Bernie Sanders Defends Democratic Socialism

tygertgr

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Messages
115
You talkin' to me? You're preaching to the choir. What are you smoking?

I got the impression you think Bernie has ideas worth considering, correct me if I'm wrong.

The prudent political platform right now is: Sorry we lied about what we can pay you. Now we have to wind everything down and screw a lot of people in as fair a way as can be managed. Most of you won't be getting social security or medicare or your pensions.

Obviously that's totally unelectable and will never happen. Instead there will be a relatively catastrophic collapse over the span of five years in the 2020s. Whether it's "popular" or not will be totally irrelevant. You can't bleed a stone.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I got the impression you think Bernie has ideas worth considering, correct me if I'm wrong.

The prudent political platform right now is: Sorry we lied about what we can pay you. Now we have to wind everything down and screw a lot of people in as fair a way as can be managed. Most of you won't be getting social security or medicare or your pensions.

Obviously that's totally unelectable and will never happen. Instead there will be a relatively catastrophic collapse over the span of five years in the 2020s. Whether it's "popular" or not will be totally irrelevant. You can't bleed a stone.
It's a slow downward spiral until suddenly it unravels quickly. This is no different than what happens in nature, even as our systems are artificial. We just don't know when. It's hard to put a time line in the same way as the stock market worldwide is as unpredictable.

But know this: we can never beat the house in a casino. We can't rise above the tide of history. We can't beat the stock market. You may bet against it and win at times, but when you think you've got it figured out and you double down all your eggs, you lose it all- eventually.

This is why civilizations rise and they fall. No matter how powerful it is, it always manages to do the wrong things and there's no way to stop it. We are no different than lemmings. We only have a longer timeline. The more sophisticated we get, the more we can collectively find ways to destroy ourselves. That is hubris. The tragedy of our species.
 

michael94

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,419
It's a slow downward spiral until suddenly it unravels quickly. This is no different than what happens in nature, even as our systems are artificial. We just don't know when. It's hard to put a time line in the same way as the stock market worldwide is as unpredictable.

But know this: we can never beat the house in a casino. We can't rise above the tide of history. We can't beat the stock market. You may bet against it and win at times, but when you think you've got it figured out and you double down all your eggs, you lose it all- eventually.

This is why civilizations rise and they fall. No matter how powerful it is, it always manages to do the wrong things and there's no way to stop it. We are no different than lemmings. We only have a longer timeline. The more sophisticated we get, the more we can collectively find ways to destroy ourselves. That is hubris. The tragedy of our species.
Theres a green light at the center of the black pill
 

TeaRex14

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2018
Messages
629
Bernie defending socialism? What's new, coming from a guy who praised Fidel Castro I don't see this being out of the ordinary behavior for him.
 
OP
B

Braveheart

Guest
Nope. Read his M4A policy, which answers the "how are you gonna pay for it" question - that is, if you're really interested to know.

Our current medical system is way more expensive.

Corps and rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. Did you get a tax cut? I didn't... Amazon paid 0 last year - wtf...

Funny thing, nobody ever questions the $ when it comes to jumping into another war, only when it's to help people.
All your comments, inc the previous ones, are spot on :darts:
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
I am with Cirion about all this, there is more to taxes than income tax, the medicare and social security tax is ridiculous. I don't need to pay the government to give it back to me when I retire. Maybe some people need it because they SUCK at saving money, but that's their problem not mine. We saved money even on a very low income for 3 people.

The only thing that needs to change is the amount of money required if you need to be in the hospital say from a broken bone, serious infection or other care needed, I mean even the healthiest will need something in their lifetime, so without insurance the costs add up like wildfire making insurance almost necessary. I HATE THAT. We have health insurance for the kids and have never actually used it, other than some check ups at the doctor but they didn't really need to go we just want to have a paper trail. It's not fair for people like us to pay thousands of dollars for insurance just in case something catastrophic happens because healthcare in the US is egregious. But it also wouldn't be fair to be taxed thousands of dollars a year to pay for other people's medical bills. It's just a mess. Private healthcare that goes across state lines is probably the best answer with the way things are at right now.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Well, I'm still waiting for someone to define what is a "fair share" given that the top 20% already pay 80% of ALL income taxes.

I'm also waiting on a fair definition as to "who is rich" and no one has refuted the fact that I paid 31.4% of my income in taxes with a mere 73k taxable total income, and I ain't rich at all.

Income taxes only account for 50% of all taxes paid to the government, it isn't the complete picture, so putting a magnifying glass on income tax is a smokescreen.

The liberal answer remains "tax EVERYONE more including poor and middle class" in the guise/cover of "tax the rich more" - tax the rich more in the eyes of liberals means "tax EVERYONE more" usually, taxing poor and middle class more and barely touching the rich if at all. How's that for irony? And yet, people fall for their tricks every time and continue to say the rich don't pay their fair share, meanwhile, again, taxing middle class and lower, screwing the very people they claim to support.
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
Well, I'm still waiting for someone to define what is a "fair share" given that the top 20% already pay 80% of ALL income taxes.

I'm also waiting on a fair definition as to "who is rich" and no one has refuted the fact that I paid 31.4% of my income in taxes with a mere 73k taxable total income, and I ain't rich at all.

Income taxes only account for 50% of all taxes paid to the government, it isn't the complete picture, so putting a magnifying glass on income tax is a smokescreen.

The liberal answer remains "tax EVERYONE more including poor and middle class" in the guise/cover of "tax the rich more" - tax the rich more in the eyes of liberals means "tax EVERYONE more" usually, taxing poor and middle class more and barely touching the rich if at all. How's that for irony? And yet, people fall for their tricks every time and continue to say the rich don't pay their fair share, meanwhile, again, taxing middle class and lower, screwing the very people they claim to support.
Yeah I was going to mention that too. It usually means everyone is paying more including the lower middle class who are also living paycheck to paycheck. We paid less in taxes last year even though we made more, I assumed it was because of Trump's tax breaks. I just don't want him cutting environmental regulations too much, I want a safe place for my kids to raise their own kids in.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).
Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2018 Update

upload_2019-6-20_11-41-2.png



the data comes straight from the IRS website. So 1% paying more than the bottom 90% of people is not fair share eh?

Again, I think people are failing at basic math. Let's say a flat 30% of a huge income vs. 30% a very low income. 30% of a huge income is easily 100x or more in taxes than 30% of a very low income. That drastically simplifies the actual math, but you get my drift. Even when very wealthy people start to push towards lower (15%) capital gains taxes, they still pay WAY more than poor people. 15% of a billion dollars is a ton of money.
 
Last edited:

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Yeah I was going to mention that too. It usually means everyone is paying more including the lower middle class who are also living paycheck to paycheck. We paid less in taxes last year even though we made more, I assumed it was because of Trump's tax breaks. I just don't want him cutting environmental regulations too much, I want a safe place for my kids to raise their own kids in.

Yeah I make $200 more a month now due to Trumps' tax breaks. Plus my investment portfolio has never been healthier either. I am enjoying this while I can, because the second we get another liberal, my investments are gonna tank. I wouldn't worry about the environmental regulations too much. The most ridiculous laws nowadays focus on CO2, which is a complete joke, we all know more CO2 would help us and not hurt us. BTW, the atmosphere of Mars is mostly CO2. How's that global warming working out over there? I'm mostly saying this as a joke, but I'm halfway serious.

upload_2019-6-20_11-55-24.png


We should all move to mars! Most peaty atmosphere ever ;)



 
Last edited:

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
Yeah I make $200 more a month now due to Trumps' tax breaks. Plus my investment portfolio has never been healthier either. I am enjoying this while I can, because the second we get another liberal, my investments are gonna tank. I wouldn't worry about the environmental regulations too much. The most ridiculous laws nowadays focus on CO2, which is a complete joke, we all know more CO2 would help us and not hurt us. BTW, the atmosphere of Mars is mostly CO2. How's that global warming working out over there? I'm mostly saying this as a joke, but I'm halfway serious.
Yeah I don't believe the CO2 thing, which would actually be great for plant growth. I'm mostly talking about the pollution from coal and mining operations that create superfund sites that they say are regulated but they still cause a lot of environmental disasters. And also the failing water infrastructure throughout the country. And also under Trump a former Monstanto person is now in one of those agencies I can't remember. That's insane.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Yeah I don't believe the CO2 thing, which would actually be great for plant growth. I'm mostly talking about the pollution from coal and mining operations that create superfund sites that they say are regulated but they still cause a lot of environmental disasters. And also the failing water infrastructure throughout the country. And also under Trump a former Monstanto person is now in one of those agencies I can't remember. That's insane.

IMO, fusion is the next generation of power. not solar, not wind, or any of that silliness. Fusion not only has more power potential than anything we have currently (even fission), but it is far cleaner than fission with no dirty byproducts like fission reactions do.

And then, the next generation beyond even fusion will be antimatter. Antimatter is in its infancy, though, so fusion will probably dominate for decades to a century. But people are actively testing fusion and I think pretty close to the first actual applications.
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
IMO, fusion is the next generation of power. not solar, not wind, or any of that silliness. Fusion not only has more power potential than anything we have currently (even fission), but it is far cleaner than fission with no dirty byproducts like fission reactions do.

And then, the next generation beyond even fusion will be antimatter. Antimatter is in its infancy, though, so fusion will probably dominate for decades to a century. But people are actively testing fusion and I think pretty close to the first actual applications.
Yeah I hope that pans out! We need better options than wind and solar. Which still need mining operations! They both uses rare earth metals. The climate change folks are ridiculous, sure let's buy electric cars! Which still use energy created by nuclear and coal power plants, and needs things like copper to create the wiring for these cars. They think they are doing such an amazing thing for the environment, when in reality we are no where near being sustainable in terms of energy and rare earth mining.
 

ShotTrue

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2019
Messages
692
Yeah I make $200 more a month now due to Trumps' tax breaks. Plus my investment portfolio has never been healthier either. I am enjoying this while I can, because the second we get another liberal, my investments are gonna tank. I wouldn't worry about the environmental regulations too much. The most ridiculous laws nowadays focus on CO2, which is a complete joke, we all know more CO2 would help us and not hurt us. BTW, the atmosphere of Mars is mostly CO2. How's that global warming working out over there? I'm mostly saying this as a joke, but I'm halfway serious.

View attachment 13686

We should all move to mars! Most peaty atmosphere ever ;)


It's b/c your 6 feet tall. 6 feet tall men make $161,000 more in their lifetime than average height men
Your choices are irrelevant
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
It's b/c your 6 feet tall. 6 feet tall men make $161,000 more in their lifetime than average height men
Your choices are irrelevant

Dude, you're so right. How could I forget that. Where's the plot that shows the linear increase in income as a function of height?? I forget... Actually it's probably exponential, given that people extremely tall like 6' 6" are much more likely to be professional basketball players...

time to inject myself with stem cells and grow another 6 inches... I've been doing this whole wealth building thing wrong...

we should change the tax brackets to be a function of height instead of income. Those 7 feet men aren't paying their fair share man...
 
Last edited:

ShotTrue

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2019
Messages
692
Dude, you're so right. How could I forget that. Where's the plot that shows the linear increase in income as a function of height?? I forget... Actually it's probably exponential, given that people extremely tall like 6' 6" are much more likely to be professional basketball players...

time to inject myself with stem cells and grow another 6 inches... I've been doing this whole wealth building thing wrong...

we should change the tax brackets to be a function of height instead of income. Those 7 feet men aren't paying their fair share man...
"
So the common perception is that wearing a necktie is a part of making oneself presentable and more attractive. But wearing a necktie is just a part of the story. There are other factors at work that influence salaries. A major factor other than appearance is height. Several studies over the years have shown that height and salary are positively correlated. This is true "especially for men, who earn 2.5% more per inch of additional height," writes Iyengar.

Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/10178115.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst"

In my sample, I found that on average CEOs were just a shade under six feet. Given that the average American male is 5'9" that means that CEOs, as a group, have about three inches on the rest of their sex. But this statistic actually understates matters. In the U.S. population, about 14.5% of all men are six feet or over. Among CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, that number is 58%. Even more strikingly, in the general American population, 3.9% of adult men are 6'2" or taller. Among my CEO sample, 30 ..

Genetic study shows men's height and women's weight drive earning power

Genetic study shows men's height and women's weight drive earning power

Employment wage and social experience discrimination[edit]
A research paper published in the Journal of Applied Psychology showed that height is strongly related to success for men. It showed that increase in height for men corresponds to increase in income after controlling for other social psychological variables like age and weight.[1] Economists Nicola Persico, Andrew Postlewaite and Dan Silverman explained the "height premium" and found that "a 1.8-percent increase in wages accompanies every additional inch of height". They also found that men's wages as adults could be linked to their height at age 16. The researchers found that on an average an increase in height by one inch at age 16 increased male adult wages by 2.6 percent. This is equal to increase of approximately $850 in 1996 annual earnings. In other words, the height and corresponding social experiences of taller male adolescent at age 16 would likely translate to higher wage in later adulthood as compared to shorter male adolescent.[2]
 

ShotTrue

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2019
Messages
692
To your point, only 14.5% of men in America are 6ft tall but 58% of Fortune 500 CEOs are, so sports is not the case here

It's impossible to invest without capital in the first place
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Haha, I was mostly joking, so that's funny that there actually is a correlation. I suppose it's possible. Let's face it - taller men are considered more desirable/attractive on average and attractive people generally are more successful in life due to the way they are treated by other people, given favoritism etc. This goes for beautiful women too.

As for the capital comment - Everyone can invest, I already stated how its possible even on a 14k income. Sure you'll start smaller, and take a little longer, but the beauty of compounding interest is as long as you are persistent and invest in index funds (average of 10% return), it'll grow eventually with persistence. If someone refuses to look for better work and stays at a 14k income job their whole life, they can still save 950,000$ in about 35 years of work (the length of many peoples' careers)

Here's what the growth schedule might look like for this person

upload_2019-6-20_17-10-48.png
 
Back
Top Bottom