Bernie Sanders for President!

For domestic American politics only. For political issues with direct international implications, please post in the International Politics forum.

Re: Bernie Sanders for President!

Postby Toad » Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:33

Hannibal wrote:But what if people who made $10,000,000 a year (or 5 or 3) had to go green, solar and wind, clean cars, etc. Wouldn't that help in many ways? Bring the prices down, create jobs, and they'd get the satisfaction that getting rich on the backs of the working class, which is how it's done and I'm fine with it, allows one the opportunity to do a great deal of good. They already have better education and better health care, why not hit them with a "carbon footprint" mandate which encourages them to give back in very specific ways that better the nation on several levels? I mean really, when I see some stoopidly wealthy housewife driving around in a gas guzzling tank of an SUV it makes me strongly desire to punch Al Gore in the throat. God bless them millionaires. I got no truck with them,and I don't think it's fair to tax them at 85%, because honestly, most of them earned what they got. But they should do good with what they got because they know better, and if they don't, well...motivate them to do so. IMHO, it's better than "transferring wealth" which is already making people and large companies relocate.


I sympathize with the concept, but I fundamentally dislike the idea of having one rule for the rich and one rule for the poor, because you're then forced to invent a (purely arbitrary) definition of "rich" and "poor".

My contention is that poor people are poor mainly because they don't do the things rich people do. I would also suggest those people driving around in gas-guzzlers are not rich; they're what I call poor people with money. An SUV is not a sensible investment: not only does it produce nothing, it depreciates fast. It's a money sink. Anyone who has one clearly doesn't understand how money works. Any speed bump in the economy (or their credit history) will hit them hard.

I use the word "rich" to mean people who are content with with what they own and with what they've achieved in life, and are secure for the foreseeable future. They have enough money to be happy, but not so much they have to spend time wondering what to do with it.

If you're going to "hit" anyone with a eco-footprint mandate, do it to everyone, and do it in such a way that it either (a) saves people money or (b) delivers a better quality-of-life for the current expenditure. Those schemes that start from the assumption that 'eco' is expensive are inherently wrong. The branches are loaded with low-hanging fruit, ranging from the pathetically simple to the ambitious. A couple that I'd like to see personally:

1) Introduce a set of standard glass containers for drinks and other packaged food items. Commission the world's best industrial designers to write the spec. Mandate compostable paper packaging to replace plastic bags/wrappers. Phase out all disposable plastic containers. Allow private companies (retailers, upstream recyclers) to set their own deposit/recycling charge for the containers, with the stipulation that the recycling process is limited to some maximum input of fossil-fuel energy. Beneficial side-effect: people will spend less money on buying and disposing of packaging, and buy far less processed slop because it'll arrive in heavy glass containers.

2) Set out a 10-year transition program to all-natural livestock farming and recycling of livestock waste. The savings and human benefits will be huge - far less disease, lower costs and higher profits for farmers, higher quality meat/dairy products, better land management, reduced water and air pollution ...

3) Mandate that some fraction of state taxes must be spent on building all-electric transport networks. Even better, allow private co-operatives to tender for an operation license. Maybe make an investment-loan pot available. At minimum, these must be capable of moving freight, but preferably people too. Many different technologies are available; all very affordable, all easy to implement, many small enough to squeeze into already crowded city footprints. I'm thinking elevated PRT or light rail, RTM, tramways, that sort of thing. Facilities like this would make a huge difference to poor people, and if done properly they would generate income and alleviate traffic. Make it all solar-powered if it's in a sunny place.

4) Create community colleges where skilled individuals can volunteer to teach other people what they know, in exchange for tax credits or some similar non-monetary incentive.

I'm sick of hearing politicians say they have to raise taxes to pay for stuff like this. Private corporations achieve far greater miracles using whatever assets they've got ... because they have to. Socialist governments think like poor people: if I haven't got it, someone has to give it to me. Rich people (and effective governments) think: this is what I've got, how do I make the best use of it?
User avatar
Toad
Taiwanease Aristocracy
 
Posts: 2977
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:50
Has given kudos: 1012 times
Has gotten kudos: 711 times

Re: Bernie Sanders for President!

Postby Zardoz » Mon Mar 14, 2016 14:17

Toad wrote:
No one is saying the super rich need to support the working classes, just to transfer more money - fast money that is spent, producing knock on spending and jobs - to the Main Street level.

You haven't explained why it's better that poor people should spend that money, especially considering the inefficiency of transferring money to them. Rich people are perfectly capable of spending money on consumer goods, I'm sure. You also haven't explained why transferring money to poor people, in and of itself, will help them to become less poor in the long run (and no, it isn't obvious).

I get the feeling one of the main goals of socialism is to punish those who are comfortably off. Whether the poor are assisted as a side-effect of that punishment is neither here nor there.

I'm not taking the piss. I'm genuinely curious how you justify violence against a targeted subsection of the population - who have done no wrong except make sensible life decisions - to achieve some "greater good".


It's not violence, it's wealth transfer. There has already been a huge wealth transfer.

Globalization: Jobs go out, profits come in. Overall workers get poorer or stagnate, coporate elte get richer.

Low interest rates: Savers loose money or go no where as inflation cancels their interest acrued. Investors get easy money.

Bailouts and subsidies: Big corporations get bail outs and subsidies paid for by taxpayers.

The overall affect is that the average worker is no better off than 30 years ago, while the corporate elite are doing better than ever. Please note that this is set against a backdrop of improving productivity.

This was partially offset by cheap goods from China making it easier to get by cheaply. But as global purchasing power is reduced, China is faltering. The economic elites were hoping that China would switch to a domestic demand based model. But that hasn't happened.

So in order to get demand up, the lower and middle classes need more cash to buy products to stimulate tge economy.

The reason why them having the money is better than the elites is the difference between fast money and slow money. Joe Carpenter will probably spend the vast majority of every extra 1000 USD he earns, while Jason Banker will just tuck most of it away. Money spent in stores will stimulate this economy much more than money invested into hedge funds.

Got it? That's my argument.
Zardoz
Taiwanease Gentry
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 16:14
Has given kudos: 38 times
Has gotten kudos: 104 times

Re: Bernie Sanders for President!

Postby Toad » Mon Mar 14, 2016 14:30

Zardoz wrote:It's not violence

Try not paying your taxes this year and then get back to me after they've forcibly auctioned off your property.

I'm not saying State violence is always bad. It's what we pay them for. We accept, for example, the presence of a police force because the advantages outweigh the downsides. However, violence should not be the go-to substitute for critical thought.

There has already been a huge wealth transfer.

Quite so. Wealth transfer is not inherently good, as your examples accurately illustrate. The solution there would be to prevent the original mistakes, rather than layer on new ones.

Globalization: Jobs go out, profits come in. Overall workers get poorer or stagnate, coporate elte get richer.

Bit of an oversimplification, that. A lot of countries are good at producing this but not so good at producing that. Globalisation is a good thing from that perspective. It starts to break down when governments manipulate it in such a way that market forces are broken: for example, subsidizing American rice to below the cost of production, and then subsidizing the fuels to cart it across the ocean, hurts poor farmers.

So in order to get demand up, the lower and middle classes need more cash to buy products to stimulate tge economy.

Why does the economy need 'stimulating'? Is it having a mid-life crisis? Is it having fantasies about pink handcuffs?

The reason why them having the money is better than the elites is the difference between fast money and slow money. Joe Carpenter will probably spend the vast majority of every extra 1000 USD he earns, while Jason Banker will just tuck most of it away. Money spent in stores will stimulate this economy much more than money invested into hedge funds.

You're sort of taking it as axiomatic that consumption is the be-all and end-all of economic activity, so I suppose in that context your logic makes sense. I was arguing that we could instead improve the efficiency of consumption.

In any case I disagree with your characterization of the difference between rich and poor. Poor people invariably spend money in ways that perpetuate poverty, especially if the money is unearned. Rich people are more likely to think about their futures (that's why they're rich) and will spend it on things that generate future wealth ... for themselves. However that wealth will eventually feed into the consumer economy, providing jobs etc etc. Also, money "tucked away" is not doing nothing: it's doing stuff very fast indeed, thanks to fractional-reserve banking (although IMO, that's not a good thing).
User avatar
Toad
Taiwanease Aristocracy
 
Posts: 2977
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:50
Has given kudos: 1012 times
Has gotten kudos: 711 times

Re: Bernie Sanders for President!

Postby Zardoz » Mon Mar 14, 2016 14:49

You are oversimpliyfing "poor people", as if they are all losers and would not be poor if they were smarter. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur.

And WTF are you talking about "piink handcuffs"? Have you not heard of global wage stagnation?

And how does efficient consumption create jobs?
Zardoz
Taiwanease Gentry
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 16:14
Has given kudos: 38 times
Has gotten kudos: 104 times

Re: Bernie Sanders for President!

Postby Toad » Mon Mar 14, 2016 14:53

Zardoz wrote:You are oversimpliyfing "poor people", as if they are all losers and would not be poor if they were smarter. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur.

No, but everyone can learn how to make the most of what they've got. I've been dirt-poor. I know what it feels like. I've also seen what most poor people do with their money.

And WTF are you talking about "piink handcuffs"? Have you not heard of global wage stagnation?

I hear a lot of buzzwords. Economists tend to lose sight of the fact that it's all about people. Jobs are not like subatomic particles that pop in and out of existence depending on 'economic conditions'.

And how does efficient consumption create jobs?

Why do we need to create jobs? Personally I'd rather sit in my garden and drink beer. The ideal economy, IMO, is one that allows me to sit in my garden and drink beer. An economy in which I have to work for Wernham Hogg 8 hours a day to pay for my beer is less than ideal. Efficient consumption removes the need for jobs, or at least removes the need for so much make-work.
User avatar
Toad
Taiwanease Aristocracy
 
Posts: 2977
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:50
Has given kudos: 1012 times
Has gotten kudos: 711 times

Re: Bernie Sanders for President!

Postby Zardoz » Mon Mar 14, 2016 15:02

Toad wrote:
And how does efficient consumption create jobs?

Why do we need to create jobs? Personally I'd rather sit in my garden and drink beer. The ideal economy, IMO, is one that allows me to sit in my garden and drink beer. An economy in which I have to work for Wernham Hogg 8 hours a day to pay for my beer is less than ideal. Efficient consumption removes the need for jobs, or at least removes the need for so much make-work.


OK, well that ends any semblance of serious real world here-and-now economic debate.

However, if you have a garden I might join you for a bear sometime!
Zardoz
Taiwanease Gentry
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 16:14
Has given kudos: 38 times
Has gotten kudos: 104 times

Re: Bernie Sanders for President!

Postby cfimages » Mon Mar 21, 2016 19:06

Saw this on tumblr. No idea how accurate it is.

Image

Image

These users gave kudos to the author cfimages for the post (total 2):
Just Jennifer (Tue Mar 22, 2016 23:19) • Poagao (Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:49)
User avatar
cfimages
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 14:33
Location: Danshui
Has given kudos: 705 times
Has gotten kudos: 939 times

Re: Bernie Sanders for President!

Postby Kal El » Mon Mar 21, 2016 21:57

cfimages wrote:Saw this on tumblr. No idea how accurate it is.

No idea either, but if it's even remotely true today (I can imagine it would have been worse in the 60s and 70s) then America has bigger problems than deciding between Hilary and Donald. :twocents:

What I don't get is this. Why aren't there more black teachers and police officers in predominantly black neighborhoods and schools? Or at the very least a white officer partnered with a black officer in predominantly black areas? Don't they also try to get more Spanish speaking officers and teachers in Latino communities? :idunno:
Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash.
Sir Winston Churchill

Heathen filth, the lot of you.
Dr Kurt Langstrom

人不可貌相,海水不可斗量
User avatar
Kal El
Taiwanease Deity
 
Posts: 6931
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 23:17
Location: 台南, 台灣
Has given kudos: 1235 times
Has gotten kudos: 1164 times

Re: Bernie Sanders for President!

Postby TainanCowboy » Tue Mar 22, 2016 07:16

Bernie punching for a new demographic!

The facts expressed here belong to everybody. The opinions are mine.
I don’t post political comments or articles to convince those who disagree with me,
I post them so that those who might agree with such positions will know they are not alone.
Some things are opinions and can be argued - some things are facts and cannot.
Proverbs, Chapter 16 verse 9 <--- When in doubt, remember this.
TainanCowboy
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3803
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 14:44
Location: Tainan - The Original Taiwan
Has given kudos: 793 times
Has gotten kudos: 489 times

Re: Bernie Sanders for President!

Postby jimipresley » Tue Mar 22, 2016 22:44

This is profound.



Speaking for the congregation. :thumbsup:
Do you ever listen to yourself? - maoman

How clever of you to take an orange and a dog biscuit and build a time machine. - Bunks

Some countries cultivate vast populations of idiots for the purpose of maintaining sham democracies. - Toad
User avatar
jimipresley
Taiwanease Deity
 
Posts: 5551
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 23:34
Location: Picturesque, idyllic Sanchong.
Has given kudos: 2578 times
Has gotten kudos: 1605 times

Re: Bernie Sanders for President!

Postby TainanCowboy » Tue Apr 05, 2016 08:49

Yeah, Bernie believes this....

The facts expressed here belong to everybody. The opinions are mine.
I don’t post political comments or articles to convince those who disagree with me,
I post them so that those who might agree with such positions will know they are not alone.
Some things are opinions and can be argued - some things are facts and cannot.
Proverbs, Chapter 16 verse 9 <--- When in doubt, remember this.
TainanCowboy
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3803
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 14:44
Location: Tainan - The Original Taiwan
Has given kudos: 793 times
Has gotten kudos: 489 times

Re: Bernie Sanders for President!

Postby Hannibal » Mon Jun 06, 2016 08:41



Bernie hits Hillary hard on the Clinton Cash...among other things.
Na na na na hey hey
Hannibal
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:48
Has given kudos: 58 times
Has gotten kudos: 454 times

Re: Bernie Sanders for President!

Postby TainanCowboy » Fri Jul 29, 2016 07:00

Bernie fans being...well, just being Bernie fans:



story at - http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/james-okeefe-assaulted-thrown-ground-undercover-gig-dnc/

Image
OUCH ! That's gotta hurt !
The facts expressed here belong to everybody. The opinions are mine.
I don’t post political comments or articles to convince those who disagree with me,
I post them so that those who might agree with such positions will know they are not alone.
Some things are opinions and can be argued - some things are facts and cannot.
Proverbs, Chapter 16 verse 9 <--- When in doubt, remember this.
TainanCowboy
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3803
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 14:44
Location: Tainan - The Original Taiwan
Has given kudos: 793 times
Has gotten kudos: 489 times

Re: Bernie Sanders for President!

Postby TainanCowboy » Sat Jul 30, 2016 13:10

Image

Image
The facts expressed here belong to everybody. The opinions are mine.
I don’t post political comments or articles to convince those who disagree with me,
I post them so that those who might agree with such positions will know they are not alone.
Some things are opinions and can be argued - some things are facts and cannot.
Proverbs, Chapter 16 verse 9 <--- When in doubt, remember this.
TainanCowboy
Taiwanease Royalty
 
Posts: 3803
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 14:44
Location: Tainan - The Original Taiwan
Has given kudos: 793 times
Has gotten kudos: 489 times

Previous

Return to American (Domestic) Politics