Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every dollar spent today is a dollar and ten cents tomorrow that is taken.
I'm not comfortable saddaling our children with a bill for our extravagance.
You're not good at explaining your position. I spent $65 today on groceries and $71.50 won't be "taken" tomorrow.
After the Depression the debt was paid down by growing the economy. If I have a $1000 debt and a $1500/month income, I'll have trouble paying it off. But if I can increase my income to $10,000/month, I still may not pay it off because it is no longer of any significance.
Somebody said taking the money of the rich wouldn't pay down much at all. But only a fool would propose such a "solution". Instead of taking their money (wealth), take a reasonable tax..... every week, every month, every year. Then you can pay down plenty.
But even that is not what Bernie proposes, and I can tell you what he proposes but it looks like it would be a wasted exercise in futility with this crowd.
You're not good at explaining your position. I spent $65 today on groceries and $71.50 won't be "taken" tomorrow.
After the Depression the debt was paid down by growing the economy. If I have a $1000 debt and a $1500/month income, I'll have trouble paying it off. But if I can increase my income to $10,000/month, I still may not pay it off because it is no longer of any significance.
Somebody said taking the money of the rich wouldn't pay down much at all. But only a fool would propose such a "solution". Instead of taking their money (wealth), take a reasonable tax..... every week, every month, every year. Then you can pay down plenty.
But even that is not what Bernie proposes, and I can tell you what he proposes but it looks like it would be a wasted exercise in futility with this crowd.
????
"You're not good at explaining your position. I spent $65 today on groceries and $71.50 won't be 'taken' tomorrow."
If you borrowed $65 worth of groceries today, you would be on the hook for $65 plus interest.
If you spend $65 on groceries, you have already paid your grocery bill and that is exactly what we should be doing with the federal government's bills today.
We have a nasty habit in this country of paying people to not work.
We have another nasty habit of trying to hide taxes, and still another of selling special favors (like tax breaks for billionaires) to anyone with enough money to buy them.
And yes, there will come a day when the Chinese tear up our credit card.
Since I'm a net tax payer and will be for many years to come, I have no interest in becomming even more of an indentured servant footing the bill for politician's vote buying, moochery of all forms and special favors for the wealthy friends of office holders.
The main problem with the OP is that he simply refuses to understand that redistribution of wealth has taken place on a massive scale from the 99% to the 1% for the last 40 years as a result of weakening of unions, erosion of the minimum wage, deregulation of Wall Street, weakening of anti-monopoly legislation, anti-worker trade deals etc etc. As soon as a straight shooter like Sanders comes forward and articulate the voice of the 99%, shills of the donor class like the OP start whining and feel the need to protect the donor class.
We have to choose; either democracy or massive income and wealth inequality. We cant have both. The shills have chosen the latter.
We've heard your tiresome litany for months now: "The billionaires are afraid of "Bernie" because "he'll make them pay".
But let's take a closer look at the hard, economic facts, and then, I dare any one of the usual dreamers and whiners over there in LeftyLand to come up with a workable plan ... and hard numbers behind it.
To begin with, the world (according to Forbes regularly-updated website), is home to about 1800 persons with a wealth of $1B or more, but only about 600 of them are U S citizens.
And of that 600, about 60% are essentially self made; Granted, they might have had some help getting the start-up capital, but most of what they accumulated came from their own decisions.
And much of that wealth exists principally on paper, represented by the common stock equity of the enterprises they built. If the malcontents start pointing in the same direction, and whining in the same key, the value of that equity "tanks", and there's a lot less to seize and redistribute.
Case in point: Jeff Bezos of Amazon
(disclaimer: the poster is a former Amazon employee)
Mr. Bezos' basic salary is less than $100,000, but various interpretations of the tax laws mandate that other expenses assumed by his company (security, living expenses, etc) boost that to about $1.8M (that's "million", with an 'M' - not billion) All the rest is in common stock -- owned outright or via options.
And the same holds true for the four Vice-Presidents responsible for the daily operation of Amazon Fulfillment. Their base salaries are small -- about $200K last time I checked. But stock options may one day make them extremely wealthy -- if new technology and strategies, or simple political meddling. don't take the "bloom" off Amazon.
But now, let's move beyond the Lefties' favorite target, and consider the billions under the control of institutions and philanthropies -- the endowments and other wealth of pension funds like TIAA-CREF (the retirement dreams of many a left-leaning academic) and of colleges, hospitals, etc. Harvard University alone controls about $45B. And this wealth is secure largely because the US dollar is, by default, the most stable and secure currency. That might not always be the case if the people with plans for somebody else's income start beating the drums a bit too loudly.
So if any of you "usual suspects" with an easy-to-get, but worthless degree and a pile of student loan debt have a better idea -- let's hear it.
For as no less an Establishment Liberal as Adlai Stevenson once said in a rare moment of fortitude: "I am prepared to wait for your answer until Hell freezes over".
The main problem with the OP is that he simply refuses to understand that redistribution of wealth has taken place on a massive scale from the 99% to the 1% for the last 40 years as a result of weakening of unions, erosion of the minimum wage, deregulation of Wall Street, weakening of anti-monopoly legislation, anti-worker trade deals etc etc. As soon as a straight shooter like Sanders comes forward and articulate the voice of the 99%, shills of the donor class like the OP start whining and feel the need to protect the donor class.
We have to choose; either democracy or massive income and wealth inequality. We cant have both. The shills have chosen the latter.
You're sounding a bit like shill yourself, but for the government. You're blaming everything on lack of government involvement.
Honestly, what's wrong with wealth inequality? What one person has has nothing to do with what anyone else has, so what difference does it make? The real problem is the elites (private sector and state) rigging things in their favor by way of legislation, which prevents people from competing.
You're sounding a bit like shill yourself, but for the government. You're blaming everything on lack of government involvement.
Honestly, what's wrong with wealth inequality? What one person has has nothing to do with what anyone else has, so what difference does it make? The real problem is the elites (private sector and state) rigging things in their favor by way of legislation, which prevents people from competing.
IMO wealth inequality in itself is not bad. When driven by the government like the last 8 years (yes even longer than that) is where the problem comes in.
We've heard your tiresome litany for months now: "The billionaires are afraid of "Bernie" because "he'll make them pay".
...
The problem isn't that we need to take the wealth from the top, it is that we need the bottom to grow faster than the top. If w can ,manage that trick then all is good.
IMO wealth inequality in itself is not bad. When driven by the government like the last 8 years (yes even longer than that) is where the problem comes in.
You "inequality is not a bad thing" people should actually take the time to Google "negative effects of income and wealth inequality". There is p l e n t y of data out there to open your eyes.
Voluntary charity is a blessing.
Compulsory charity is a curse.
Wealth redistribution is accursed and unAmerican. Of course, if you consent, via "voluntary" FICA, it's legal. But not moral.
I prefer building prosperity and prodigious production of surplus with which one can voluntarily distribute to those in need, at your own discretion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
