Both sides are all about money. Many people are Democrats just because everything will be cheaper for them, and the popularity of a candidate goes up in proportion to how much extra money or free stuff people believe they can get. How many people would really still support Warren or Sanders if they didn’t believe they were going to keep more money in their pocket?
A lot. Because the other side is cozying up to a bunch of people who are trying to make them not exist.
Both sides are all about money. Many people are Democrats just because everything will be cheaper for them, and the popularity of a candidate goes up in proportion to how much extra money or free stuff people believe they can get. How many people would really still support Warren or Sanders if they didn’t believe they were going to keep more money in their pocket?
A lot. Because the other side is cozying up to a bunch of people who are trying to make them not exist.
A lot of billionaires own most of their billions in stock, which is basically the ownership of a company. They could probably do some funny things like devaluing their companies or whatever if they think it's armageddon. Of course, other shareholders who are not billionaires can sue to prevent this. They could also delist public companies and take their money to private equity. If they really wanted and were okay with actually jettisoning their fortunes, they could precipitate a recession really easily because ultimately their money is "loaned" to the businesses where we work and earn our pay.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A lot of billionaires own most of their billions in stock, which is basically the ownership of a company. They could probably do some funny things like devaluing their companies or whatever if they think it's armageddon. Of course, other shareholders who are not billionaires can sue to prevent this. They could also delist public companies and take their money to private equity. If they really wanted and were okay with actually jettisoning their fortunes, they could precipitate a recession really easily because ultimately their money is "loaned" to the businesses where we work and earn our pay.
A full capital strike would probably cause a lot of blood shed
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Both sides are all about money. Many people are Democrats just because everything will be cheaper for them, and the popularity of a candidate goes up in proportion to how much extra money or free stuff people believe they can get. How many people would really still support Warren or Sanders if they didn’t believe they were going to keep more money in their pocket?
A lot. Because the other side is cozying up to a bunch of people who are trying to make them not exist.
Also, like, Joe Biden was a segregationist so in that way, and very very few others, yeah both sides are the same. I'm as left as you can get in America without having an FBI file, and I can acknowledge that yeah, while there are a lot of people in the Democratic party that are basically just blue dog corporatists running on the ghost of a reputation they're quickly shattering even the remaining illusion of with their doddering buffoonery, there are also genuinely passionate folks in the party who actually care about their constituents and want to see ALL of the people they represent do better, rather than just the "job creators" or whatever other cover phrase we wanna use.
Being reductive and dismissing two of the most popular presidential candidates in the party, one of whom is literally one of the most recognized and widely beloved political figures in the last decade, is wildly, laughably arrogant.
A lot of billionaires own most of their billions in stock, which is basically the ownership of a company. They could probably do some funny things like devaluing their companies or whatever if they think it's armageddon. Of course, other shareholders who are not billionaires can sue to prevent this. They could also delist public companies and take their money to private equity. If they really wanted and were okay with actually jettisoning their fortunes, they could precipitate a recession really easily because ultimately their money is "loaned" to the businesses where we work and earn our pay.
A full capital strike would probably cause a lot of blood shed
I don't think that will happen; it is way too easy to obfuscate doing stuff with investments. It probably wouldn't take a lot of work to engineer an innocent looking recession. Of course, they wouldn't be able to hold it forever, but perhaps long enough to make the wealth tax exceedingly unpopular, with a magic revival of the economy once it's repealed.
The smartest mathematical minds are all working at investment firms. It's not out of the realm of possibility to do something like this.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A lot of billionaires own most of their billions in stock, which is basically the ownership of a company. They could probably do some funny things like devaluing their companies or whatever if they think it's armageddon. Of course, other shareholders who are not billionaires can sue to prevent this. They could also delist public companies and take their money to private equity. If they really wanted and were okay with actually jettisoning their fortunes, they could precipitate a recession really easily because ultimately their money is "loaned" to the businesses where we work and earn our pay.
A full capital strike would probably cause a lot of blood shed
I don't think that will happen; it is way too easy to obfuscate doing stuff with investments. It probably wouldn't take a lot of work to engineer an innocent looking recession. Of course, they wouldn't be able to hold it forever, but perhaps long enough to make the wealth tax exceedingly unpopular, with a magic revival of the economy once it's repealed.
The smartest mathematical minds are all working at investment firms. It's not out of the realm of possibility to do something like this.
True but collusion tends to be tough to pull off and keep secret long term. And if people learn they've been tricked, there could be some very fierce blow back. The next candidate could be less Warren and Sanders and more Huey Long.
A lot of billionaires own most of their billions in stock, which is basically the ownership of a company. They could probably do some funny things like devaluing their companies or whatever if they think it's armageddon. Of course, other shareholders who are not billionaires can sue to prevent this. They could also delist public companies and take their money to private equity. If they really wanted and were okay with actually jettisoning their fortunes, they could precipitate a recession really easily because ultimately their money is "loaned" to the businesses where we work and earn our pay.
A full capital strike would probably cause a lot of blood shed
I don't think that will happen; it is way too easy to obfuscate doing stuff with investments. It probably wouldn't take a lot of work to engineer an innocent looking recession. Of course, they wouldn't be able to hold it forever, but perhaps long enough to make the wealth tax exceedingly unpopular, with a magic revival of the economy once it's repealed.
The smartest mathematical minds are all working at investment firms. It's not out of the realm of possibility to do something like this.
True but collusion tends to be tough to pull off and keep secret long term. And if people learn they've been tricked, there could be some very fierce blow back. The next candidate could be less Warren and Sanders and more Huey Long.
Yeah but we freakin ... elected Trump after the Big Short came out.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A lot of billionaires own most of their billions in stock, which is basically the ownership of a company. They could probably do some funny things like devaluing their companies or whatever if they think it's armageddon. Of course, other shareholders who are not billionaires can sue to prevent this. They could also delist public companies and take their money to private equity. If they really wanted and were okay with actually jettisoning their fortunes, they could precipitate a recession really easily because ultimately their money is "loaned" to the businesses where we work and earn our pay.
A full capital strike would probably cause a lot of blood shed
I don't think that will happen; it is way too easy to obfuscate doing stuff with investments. It probably wouldn't take a lot of work to engineer an innocent looking recession. Of course, they wouldn't be able to hold it forever, but perhaps long enough to make the wealth tax exceedingly unpopular, with a magic revival of the economy once it's repealed.
The smartest mathematical minds are all working at investment firms. It's not out of the realm of possibility to do something like this.
Well, the most mercenary at any rate. The smartest minds I doubt.
Also, the idea that you can engineer a recession just by manipulating the stock market suggests a rather narrow view of what the economy is. Frankly, most of the economy doesn't give a damn about the stock market. The market reflects the economy (loosely, since it's a few layers of irrationality and chaos removed), not the other way around.
But both sides are very much NOT the same at all. One side wants to raise their taxes so they can lower them for the wealthy. One side wants to make it harder for them to vote. One side wants to make it so they can't afford health care. One side wants to poison their air and water. One side wants to destroy the educational system.
They might THINK that both sides are the same, but they are dead wrong.
Not to be glib, but in what way is that noticeably different from the other side?
like, you can replace "wants" with "has made" in your post. People already can't afford health care. Taxes are already high, voting is already hard. Eight years of the other side in the White House hasn't unpoisoned the air or undestroyed the educational system. There are loads of Democratic politicians who are basically Republican-lite, running not on a platform of reversal but of just doing it less. The current Dem primary frontrunner is running on improving on the great achievements of the ACA, but with the ACA millions of people are still suffering and going broke and rationing insulin every year. The general election candidate in 2016 began to run with the slogan "America is already great", which is an absolutely insane bullshit thing to say of the 2016 United States of America.
the point of "both sides"-ism is that the world/US has been on a downward trend over the years regardless of which "side" was in power. The fact is that one side wants to lower taxes for the wealthy because their backers like more money, and the other side wants to lower taxes because they believe it will benefit the economy or help billionaires be more beneficial to society or something. You need to show an actual meaningful difference in actions of both sides, not just in "wants".
I'm sorry but what the heck are you talking about here? I see nothing coherent about the actual state of America's two political parties in this post.
Just
what.
i mean people have been dying from not being able to afford health care for years, so what makes the one party different from the other in practice? The differences that ElJeffe points to are things that the one (GOP) side has actually achieved, why should one believe that this time the other side will actually meaningfully stop or reverse things?
for sure Biden (or whomever) wants to make health care more affordable and cover up to 97% of Americans, but why would that be a convincing message to someone who can't afford to pay for health care at all and is just living pay check to pay check with maybe a couple hundred in savings like so many Americans?
Sorry, I just
whomever wants to make health care more affordable and cover up to 97% of Americans, but why would that be a convincing message to someone who can't afford to pay for health care at all
Why would someone who can't afford healthcare be convinced by a message of affordable healthcare? That...that's your big 'gotcha' ??
I also don't see Warren making an affirmative case that there should be Billionaires in that quote, just not saying saying there shouldn't be Billionaires
Oh come on man
there is an actual difference between not being against something and actually being for something.
Yeah but they exist so either you think that should keep happening or you dont. It doesn't actually matter if you think billionaires should exist but think theyre lame.
again she didn't say that billionaires should exist she just didn't say they shouldn't
This is some really silly semantics.
Only if you're willfully interpreting the question in the narrowest, most literal way possible.
Sanders believes it should be a priority of government policy to ensure that there are no billionaires. Warren disagrees, and does not believe that government policy needs to oriented around ensuring nobody can ever be a billionaire. That's not the same thing as believing that society should be organized in a way that generates billionaires, or believing that billionaire status is inherently moral in some way, or believing that billionaires need to be protected somehow, or otherwise being 'pro-billionaire'.
A person can think 'hey, our society needs a better social safety net and universal healthcare etc, and those things need to be paid for, and the payment method that produces the best outcomes is taxing billionaires substantially more. I want to ensure that everyone in our society has a reasonable standard of living, and if the ultra-wealthy have to become less wealthy as a result, that's perfectly fine. And if the ultra-wealthy still have a billion dollars when we're done, that's also fine as long as all our actual goals are met.' without needing to also be possessed of a specific evangelical belief that billionaires must be rooted out and destroyed at all costs.
A lot of billionaires own most of their billions in stock, which is basically the ownership of a company. They could probably do some funny things like devaluing their companies or whatever if they think it's armageddon. Of course, other shareholders who are not billionaires can sue to prevent this. They could also delist public companies and take their money to private equity. If they really wanted and were okay with actually jettisoning their fortunes, they could precipitate a recession really easily because ultimately their money is "loaned" to the businesses where we work and earn our pay.
A full capital strike would probably cause a lot of blood shed
I don't think that will happen; it is way too easy to obfuscate doing stuff with investments. It probably wouldn't take a lot of work to engineer an innocent looking recession. Of course, they wouldn't be able to hold it forever, but perhaps long enough to make the wealth tax exceedingly unpopular, with a magic revival of the economy once it's repealed.
The smartest mathematical minds are all working at investment firms. It's not out of the realm of possibility to do something like this.
Well, the most mercenary at any rate. The smartest minds I doubt.
Also, the idea that you can engineer a recession just by manipulating the stock market suggests a rather narrow view of what the economy is. Frankly, most of the economy doesn't give a damn about the stock market. The market reflects the economy (loosely, since it's a few layers of irrationality and chaos removed), not the other way around.
I hope you're right, a recession would suck
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Both sides are all about money. Many people are Democrats just because everything will be cheaper for them, and the popularity of a candidate goes up in proportion to how much extra money or free stuff people believe they can get. How many people would really still support Warren or Sanders if they didn’t believe they were going to keep more money in their pocket?
A lot. Because the other side is cozying up to a bunch of people who are trying to make them not exist.
I am specifically interested in having my taxes raised significantly in order to pay for generous social programs.
I am currently lucky enough to be doing very well, why would I not support programs that allow other people to live decent lives?
A lot of billionaires own most of their billions in stock, which is basically the ownership of a company. They could probably do some funny things like devaluing their companies or whatever if they think it's armageddon. Of course, other shareholders who are not billionaires can sue to prevent this. They could also delist public companies and take their money to private equity. If they really wanted and were okay with actually jettisoning their fortunes, they could precipitate a recession really easily because ultimately their money is "loaned" to the businesses where we work and earn our pay.
A full capital strike would probably cause a lot of blood shed
I don't think that will happen; it is way too easy to obfuscate doing stuff with investments. It probably wouldn't take a lot of work to engineer an innocent looking recession. Of course, they wouldn't be able to hold it forever, but perhaps long enough to make the wealth tax exceedingly unpopular, with a magic revival of the economy once it's repealed.
The smartest mathematical minds are all working at investment firms. It's not out of the realm of possibility to do something like this.
Heh. Yes, well, that is the story they tell themselves.
But no I don't think we're in any danger of... some cabal of financial analysts tanking the markets out of spite.
A lot of billionaires own most of their billions in stock, which is basically the ownership of a company. They could probably do some funny things like devaluing their companies or whatever if they think it's armageddon. Of course, other shareholders who are not billionaires can sue to prevent this. They could also delist public companies and take their money to private equity. If they really wanted and were okay with actually jettisoning their fortunes, they could precipitate a recession really easily because ultimately their money is "loaned" to the businesses where we work and earn our pay.
Well it's far more horrifying Hedge Funds own vast parts of State governments through bonds. Or countries
I also don't see Warren making an affirmative case that there should be Billionaires in that quote, just not saying saying there shouldn't be Billionaires
Oh come on man
there is an actual difference between not being against something and actually being for something.
Yeah but they exist so either you think that should keep happening or you dont. It doesn't actually matter if you think billionaires should exist but think theyre lame.
again she didn't say that billionaires should exist she just didn't say they shouldn't
This is some really silly semantics.
Only if you're willfully interpreting the question in the narrowest, most literal way possible.
Sanders believes it should be a priority of government policy to ensure that there are no billionaires. Warren disagrees, and does not believe that government policy needs to oriented around ensuring nobody can ever be a billionaire. That's not the same thing as believing that society should be organized in a way that generates billionaires, or believing that billionaire status is inherently moral in some way, or believing that billionaires need to be protected somehow, or otherwise being 'pro-billionaire'.
A person can think 'hey, our society needs a better social safety net and universal healthcare etc, and those things need to be paid for, and the payment method that produces the best outcomes is taxing billionaires substantially more. I want to ensure that everyone in our society has a reasonable standard of living, and if the ultra-wealthy have to become less wealthy as a result, that's perfectly fine. And if the ultra-wealthy still have a billion dollars when we're done, that's also fine as long as all our actual goals are met.' without needing to also be possessed of a specific evangelical belief that billionaires must be rooted out and destroyed at all costs.
She explicitly says people who work hard and come up with something great should get to be billionaires if "they earn it".
Styrofoam Sammich on
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I also don't see Warren making an affirmative case that there should be Billionaires in that quote, just not saying saying there shouldn't be Billionaires
Oh come on man
there is an actual difference between not being against something and actually being for something.
Yeah but they exist so either you think that should keep happening or you dont. It doesn't actually matter if you think billionaires should exist but think theyre lame.
again she didn't say that billionaires should exist she just didn't say they shouldn't
This is some really silly semantics.
Only if you're willfully interpreting the question in the narrowest, most literal way possible.
Sanders believes it should be a priority of government policy to ensure that there are no billionaires. Warren disagrees, and does not believe that government policy needs to oriented around ensuring nobody can ever be a billionaire. That's not the same thing as believing that society should be organized in a way that generates billionaires, or believing that billionaire status is inherently moral in some way, or believing that billionaires need to be protected somehow, or otherwise being 'pro-billionaire'.
A person can think 'hey, our society needs a better social safety net and universal healthcare etc, and those things need to be paid for, and the payment method that produces the best outcomes is taxing billionaires substantially more. I want to ensure that everyone in our society has a reasonable standard of living, and if the ultra-wealthy have to become less wealthy as a result, that's perfectly fine. And if the ultra-wealthy still have a billion dollars when we're done, that's also fine as long as all our actual goals are met.' without needing to also be possessed of a specific evangelical belief that billionaires must be rooted out and destroyed at all costs.
She explicitly says people who work hard and come up with something great should get to be billionaires if "they earn it".
She also wants to explicitly tax them significantly.
I also don't see Warren making an affirmative case that there should be Billionaires in that quote, just not saying saying there shouldn't be Billionaires
Oh come on man
there is an actual difference between not being against something and actually being for something.
Yeah but they exist so either you think that should keep happening or you dont. It doesn't actually matter if you think billionaires should exist but think theyre lame.
again she didn't say that billionaires should exist she just didn't say they shouldn't
This is some really silly semantics.
Only if you're willfully interpreting the question in the narrowest, most literal way possible.
Sanders believes it should be a priority of government policy to ensure that there are no billionaires. Warren disagrees, and does not believe that government policy needs to oriented around ensuring nobody can ever be a billionaire. That's not the same thing as believing that society should be organized in a way that generates billionaires, or believing that billionaire status is inherently moral in some way, or believing that billionaires need to be protected somehow, or otherwise being 'pro-billionaire'.
A person can think 'hey, our society needs a better social safety net and universal healthcare etc, and those things need to be paid for, and the payment method that produces the best outcomes is taxing billionaires substantially more. I want to ensure that everyone in our society has a reasonable standard of living, and if the ultra-wealthy have to become less wealthy as a result, that's perfectly fine. And if the ultra-wealthy still have a billion dollars when we're done, that's also fine as long as all our actual goals are met.' without needing to also be possessed of a specific evangelical belief that billionaires must be rooted out and destroyed at all costs.
She explicitly says people who work hard and come up with something great should get to be billionaires if "they earn it".
She also wants to explicitly tax them significantly.
And they'll still benefit from billions stolen from labor. Its not enough.
But both sides are very much NOT the same at all. One side wants to raise their taxes so they can lower them for the wealthy. One side wants to make it harder for them to vote. One side wants to make it so they can't afford health care. One side wants to poison their air and water. One side wants to destroy the educational system.
They might THINK that both sides are the same, but they are dead wrong.
Not to be glib, but in what way is that noticeably different from the other side?
like, you can replace "wants" with "has made" in your post. People already can't afford health care. Taxes are already high, voting is already hard. Eight years of the other side in the White House hasn't unpoisoned the air or undestroyed the educational system. There are loads of Democratic politicians who are basically Republican-lite, running not on a platform of reversal but of just doing it less. The current Dem primary frontrunner is running on improving on the great achievements of the ACA, but with the ACA millions of people are still suffering and going broke and rationing insulin every year. The general election candidate in 2016 began to run with the slogan "America is already great", which is an absolutely insane bullshit thing to say of the 2016 United States of America.
the point of "both sides"-ism is that the world/US has been on a downward trend over the years regardless of which "side" was in power. The fact is that one side wants to lower taxes for the wealthy because their backers like more money, and the other side wants to lower taxes because they believe it will benefit the economy or help billionaires be more beneficial to society or something. You need to show an actual meaningful difference in actions of both sides, not just in "wants".
I'm sorry but what the heck are you talking about here? I see nothing coherent about the actual state of America's two political parties in this post.
Just
what.
i mean people have been dying from not being able to afford health care for years, so what makes the one party different from the other in practice? The differences that ElJeffe points to are things that the one (GOP) side has actually achieved, why should one believe that this time the other side will actually meaningfully stop or reverse things?
for sure Biden (or whomever) wants to make health care more affordable and cover up to 97% of Americans, but why would that be a convincing message to someone who can't afford to pay for health care at all and is just living pay check to pay check with maybe a couple hundred in savings like so many Americans?
You seem to be ignoring the historical context that whenever the Democrats try to improve things, the Republicans try to weaken their efforts or stop them completely. This is like if Person A made you a sandwich, then Person B threw it on the floor and stomped on it before you could get it, and your reaction was “I’m hungry and neither of you have given me food; you both equally suck.”
it's extremely important to preserve the billionaire class so they can keep doing important things like hosting game shows and becoming president by being racist on the internet, threatening to run third party if they think their taxes will go up, or buying their way into presidential debates
+11
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
If we can’t completely reorganize society into a perfect socialist utopia overnight, we shouldn’t even try to do anything.
Purity, purity above all!
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I also don't see Warren making an affirmative case that there should be Billionaires in that quote, just not saying saying there shouldn't be Billionaires
Oh come on man
there is an actual difference between not being against something and actually being for something.
Yeah but they exist so either you think that should keep happening or you dont. It doesn't actually matter if you think billionaires should exist but think theyre lame.
again she didn't say that billionaires should exist she just didn't say they shouldn't
This is some really silly semantics.
Only if you're willfully interpreting the question in the narrowest, most literal way possible.
Sanders believes it should be a priority of government policy to ensure that there are no billionaires. Warren disagrees, and does not believe that government policy needs to oriented around ensuring nobody can ever be a billionaire. That's not the same thing as believing that society should be organized in a way that generates billionaires, or believing that billionaire status is inherently moral in some way, or believing that billionaires need to be protected somehow, or otherwise being 'pro-billionaire'.
A person can think 'hey, our society needs a better social safety net and universal healthcare etc, and those things need to be paid for, and the payment method that produces the best outcomes is taxing billionaires substantially more. I want to ensure that everyone in our society has a reasonable standard of living, and if the ultra-wealthy have to become less wealthy as a result, that's perfectly fine. And if the ultra-wealthy still have a billion dollars when we're done, that's also fine as long as all our actual goals are met.' without needing to also be possessed of a specific evangelical belief that billionaires must be rooted out and destroyed at all costs.
She explicitly says people who work hard and come up with something great should get to be billionaires if "they earn it".
She also wants to explicitly tax them significantly.
And they'll still benefit from billions stolen from labor. Its not enough.
For sufficiently broad definitions of "stolen".
The thing about Warren I guess for me is that I like her more every time she denies being a complete socialist. Not being a socialist is a selling point!
Especially since the vast majority of Americans are not socialist and don't want a socialist government.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+22
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
What are the long term consequences of making America the most hostile place to be a billionaire while other countries still allow them freely?
Billionaires already do stuff like having offshore accounts in the Bahamas or Panama, or incorporating in Ireland due to favorable tax laws. Denmark, which has some of the highest taxes in the world, also has the best social safety net.
I also don't see Warren making an affirmative case that there should be Billionaires in that quote, just not saying saying there shouldn't be Billionaires
Oh come on man
there is an actual difference between not being against something and actually being for something.
Yeah but they exist so either you think that should keep happening or you dont. It doesn't actually matter if you think billionaires should exist but think theyre lame.
again she didn't say that billionaires should exist she just didn't say they shouldn't
This is some really silly semantics.
Only if you're willfully interpreting the question in the narrowest, most literal way possible.
Sanders believes it should be a priority of government policy to ensure that there are no billionaires. Warren disagrees, and does not believe that government policy needs to oriented around ensuring nobody can ever be a billionaire. That's not the same thing as believing that society should be organized in a way that generates billionaires, or believing that billionaire status is inherently moral in some way, or believing that billionaires need to be protected somehow, or otherwise being 'pro-billionaire'.
A person can think 'hey, our society needs a better social safety net and universal healthcare etc, and those things need to be paid for, and the payment method that produces the best outcomes is taxing billionaires substantially more. I want to ensure that everyone in our society has a reasonable standard of living, and if the ultra-wealthy have to become less wealthy as a result, that's perfectly fine. And if the ultra-wealthy still have a billion dollars when we're done, that's also fine as long as all our actual goals are met.' without needing to also be possessed of a specific evangelical belief that billionaires must be rooted out and destroyed at all costs.
She explicitly says people who work hard and come up with something great should get to be billionaires if "they earn it".
She also wants to explicitly tax them significantly.
And they'll still benefit from billions stolen from labor. Its not enough.
For sufficiently broad definitions of "stolen".
The thing about Warren I guess for me is that I like her more every time she denies being a complete socialist. Not being a socialist is a selling point!
Or sufficiently narrow. Wage theft is a thing and it is *extremely* common.
I also don't see Warren making an affirmative case that there should be Billionaires in that quote, just not saying saying there shouldn't be Billionaires
Oh come on man
there is an actual difference between not being against something and actually being for something.
Yeah but they exist so either you think that should keep happening or you dont. It doesn't actually matter if you think billionaires should exist but think theyre lame.
again she didn't say that billionaires should exist she just didn't say they shouldn't
This is some really silly semantics.
Only if you're willfully interpreting the question in the narrowest, most literal way possible.
Sanders believes it should be a priority of government policy to ensure that there are no billionaires. Warren disagrees, and does not believe that government policy needs to oriented around ensuring nobody can ever be a billionaire. That's not the same thing as believing that society should be organized in a way that generates billionaires, or believing that billionaire status is inherently moral in some way, or believing that billionaires need to be protected somehow, or otherwise being 'pro-billionaire'.
A person can think 'hey, our society needs a better social safety net and universal healthcare etc, and those things need to be paid for, and the payment method that produces the best outcomes is taxing billionaires substantially more. I want to ensure that everyone in our society has a reasonable standard of living, and if the ultra-wealthy have to become less wealthy as a result, that's perfectly fine. And if the ultra-wealthy still have a billion dollars when we're done, that's also fine as long as all our actual goals are met.' without needing to also be possessed of a specific evangelical belief that billionaires must be rooted out and destroyed at all costs.
She explicitly says people who work hard and come up with something great should get to be billionaires if "they earn it".
She also wants to explicitly tax them significantly.
And they'll still benefit from billions stolen from labor. Its not enough.
The "enough" you want isn't going to happen, her promising that won't change that.
If we can’t completely reorganize society into a perfect socialist utopia overnight, we shouldn’t even try to do anything.
Purity, purity above all!
Purity is when other people have priorities, needs, and goals that are different than yours.
I'm a socialist, I'll work for the candidate who will say billionaires shouldn't exist and will push the highest tax rates on them. I won't work for the candidate who repeat horatio alger nonsense about hard working billionaires.
Styrofoam Sammich on
+2
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
And I’m a Democrat. I’ll work for the Democrat who promises to fight for things that can actually happen.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
What makes you think Warren's wealth taxes are politically viable but not Sanders's?
I don' expect her to get everything made, what I do expect her to get the most any political astute pragmatists to get through with the flexibility to work with her party. Sanders isn't going to be abolishing billionaires under any circumstance, all he has is rhetoric - what gets his base giddy is not identical to getting congressional Democrats signing up wholesale. They are not socialists and they don't want to get rid of billionaires.
But they’re a lot more viable than full-fledged reorganization of the entire economy
The only real difference between their proposed taxes is the rate, but one seems to be a "restructuring of the economy" and the other is a lot more viable and I'm confused why you think Warren's is more viable. Its also a substantial increase in taxes.
+4
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I’m talking about the rhetoric of doing away with billionaires and the refrain of “we’re gonna have a Revolution in this country”
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I’m talking about the rhetoric of doing away with billionaires and the refrain of “we’re gonna have a Revolution in this country”
I think its more viable and coherent than this thing Warren seems to be pushing where we'll just keep them in check and get rid of the "bad" ones.
I mean if we want to talk about rhetoric it looks pretty silly when she plays up the "billionaires are scared of me" bit and then gets on stage and talks about how if "you come up with a really good idea", which is stock capitalist apologia, she's fine with you having billions of dollars, like, jesus christ.
Styrofoam Sammich on
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I’m talking about the rhetoric of doing away with billionaires and the refrain of “we’re gonna have a Revolution in this country”
I think its more viable and coherent than this thing Warren seems to be pushing where we'll just keep them in check and get rid of the "bad" ones.
I mean if we want to talk about rhetoric it looks pretty silly when she plays up the "billionaires are scared of me" bit and then gets on stage and talks about how if "you come up with a really good idea", which is stock capitalist apologia, she's fine with you having billions of dollars, like, jesus christ.
I think you're wrong about viability, because outlawing billionaires will happen approximately never.
+11
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Sigh.
Just found out that at this time, Warren isn't going to be speaking with democrats Abroad.
Once I wake up, I'll have to send through a polite request.
So far I think Biden is the only other major candidate to not speak, or have a future date set, with the group.
I’m talking about the rhetoric of doing away with billionaires and the refrain of “we’re gonna have a Revolution in this country”
I think its more viable and coherent than this thing Warren seems to be pushing where we'll just keep them in check and get rid of the "bad" ones.
I mean if we want to talk about rhetoric it looks pretty silly when she plays up the "billionaires are scared of me" bit and then gets on stage and talks about how if "you come up with a really good idea", which is stock capitalist apologia, she's fine with you having billions of dollars, like, jesus christ.
I think you're wrong about viability, because outlawing billionaires will happen approximately never.
Nothing ever happens if you don't fight for it. A President Sanders will almost certainly have to settle for an increased tax rate lower than what he wants. So will a President Warren. But at least he's making the right argument.
Posts
A lot. Because the other side is cozying up to a bunch of people who are trying to make them not exist.
I can't believe I have to pull this out in 2019.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
A full capital strike would probably cause a lot of blood shed
Also, like, Joe Biden was a segregationist so in that way, and very very few others, yeah both sides are the same. I'm as left as you can get in America without having an FBI file, and I can acknowledge that yeah, while there are a lot of people in the Democratic party that are basically just blue dog corporatists running on the ghost of a reputation they're quickly shattering even the remaining illusion of with their doddering buffoonery, there are also genuinely passionate folks in the party who actually care about their constituents and want to see ALL of the people they represent do better, rather than just the "job creators" or whatever other cover phrase we wanna use.
Being reductive and dismissing two of the most popular presidential candidates in the party, one of whom is literally one of the most recognized and widely beloved political figures in the last decade, is wildly, laughably arrogant.
I don't think that will happen; it is way too easy to obfuscate doing stuff with investments. It probably wouldn't take a lot of work to engineer an innocent looking recession. Of course, they wouldn't be able to hold it forever, but perhaps long enough to make the wealth tax exceedingly unpopular, with a magic revival of the economy once it's repealed.
The smartest mathematical minds are all working at investment firms. It's not out of the realm of possibility to do something like this.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
True but collusion tends to be tough to pull off and keep secret long term. And if people learn they've been tricked, there could be some very fierce blow back. The next candidate could be less Warren and Sanders and more Huey Long.
Yeah but we freakin ... elected Trump after the Big Short came out.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Well, the most mercenary at any rate. The smartest minds I doubt.
Also, the idea that you can engineer a recession just by manipulating the stock market suggests a rather narrow view of what the economy is. Frankly, most of the economy doesn't give a damn about the stock market. The market reflects the economy (loosely, since it's a few layers of irrationality and chaos removed), not the other way around.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Sorry, I just
Why would someone who can't afford healthcare be convinced by a message of affordable healthcare? That...that's your big 'gotcha' ??
Only if you're willfully interpreting the question in the narrowest, most literal way possible.
Sanders believes it should be a priority of government policy to ensure that there are no billionaires. Warren disagrees, and does not believe that government policy needs to oriented around ensuring nobody can ever be a billionaire. That's not the same thing as believing that society should be organized in a way that generates billionaires, or believing that billionaire status is inherently moral in some way, or believing that billionaires need to be protected somehow, or otherwise being 'pro-billionaire'.
A person can think 'hey, our society needs a better social safety net and universal healthcare etc, and those things need to be paid for, and the payment method that produces the best outcomes is taxing billionaires substantially more. I want to ensure that everyone in our society has a reasonable standard of living, and if the ultra-wealthy have to become less wealthy as a result, that's perfectly fine. And if the ultra-wealthy still have a billion dollars when we're done, that's also fine as long as all our actual goals are met.' without needing to also be possessed of a specific evangelical belief that billionaires must be rooted out and destroyed at all costs.
I hope you're right, a recession would suck
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I am specifically interested in having my taxes raised significantly in order to pay for generous social programs.
I am currently lucky enough to be doing very well, why would I not support programs that allow other people to live decent lives?
Heh. Yes, well, that is the story they tell themselves.
But no I don't think we're in any danger of... some cabal of financial analysts tanking the markets out of spite.
Well it's far more horrifying Hedge Funds own vast parts of State governments through bonds. Or countries
She explicitly says people who work hard and come up with something great should get to be billionaires if "they earn it".
She also wants to explicitly tax them significantly.
And they'll still benefit from billions stolen from labor. Its not enough.
You seem to be ignoring the historical context that whenever the Democrats try to improve things, the Republicans try to weaken their efforts or stop them completely. This is like if Person A made you a sandwich, then Person B threw it on the floor and stomped on it before you could get it, and your reaction was “I’m hungry and neither of you have given me food; you both equally suck.”
Purity, purity above all!
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
For sufficiently broad definitions of "stolen".
The thing about Warren I guess for me is that I like her more every time she denies being a complete socialist. Not being a socialist is a selling point!
Billionaires already do stuff like having offshore accounts in the Bahamas or Panama, or incorporating in Ireland due to favorable tax laws. Denmark, which has some of the highest taxes in the world, also has the best social safety net.
Or sufficiently narrow. Wage theft is a thing and it is *extremely* common.
The "enough" you want isn't going to happen, her promising that won't change that.
Purity is when other people have priorities, needs, and goals that are different than yours.
I'm a socialist, I'll work for the candidate who will say billionaires shouldn't exist and will push the highest tax rates on them. I won't work for the candidate who repeat horatio alger nonsense about hard working billionaires.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
But they’re a lot more viable than full-fledged reorganization of the entire economy
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I don' expect her to get everything made, what I do expect her to get the most any political astute pragmatists to get through with the flexibility to work with her party. Sanders isn't going to be abolishing billionaires under any circumstance, all he has is rhetoric - what gets his base giddy is not identical to getting congressional Democrats signing up wholesale. They are not socialists and they don't want to get rid of billionaires.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I think its more viable and coherent than this thing Warren seems to be pushing where we'll just keep them in check and get rid of the "bad" ones.
I mean if we want to talk about rhetoric it looks pretty silly when she plays up the "billionaires are scared of me" bit and then gets on stage and talks about how if "you come up with a really good idea", which is stock capitalist apologia, she's fine with you having billions of dollars, like, jesus christ.
I think you're wrong about viability, because outlawing billionaires will happen approximately never.
Just found out that at this time, Warren isn't going to be speaking with democrats Abroad.
Once I wake up, I'll have to send through a polite request.
So far I think Biden is the only other major candidate to not speak, or have a future date set, with the group.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Nothing ever happens if you don't fight for it. A President Sanders will almost certainly have to settle for an increased tax rate lower than what he wants. So will a President Warren. But at least he's making the right argument.