockefeller.

"Live fast, die hard. Leave a good looking body." - Navy SEAL

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

This would exactly be my point. He's ideological and maybe that's inspiring. Not realistic though.

Dec 3, 2016

What people fail to realize is the vast majority of GDP growth in the US in the last few years came from healthcare costs, a large portion of which came from medicare / Medicaid. It's so broken in addition to the Ponzi scheme known as social security.

I think they should turn social security into a P2P platform.

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

Who's the alternative?

Everyone on WS is likely voting for Hilary because they want the status quo.. I just can't vote for her; in fact, I hate her. She's such a pandering snake. Republicans? What a joke. There's no one that I can stand behind.

Dec 3, 2016

Kasich isn't too bad.

I wish Romney was running again.

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

Agreed. Anyone feel free to talk shit about me, but I refuse to vote in this election. Each candidate has something so completely broken and fucked up about them that I can't make myself vote for them.

Dec 3, 2016

Certainly wouldn't support some chit that makes most people worse off. People are nuts, and if made desperate and motivated will first boost poverty and crime and then finally rise up french revolution style and bring back the guillotines

I'd cast my meaningless vote for Colonel Sanders over Ted Cruise without batting an eyelid

Bloomberg would be an interesting choice, would just take some getting used to in terms of having the president be a data terminal

    • 5
Dec 3, 2016
Going Concern:

Bloomberg would be an interesting choice, would just take some getting used to in terms of having the president be a data terminal

If I remember correctly, IlliniProgrammer predicted we would have a benign mainframe dictator within 100 years. This would just advance that possibility by a few years.

Dec 3, 2016
Going Concern:

Bloomberg would be an interesting choice, would just take some getting used to in terms of having the president be a data terminal

Looooool.

Dec 3, 2016

I don't understand why everyone's so worked up about Bernie. Worst case scenario is he gets elected and there's 4 years of complete political gridlock. He can't unilaterally rewrite the tax code. His whole "political revolution" requires ~300 members of congress agreeing with his bullshit policies. He's been trying to push these same policies for 20 years as a seated senator, there's a reason why none of his bills make it to laws. Our political system of checks and balances is specifically designed not to allow revolutions in either direction.

The average Bernout isn't going to be paying attention and voting in local and state elections and I doubt there are enough viable candidates for Senate and House seats to get a progressive democratic majority either way.

All that being said, there's no chance he's on the ticket.

    • 3
    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

Idk man, look at the way Obergefell (or whatever) got passed at the Top Court. If he gets a seat, or retains one, we may be in some trouble.

Edit: More specifically, there's a Time piece written by a Harvard (liberal Harvard) Law professor saying that case was passed without a thought based on the logic and the overwhelming support of the majority opinion. If they're so politicized that they are deciding cases without even looking twice, how easily swayed would they be under a Bernie presidency and potentially addition to the Court?

Dec 3, 2016

Quoted from a NYT article:

"Mr. Sanders's 73 percent rate would apply only to ordinary income and only to people making over $10 million a year, which is not very many people. But even for what you might call garden-variety rich people, Mr. Sanders's plan would push rates near the revenue maximizing level: His plan would result in an all-in tax rate of just over 65 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/upshot/bernie-sa...
The article is a good read. I believe it is the same one that @DickFuld quoted from earlier.

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

I would over anyone in the current Republican field.

Dec 3, 2016

@ArcherVice Why not Kasich? he may have a chance after New Hampshire

Dec 3, 2016
monkeybusiness25:

@ArcherVice Why not Kasich? he may have a chance after New Hampshire

He doesn't have the money right now or any appeal to the South. He went ALL IN on New Hampshire and still only got like 16%.

Dec 3, 2016

from a relatively intelligent friend who worked in government for 8 years (and hated the bureaucracy / wastefulness):

friend: this guy is spot on (@CRE 's comment):

If you want to help less fortunate people, donate your money to causes that actually have a measurable impact, volunteer your time, mentor under privileged kids, and kick ass in life so that one day you can donate more money to make a larger impact, found a business that has a public benefit, hire smart poor kids to give them that one chance they're looking for, etc.
I can put my money to better work for the public good than the government can. Oh, and if Bernie raises taxes high enough, you can forget about me or many people doing anything I listed above.

friend:

anybody that thinks government can actually accomplish anything besides war is delusional :)
maybe transportation (e.g. roads, bridges, etc)
and border control
and policing
and contract enforcement
besides those things
i'll even give ya some regulation (e.g. anti-monopoly, environment)
but actual things (e.g. medical, education, infrastructure, post office etc) the gubment is really terrible at and always will be due to incentives

WSO's COO (Chief Operating Orangutan) | My Linkedin

    • 2
    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

No one has mentioned it yet, but have you guys put any thought into the geopolitical shit storm that would unravel if Bernie won? I don't know about you, but that's my biggest fear. Don't get me wrong, I think his policies are incredibly flawed but like someone stated before, he can't just go out and pass everything he's preaching. The checks and balances of this country will take care of that. But what he can do is make the US leadership look like even bigger pussies than we do now. Russia / Iran / DPRK already use Obama as a punching bag, we don't need to give them any more of a reason to embarrass us. Have Democrats succeeded with their foreign policy? Hell no, so why should we give them at least another four years to try again?

A few things to think about before I drive my point home:

Did Putin really need Crimea, or was it his of letting NATO (So basically the US) know that he doesn't give a shit? Ukraine could've figured their problems out without a full blown civil war starting. But then it did, so the US HAD to send Green Berets to train nationalists. Then Russia really got involved. And for what? Because a group of people believe in the Russian ideology, or it was just another way for Putin to stick it to the US.

Did Putin really need to back Al-Assad, or was it his way of letting the US know he still doesn't give a shit? Day in and day out, Russian airstrikes STRATEGICALLY hit CIA -backed rebel groups. What in the world could Syria do for Russia? If someone knows, please enlighten me. I'm all ears. But for right now, it looks like its just another gigantic geopolitical fuck you to the US. Putin can smell the bitch in US Leadership aka Obama 5,000 miles away.

"The United States does not negotiate with terrorists"... Except Obama, who will negotiate with Iran, a country that preaches hatred towards America and has already failed to comply with the nuclear weapons treaty.

Whether they sound like a bunch of bitchy little kids or not, the fucks in the DPRK do not mess around when it comes to wanting to destroy the US. Yeah their ICBM capabilities are pretty much stone age to ours, but regardless, a war or increased tension with them would not be good. Watch a National Geographic documentary.... A large portion of the people in that country are legitimately brainwashed into thinking the US is the worst place in the world and would love nothing more than to watch it be obliterated.

Benghazi. Not much more to say than that. Our leadership let Americans die. Plain and simple. Whether or not you want to put all the blame on Hil-dawg, the President was briefed and had FULL knowledge of what was going on. They knew what was happening, and it sure as shit wasn't because of some video portraying the Prophet Muhammad. No help from US personnel ever arrived for them. It was a 20min flight for a fighter jet from Italy, but that was too much. Read the book. Watch the movie. There's American blood on their hands, end of story.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, with Obama in office we've already been made to look like absolute fools. His leadership when it comes to the military and foreign affairs is abysmal to say the least. Does it REALLY sound like a good idea to elect someone who's even more of a vagina than him? Someone who hung a Soviet flag in his Washington D.C. office DURING the Cold War? Someone who has given speeches at conferences widely known to support the US Communist Party?

The US became #1 in the world because we decided to not take shit from anyone. We stood up for what was right and what was wrong. We didn't just sit back and let things unfold and then assess the damage. It also helps that we spend almost $2 billion on defense every day. I'm genuinely afraid that if Bernie Sanders wins the Presidency, a geopolitical shit storm will follow. Putin already does what he wants, do you really think Sanders is going to stand up to him? The Supreme Leader's rhetoric preaches hate and "Death to America". Think Sanders is going to do anything about that? Shit, he might even loosen the terms of the nuclear agreement. At least he acknowledges how dangerous the DPRK is, but then again, that's meaningless because I still don't trust what he would do to curb that threat.

Its a long post I know, but all fiscal policies aside, I'm afraid of what he would do to the United States' international reputation. We already got demoted to JV with Obama in office, do we really want be on the Freshman team with Sanders in office?

And to whomever referred to a Sanders support as a "Bernout", thank you for making my day. I wish I could buy you thousands of beers.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves. - Abraham Lincoln

    • 4
    • 2
Dec 3, 2016
SaltySpitoon:

No one has mentioned it yet, but have you guys put any thought into the geopolitical shit storm that would unravel if Bernie won? I don't know about you, but that's my biggest fear. Don't get me wrong, I think his policies are incredibly flawed but like someone stated before, he can't just go out and pass everything he's preaching. The checks and balances of this country will take care of that. But what he can do is make the US leadership look like even bigger pussies than we do now. Russia / Iran / DPRK already use Obama as a punching bag, we don't need to give them any more of a reason to embarrass us. Have Democrats succeeded with their foreign policy? Hell no, so why should we give them at least another four years to try again?

A few things to think about before I drive my point home:

Did Putin really need Crimea, or was it his of letting NATO (So basically the US) know that he doesn't give a shit? Ukraine could've figured their problems out without a full blown civil war starting. But then it did, so the US HAD to send Green Berets to train nationalists. Then Russia really got involved. And for what? Because a group of people believe in the Russian ideology, or it was just another way for Putin to stick it to the US.

Did Putin really need to back Al-Assad, or was it his way of letting the US know he still doesn't give a shit? Day in and day out, Russian airstrikes STRATEGICALLY hit CIA -backed rebel groups. What in the world could Syria do for Russia? If someone knows, please enlighten me. I'm all ears. But for right now, it looks like its just another gigantic geopolitical fuck you to the US. Putin can smell the bitch in US Leadership aka Obama 5,000 miles away.

"The United States does not negotiate with terrorists"... Except Obama, who will negotiate with Iran, a country that preaches hatred towards America and has already failed to comply with the nuclear weapons treaty.

Whether they sound like a bunch of bitchy little kids or not, the fucks in the DPRK do not mess around when it comes to wanting to destroy the US. Yeah their ICBM capabilities are pretty much stone age to ours, but regardless, a war or increased tension with them would not be good. Watch a National Geographic documentary.... A large portion of the people in that country are legitimately brainwashed into thinking the US is the worst place in the world and would love nothing more than to watch it be obliterated.

Benghazi. Not much more to say than that. Our leadership let Americans die. Plain and simple. Whether or not you want to put all the blame on Hil-dawg, the President was briefed and had FULL knowledge of what was going on. They knew what was happening, and it sure as shit wasn't because of some video portraying the Prophet Muhammad. No help from US personnel ever arrived for them. It was a 20min flight for a fighter jet from Italy, but that was too much. Read the book. Watch the movie. There's American blood on their hands, end of story.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, with Obama in office we've already been made to look like absolute fools. His leadership when it comes to the military and foreign affairs is abysmal to say the least. Does it REALLY sound like a good idea to elect someone who's even more of a vagina than him? Someone who hung a Soviet flag in his Washington D.C. office DURING the Cold War? Someone who has given speeches at conferences widely known to support the US Communist Party?

The US became #1 in the world because we decided to not take shit from anyone. We stood up for what was right and what was wrong. We didn't just sit back and let things unfold and then assess the damage. It also helps that we spend almost $2 billion on defense every day. I'm genuinely afraid that if Bernie Sanders wins the Presidency, a geopolitical shit storm will follow. Putin already does what he wants, do you really think Sanders is going to stand up to him? The Supreme Leader's rhetoric preaches hate and "Death to America". Think Sanders is going to do anything about that? Shit, he might even loosen the terms of the nuclear agreement. At least he acknowledges how dangerous the DPRK is, but then again, that's meaningless because I still don't trust what he would do to curb that threat.

Its a long post I know, but all fiscal policies aside, I'm afraid of what he would do to the United States' international reputation. We already got demoted to JV with Obama in office, do we really want be on the Freshman team with Sanders in office?

And to whomever referred to a Sanders support as a "Bernout", thank you for making my day. I wish I could buy you thousands of beers.

I don't have the patience to address all of the idiocy in your post so I will comment on a few things.

First of all, who the fuck cares what some degenerative old man in Iran, who thinks he is a wizard, says about anything. He can talk all he wants - his words are irrelevant and no one takes him seriously.

The Iran deal was to PREVENT THEM FROM PURSUING A NUCLEAR WEAPON. The entire deal was NOT BASED ON TRUST BUT ON VERIFICATION. The IAEA physically goes in and conducts random inspections to ensure that there is no shady activity. Repeat after me, THE DEAL IS BASED ON VERIFICATION BY IAEA INSPECTORS, NOT TRUST.

Would you have preferred that we remained blind as to what was going on in Iran and continued to edge towards YET ANOTHER war in the middle east? This way, we can verify that Iran is NOT pursuing a nuclear weapon, WHILST PREVENTING YET ANOTHER WAR.

The nuclear deal was outstanding work on Obama's part. He deescalated the situation, similar to what happened with Cuba. Except in this case, THERE IS NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH AT ALL IN IRAN. Thanks to the deal, we are now able to continually verify that there will remain to be NO RESEARCH INTO NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN IRAN.

Now, guess what you can do with the extra money you would have spent with a war on Iran? You can spend it IN THE USA, ON AMERICANS WHO NEED IT THE MOST. There are cities that do not have clean water in the USA and you want to wage another war you stupid fucker?

Same goes for Putin. Obama did exactly what he should have when Russia annexed Crimea - he gathered with world powers and started COLLECTIVE sanctions that CONTINUE TO CRIPPLE THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY TO THIS DAY.

Also, Ukraine was NOT part of NATO. Russia has NOT attacked any NATO country and it would not dare to. Yes, it annexed Crimea. That's obviously horrible and should be condemned. Indeed, it was condemned and the appropriate action was taken by world powers.

What else would you have proposed, you fucking armchair general? Obama is weak because instead of crippling sanctions, he should have started world war 3 with Russia over fucking Crimea? Perhaps instead of consecutive wars, we can have total nuclear annihilation?

Also, while we're at it, we should also start war with China over shit-hole North Korea? That way, we can move from one shit-hole in the Middle East, to another shit-hole in East-Asia? There are missiles pointing directly at millions of people living in South Korea. Shall we just say fuck it because Kim Jong-un has "disrespected us" and just invade NK?

Your post proposes we start wars with 3 powerful and allied nations - Russian, China and Iran. This is setting up a perfectly for world war 3 and a nuclear apocalypse.

You sound exactly what I'd expect a die-hard Republican to sound like. Pull your head out of your ass.

    • 2
    • 7
Dec 3, 2016

EPIC post. Holy shit. +SB. Couldn't agree more.

Dec 3, 2016

Bernie Sanders is a senile, envious old man. I think he would be a terrible choice for this country. But not only does he worry me, his blinded, gung-ho, oblivious supporters are what scares me more. I can browse my social media for 15 minutes and I can see countless Bernie supporters showing the fact that they haven no idea of what they are talking about. #FeeltheBern? Lol. A large group of his voters are 18-24 year olds who are easily brainwashed by buzzwords. Everything has to be "fair". And the other portion of his voters are low-income people who love the fact that they can be magically well-off when Sanders gets into office.

"We want a $15 minimum wage!"
"Screw the rich people!"
"We need help!"
"I've had to overcome so many barriers in my life! Unlike everyone else!"
"I get all my info from memes!"

Bernie is a fairy tale. It's time for people to wake up.

    • 2
Dec 3, 2016

brainwashedbybuzzwords truth. preach.

Dec 3, 2016

To follow up on my initial anti-Bernie post, I'd like a pro-Bernie supporter to answer this.

Let's say we do raise the federal minimum wage to $15. So now baristas, fast-food workers, assistants, clerical workers, bus boys, and countless other jobs that require little to no skills will be making $15. Let's just ignore the increased wage expenses that these businesses will get hit with and focus on another important issue.

What happens to the people who are currently making between minimum wage and $15? Workers who are actually employed in a job that requires a certain amount of skills like a technician. What happens to their wages? Do they get bumped up to $15? Do they get increased by a proportional amount? Let's say they get bumped to $15 as well. How is it fair to these people that they share the same wage as someone who presses buttons at McDonalds?

And how about the people that currently make $15. What happens to them?

Berntout

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016
GrandJury:

To follow up on my initial anti-Bernie post, I'd like a pro-Bernie supporter to answer this.

Let's say we do raise the federal minimum wage to $15. So now baristas, fast-food workers, assistants, clerical workers, bus boys, and countless other jobs that require little to no skills will be making $15. Let's just ignore the increased wage expenses that these businesses will get hit with and focus on another important issue.

What happens to the people who are currently making between minimum wage and $15? Workers who are actually employed in a job that requires a certain amount of skills like a technician. What happens to their wages? Do they get bumped up to $15? Do they get increased by a proportional amount? Let's say they get bumped to $15 as well. How is it fair to these people that they share the same wage as someone who presses buttons at McDonalds?

And how about the people that currently make $15. What happens to them?

#Berntout

I don't think there's a way to make it "fair", but you could just as easily flip the question. Bernie's whole point is the skilled guy making $15 an hour gets pissed when the janitor gets a bump to $15, meanwhile an ultra-rich CEO or hedge fund manager makes their combined lifetime earnings in a day AND pays a lower tax rate than them. We, as a society, focus a lot of anger downwards in a time of increasing income inequality.

Agree or disagree, I think it's just a fundamentally different way of looking at things.

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

In an ideal world, those $15 people get paid $30. The money comes from the CEO and corporate executives who are making $20mm/year. Does someone really need $20MM/year? What the hell do you spend your money on.

Bob Iger made $45mm in 2015. That's retarded.

    • 3
Dec 3, 2016

If you think the government is efficient at allocating your money to the 'less fortunate' then you may want to take a basic economics class again.

Dec 3, 2016

Do you mean public policy class? Never took it. Go back to your books AM nub

    • 2
Dec 3, 2016

Indeed, I have been eating that monkey shit with a grin on my face.

Seriously, though. I completely disagree with HongKonger with regards to compensation. Executives and other highly paid people deserve what they earn. In fact, their wages are approved by the people who are paying them - shareholders (or in other words, the board of Directors, who represent shareholders). It is not the government (the people) paying these people - it is shareholders who OWN the corporation and receive the benefits of the labour provided by people working at the corporation. If shareholders end up making a mistake with regards to compensation (either too much or too low), then they will suffer for it economically.

The fact of the matter is, capitalism and socialism are both incomplete systems. A pure implementation of either is simply not optimal for society, which is why no one in their right mind lives in a pure capitalist or socialist system today. In order to have a good society, you need aspects of both. You can't have people starving and dying in the streets. You can't have a police force and defence force owned by the wealthy, ect. History has taught us time and time again that this leads to anarchy.

At the same time, you can't have total and complete socialism, where a cap is placed on people's economic potential, or where people are discouraged to advance the human race in different ways. A pure socialist system always crumbles because it goes completely against the way humans are. This, too, leads to eventual anarchy.

And this, ladies and gentleman, is why societies have been moving towards a hybrid system of capitalism/socialism for centuries now. We humans have by no means mastered life, but we learn more everyday and continue to slowly strive to do so. That is why every single decent country has a hybrid capitalist/socialist structure. Hell, even China, with its communist regime (communist, not socialist for the moronic Republicans in this thread), is striving to incorporate capitalist principles.

Bernie Sanders is not a full-blown socialist. He is a Democratic Socialist, who believes in a hybrid capitalism/socialist structure. Even the most libertarian wing of the Republican Party advocates for a hybrid socialist/capitalist system. The disagreements aren't whether we should incorporate both, but what the split should be.

As it stands, there is run-away wealth inequality that must be reigned in if society in the USA is to continue. You simply cannot have people working full time, for a wage that they are unable to live on humanely. That is simply not a society that any human being (wealthy or poor) wants to live in. And you sure as hell can't have this in the wealthiest of developed nations.

Now, If Bernie were to have free-reign to implement all of his policies as they are, would that be excessive? Yes. Don't you think he knows that? This will never happen. Praise democracy and the checks and balances of democratic government. If this was Saudi Arabia, he would have total reign.

But what Bernie can do if President, is hopefully get 'just enough' done to steer the economics of the country back towards a good direction. That means people who aren't dying because they can't afford healthcare, as well as people who work full time and earn a decent wage.

Not to mention the fact that the human race will inevitably go extinct if Republicans are allowed to continue their anti-science bullshit (Climate change, ect). It will be too late before these idiots realise that Jesus isn't coming to save us.

What the US cannot have is the same establishment bullshit, where special interests decide government policy. This will end incredibly badly for everyone. The fact of the matter is, the establishment needs to go, and the rise of Bernie and Trump shows that people are waking up and they've had enough.

EDIT: And for those idiots who get their information from Fox News, Bernie is not calling for a 90% effective tax rate. He isn't even calling for a 90% MARGINAL tax rate. His tax plan is here in this Forbes article, for anyone who wants to actually look at the facts and reality: http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2016/01/1... .

    • 4
    • 3
Dec 3, 2016
QGKZ:

Indeed, I have been eating that monkey shit with a grin on my face.

Seriously, though. I completely disagree with HongKonger with regards to compensation. Executives and other highly paid people deserve what they earn. In fact, their wages are approved by the people who are paying them - shareholders (or in other words, the board of Directors, who represent shareholders). It is not the government (the people) paying these people - it is shareholders who OWN the corporation and receive the benefits of the labour provided by people working at the corporation. If shareholders end up making a mistake with regards to compensation (either too much or too low), then they will suffer for it economically.

The fact of the matter is, capitalism and socialism are both incomplete systems. A pure implementation of either is simply not optimal for society, which is why no one in their right mind lives in a pure capitalist or socialist system today. In order to have a good society, you need aspects of both. You can't have people starving and dying in the streets. You can't have a police force and defence force owned by the wealthy, ect. History has taught us time and time again that this leads to anarchy.

At the same time, you can't have total and complete socialism, where a cap is placed on people's economic potential, or where people are discouraged to advance the human race in different ways. A pure socialist system always crumbles because it goes completely against the way humans are. This, too, leads to eventual anarchy.

And this, ladies and gentleman, is why societies have been moving towards a hybrid system of capitalism/socialism for centuries now. We humans have by no means mastered life, but we learn more everyday and continue to slowly strive to do so. That is why every single decent country has a hybrid capitalist/socialist structure. Hell, even China, with its communist regime (communist, not socialist for the moronic Republicans in this thread), is striving to incorporate capitalist principles.

Bernie Sanders is not a full-blown socialist. He is a Democratic Socialist, who believes in a hybrid capitalism/socialist structure. Even the most libertarian wing of the Republican Party advocates for a hybrid socialist/capitalist system. The disagreements aren't whether we should incorporate both, but what the split should be.

As it stands, there is run-away wealth inequality that must be reigned in if society in the USA is to continue. You simply cannot have people working full time, for a wage that they are unable to live on humanely. That is simply not a society that any human being (wealthy or poor) wants to live in. And you sure as hell can't have this in the wealthiest of developed nations.

Now, If Bernie were to have free-reign to implement all of his policies as they are, would that be excessive? Yes. Don't you think he knows that? This will never happen. Praise democracy and the checks and balances of democratic government. If this was Saudi Arabia, he would have total reign.

But what Bernie can do if President, is hopefully get 'just enough' done to steer the economics of the country back towards a good direction. That means people who aren't dying because they can't afford healthcare, as well as people who work full time and earn a decent wage.

Not to mention the fact that the human race will inevitably go extinct if Republicans are allowed to continue their anti-science bullshit (Climate change, ect). It will be too late before these idiots realise that Jesus isn't coming to save us.

What the US cannot have is the same establishment bullshit, where special interests decide government policy. This will end incredibly badly for everyone. The fact of the matter is, the establishment needs to go, and the rise of Bernie and Trump shows that people are waking up and they've had enough.

EDIT: And for those idiots who get their information from Fox News, Bernie is not calling for a 90% effective tax rate. He isn't even calling for a 90% MARGINAL tax rate. His tax plan is here in this Forbes article, for anyone who wants to actually look at the facts and reality: http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2016/01/1... .

I agree with some of your points. Personally, I don't identify as a Republican. I'm more conservative when it comes to fiscal issues but I'm pretty moderate socially.

What does "democratic socialism" even mean? There's no defined percentage split of what he wants capitalism/socialism to be. To me democratic socialism is just a buzzword. It's to make his supporters blindly feel good and say "no we aren't socialists! We are democratic socialists!".

All citizens have a right to the pursuit of happiness. Does that guarantee that they will be happy? No. It sounds cynical but that's the reality of America. Not everyone can/will make it. Not everyone can/will be successful. That's just real life works. Bernie appeals to the people who believe they can't/will not be successful.

Dec 3, 2016

Are you serious? Corporate governance is fucked. Do you realize how many companies that I've worked with where we go in and replace the entire board. Just like Carl Icahn said, most of the companies in the US have no corporate governance.

Dec 3, 2016

This is simple economics. The marginal utility of a dollar is significantly higher for those who are poor and cannot afford to live humanely, than it is for those who are earning tens-of-millions of dollars.

Just give your fellow human beings enough so that they can afford healthcare and the essentials to live a dignified life. After that, the marginal utility of a dollar significantly diminishes and you will NOT have the risk of social unrest that you do now. Average levels of happiness and standards of living will dramatically rise across the country. All of this for a slightly higher tax rate...

Like I said, he will not get everything he wants, nor should he. Some of his economic policies are nonsensical. With that said, Bernie Sanders is outstanding on social policies (better than Hillary and DEFINITELY better than any Republican), and he may get just enough of his economic policies through so that people will be able to live the way they deserve to (yes, it is 2016 and human beings have the RIGHT to live humanely).

Dec 3, 2016

I got a headache reading through even 1/5 of this thread, but agree with whoever said that Bernie and Trump are just two sides of the same coin. When median wages don't rise for 20 years, yet you see CEO pay and the top 0.01% wealth skyrocket, the everyday citizen starts looking to lay blame somewhere, and Trump and Bernie are both presenting their different explanations (Bernie=crony capitalism, tax loopholes, etc., Trump= immigration, trade policies, China/Russia, etc). No idea how this is going to play out. My prediction is a Trump, Bernie, and Bloomberg race that is split 33.33% each and people swordfight to the death in the streets in support of their candidates while the 0.01% watch from the Caribbean islands, laughing because they know no matter what happens, the gridlock in washington the future prez will endure ensures the status quo will keep on keeping on.

Dec 3, 2016

I like the point that "both presenting their different explanations"

Shouldn't there be a third perspective i.g. the bad government one? Somehow politicians are the only ones not taking any of the brunt for 2008, although they are the ones that pushed the incentives that created the sub prime bubble.

Dec 3, 2016

The main cog in the machine is the incongruence between what is considered fair and what is actually fair. Young people, particularly the under and unemployed, are frustrated because their perception of fairness is so far out of line with reality that everything is an injustice. This is why the Obama rhetoric was so successful, and why the Sanders vitriol has huge traction on social media. It is hilarious and terrifying that so many people think increasing taxes will somehow make them more wealthy.

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016
VanWilder:

The main cog in the machine is the incongruence between what is considered fair and what is actually fair. Young people, particularly the under and unemployed, are frustrated because their perception of fairness is so far out of line with reality that everything is an injustice. This is why the Obama rhetoric was so successful, and why the Sanders vitriol has huge traction on social media. It is hilarious and terrifying that so many people think increasing taxes will somehow make them more wealthy.

Agreed.

To be honest, the line-up of candidates this year aren't very appealing. I am very anti-Bernie. I don't hold Hil-dawg in very high regard. Trump is the best presidential candidate troll I have ever seen. I am not impressed with Cruz. Rubio has some good ideas but his campaign is based too much on his faith. Little too religious for me. Kasich has some potential but is a huge underdog. Jeb...is Jeb. Ben Carson? 2 minutes into a Carson speech I'm already asleep.

Dec 3, 2016

Interesting coincidence. Bernie Sanders Explains Why He's Different From Trump with Stephen Colbert:

I love the way he shits on Bill O'Reilly, lol.

    • 2
Dec 3, 2016

Does anyone here seriously think it is in our (when I say 'our', I am referring to the ambitious types on this forum) best interests to allow wealth inequality to continue to increase? Millions upon millions of people with no healthcare? A minimum wage that you cannot live on?

Even if you're a sociopath and don't give a shit about other human beings, you should be smart enough to figure out that this is also a matter of self-preservation. By allowing this to continue, we're inevitably fucking ourselves over in the process.

Hopefully successful and wiser professionals such as @Dingdong08 can contribute their insights into the matter.

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

The millions that do not get health care choose to pay as you go as Americans usually choose what goods they want in the market. Also, I am not against a higher wage floor as it will drive higher wages for all.

Dec 3, 2016
QGKZ:

Does anyone here seriously think it is in our (when I say 'our', I am referring to the ambitious types on this forum) best interests to allow wealth inequality to continue to increase? Millions upon millions of people with no healthcare? A minimum wage that you cannot live on?

Even if you're a sociopath and don't give a shit about other human beings, you should be smart enough to figure out that this is also a matter of self-preservation. By allowing this to continue, we're inevitably fucking ourselves over in the process.

Hopefully successful and wiser professionals such as @Dingdong08 can contribute their insights into the matter.

I've been trying to stay out of political discussions on here because they just amount to all of us espousing our ingrained opinions with no real discussion. And opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.

But I think the danger of some sort of revolution is possible, not next month but if things continue the way they are I could see it happening (I also see it not happening so I'm using possible in a true sense). The data is there: there's wealth disparity and a concentration of wealth that's nearing previous revolutions, wages for the large majority of people have stagnated and decreased in spending power when you factor in inflation for a couple of decades, etc. I think a big difference is that most poor and lower middle class folks tend to have shit like a place to live (and I'm not saying there's no homelessness, just most poor people aren't homeless) and a refrigerator so while they may live in a shitbox subsidized apartment in the Bronx or a roach infested shack in Appalachia, they tend not to live on the street. Their refrigerator may be a shit box $200 model and not my ungodly expensive Subzero monument to keeping shit cold, they still have an appliance that keeps their food cold. When you look at pre-Revolution France or Russia, people regularly died in the streets starving to death. That's enough to piss off the Good Humor Man and get him to take up arms against his government. We feed our poor Big Macs.

I think the dangers of the population revolting are multiple but the main ones are a continuation of wealth disparity to the point of having a permanent underclass resulting in a sci-fi-esgque distopian future that resembles 1770's France with Iphones. If that happens and people lose hope that they could one day rise in class I think revolution becomes much more likely. One of the main things that keep poor people (and probably even middle class) from open revolt, other than having refrigerators and smart phones, is the hope that class mobility still exists and even though they were born poor they too could rise to having a solid middle class existence with a green lawn in a safe suburb where there kids can do even better than they. Or maybe they can become wealthy. It's kind of the US social contract. Like China's citizens allow a repressive government by promising and delivering steady, constant and high growth (I think they may be in big trouble over there soon but that's an entire different discussion), the vast majority of people in the US aren't going to take up arms against their government as long as there is hope that they too can be part of the club. It's never been easy to become wealthy but if people don't believe they can or even lose the hope that they too can have the American dream of middle class and see the wealthy get even wealthier, that could stir up trouble. Combine that with the realization government is bought for and paid by the wealthy and it could really piss people off.

Another main factor is having a charismatic leader. One of the reasons OSW didn't work was because they purposefully didn't want a leader so a bunch of people sat around public places smoking pot and developing serious body odor until they went back to school, or Brooklyn. Had someone stepped up and said the right things those impressionable folks could have been told to walk off a cliff and they would have. No matter how disgusting and heinous Hitler was, he was a fucking genius when it came to being a leader and getting people to follow him. You're seeing the anger rise with people following Trump. I'm not calling him Hitler or Robespierre but he's appealing to people's fear and hatred and disgust with the current system and a lot of people are following. I forget the number but you don't need 90% of a population to join a movement to have a revolution, it's something more like 15-20% but once they get going they have the 90%. And once 300MM people decide to brain fuck the rest of us, we're toast.

But like I said, that's just my opinion and I may be an asshole.

    • 3
Dec 3, 2016

Bernie raises $80m from small donations. Opponents claim supporters just want 'free shit.' LOL

    • 1
Dec 3, 2016

Thinking about the minimum wage debate, I was curious as to just how many Americans are suffering with not being able to meet their needs for survival. Some Google-fu indicates that approximately 77 million Americans work an hourly wage job. The total number of working Americans is approximately 118 million- so using rounded figures, hourly wage earners make up 65% of the workforce. I was pretty shocked that the number was not more evenly distributed. But wait, not every hourly worker makes $7.25/hour, I wonder what that breakdown is? Oh, the BLS states that 1.3 million work at minimum wage with another 1.7 working under minimum wage (lets think waiters?), meaning that a paltry 2.5% of all working Americans receives $7.25 or less per hour.

The idea of raising the minimum wage to $15 is the kind of pandering to such a small majority of Americans that boggles my mind. Can their standard of living be raised materially by adding a few quarters to their hourly? Yes. Should that happen? Yes. Doubling their hourly, however, will effectively price those marginalized few out of the low skilled jobs that remain.

Edit: Previously Stated that employment in US was 93m, corrected to ~118m (2014 numbers)

    • 3
Dec 3, 2016

On the real, I've been following this thread and QGKZ you are annoying as fuck.

    • 4
Dec 3, 2016
Comment
Dec 3, 2016
Dec 3, 2016
Dec 3, 2016