Bernie Sanders drops out of Presidential Race

[chrisrlink]

funny how the american people are hypocrites bernie sanders hell even Andrew Yang wanted to give you a check for a lot longer then this epidemic and you cried out socialism EVIL fast forward to now trump does the same thing and you idiots praise him i feel this should've been a sink or swim situation a 2nd great depression might make you rethink how you do things (like not be blinded by your political affiliation and use your damn noggin take in all the damn facts before pulling the lever at the voting machine)

 

[SG854]

funny how the american people are hypocrites bernie sanders hell even Andrew Yang wanted to give you a check for a lot longer then this epidemic and you cried out socialism EVIL fast forward to now trump does the same thing and you idiots praise him i feel this should've been a sink or swim situation a 2nd great depression might make you rethink how you do things (like not be blinded by your political affiliation and use your damn noggin take in all the damn facts before pulling the lever at the voting machine)

There was no corona virus. You are comparing apples and oranges. There are always exceptions to the rules. Every single argument can be seen as hypocritical if you are uptight and not understanding of the situation. It's just a general idea that doesn't apply to every situation. Calling it hypocritical is arguing in bad faith that is not understanding of their perspective.

Many conservatives see it as getting their money back that government took from them in taxes.

 

[Xzi]

Many conservatives see it as getting their money back that government took from them in taxes.

Which is the very essence of socialism lol. The working class getting something back for their taxes, whether it be healthcare, jobs programs, or UBI to make it through tough times.

Coronavirus has certainly exacerbated all our woes, but it wasn't the cause of all of them. There really is no going back to "normal" after this, since many of the jobs lost will not be making a return. Capitalism will demand sacrifices be made in order to uphold the farcical belief that unlimited growth is possible, and it won't be the upper class making them.

 

[Foxi4]

It was an incorrect statement that most "self-made" get inheritances, that's my bad. But if you look at a large number of "self-made" millionaires it's pretty evident who they are. The majority of them come from mid-upper class families. The majority of them are white males. The majority of them have gone to college. Yes, there are exceptions, but the general trend for most "self-made" millionaires are white male college graduates from generally affluent families. Looking at the 67.7% you've cited, a lot of that 67.7% appears to fit this description.

So yes, they may have put their time and effort into making their fortune, but you cannot deny the socioeconomic factors that weight that wealth in their favor. It's much easier to become affluent as a white male because most rich people are white males (and they wanna keep it that way) and if you come from a family of means (again, most of these self-made millionaires do), you are much more able to go to college and therefore have a greater range of opportunities to gain wealth.

The problem is that if you don't fit that criterion, it becomes much much harder to become rich, or even sustain yourself or a family. Again, redistribution of wealth is not just because we "want the rich people's money" it's because the rich people's money is used to perpetuate this cycle that only allows white college graduate males from affluent backgrounds to become rich (with some outliers). Like I said earlier, money = power, and the rich people in power are usually the ones that lobby against reducing the effects of climate change, that lobby against public education, and that lobby against fair and affordable health care. By redistributing that wealth, we take away the power of the few wealthy bureaucrats and give that power to the people, the ones who actually need it.

When you redistribute that wealth, opportunities open up. It becomes easier to afford housing, which in turn makes it easier to hold onto a job which in turn makes it easier to go to college which in turn gives you more opportunities to support an affluent lifestyle. If everyone has the opportunity to become affluent instead of just white college graduate males from affluent families, then the lower class shrinks, and the upper-middle-class becomes more diverse and therefore we get more diverse people in power, making our government more democratic because the people in power cater to more demographics than just white college graduate males from affluent families.

Redistribution of wealth is not and will never be about simply "taking away money from rich people", it's about providing the means of success to people who aren't predisposed to wealth, to people who aren't white males from affluent families.

Now I'm not saying it's bad to be a white male from a wealthy family, but it is a bad thing that the vast majority of rich people reflect these attributes because that shows a clear socioeconomic bias towards these people, which is undemocratic.

Success is not democratic, nor should it be. Your fixation on race and sex is rather odd. I find it interesting that the people who claim to be against racism and sexism sure focus on sex and race a lot - me, I prefer a society based on merit.

 

[Seliph]

Success is not democratic, nor should it be. Your fixation on race and sex to be rather odd. I find it interesting that the people who claim to be against racism and sexism sure focus on sex and race a lot - me, I prefer a society based on merit.

Too bad we don't live in a society based on merit as I established. It sure is interesting that I, (a person who is against racism and sexism) am interested in the welfare of those who are most affected economically and socially by issues such as racism and sexism (as well as classism).

I explained that (at least in America) we don't live in a merit-based society because the ones in power are the ones with money, and the ones with money are only able to obtain that money because the ones in power have a bias towards them. A bias that is typically racially, sexually, economically, and, most of all, politically motivated. This is obvious if you look at the demographics of most affluent people.

Thank you for pointing out that I see racism and sexism as a big issue.

Also by saying that "Success is not democratic, nor should it be" are you positing that democracy is bad? To be clear, I am not saying that you DO in fact believe that democracy is bad, I simply ask for clarification on that statement.

Also the statement "Success is not democratic" is in direct contradiction to your statement "I prefer a society based on merit". So uh... oops?

 

[Foxi4]

Too bad we don't live in a society based on merit as I established. It sure is interesting that I, (a person who is against racism and sexism) am interested in the welfare of those who are most affected economically and socially by issues such as racism and sexism (as well as classism).

I explained that (at least in America) we don't live in a merit-based society because the ones in power are the ones with money, and the ones with money are only able to obtain that money because the ones in power have a bias towards them. A bias that is typically racially, sexually, economically, and, most of all, politically motivated. This is obvious if you look at the demographics of most affluent people.

Thank you for pointing out that I see racism and sexism as a big issue.

Also by saying that "Success is not democratic, nor should it be" are you positing that democracy is bad? To be clear, I am not saying that you DO in fact believe that democracy is bad, I simply ask for clarification on that statement.

Democracy is the best bad system of government we've come up with do far - it's tyranny of the stupid, but there is no better alternative, so it will do for our purposes. Success is not democratic - it is elective. You have to choose to put yourself forward first, take risks which either pay off or they don't, depending on a combination of skill, effort and a great degree of luck. This may involve a bank loan - success is not based on safety, it's based on risk. There is a *democratic component* to success, and that component is the open market. Your customers have to choose between what you're offering and what the competition offers, and make a valued judgement on which product or service they choose to buy. The same translates to employers - you have to sell yourself to them as well, it's a contract in which you sell your time and expertise for money. Overall though success is not up to a vote, it's up to whether you have initiative or not.

You have an incorrect perception of equality wherein giving people who are poor free money will make them successful - it will not. Poor people overwhelmingly stay poor even when they're temporarily rich because they have a mindset that inevitably leads to failure - we know this because, statistically, 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt within the first couple of years after winning ludicrous amounts of money. They don't know how to invest, they don't take good financial advice, they don't save for a rainy day and blast through millions of dollars.

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2016/01/why_do_70_percent_of_lottery_w.html

I have a feeling that the remaining 30% consists of sensible people who are successful in their own right, but overall poor people stay poor unless you lift them out of poverty, and the only way to lift them out of poverty is enabling them to climb out of it one dollar at a time in a healthy economy unencumbered by excessive taxation.

 

[Waygeek]

The idea that the majority of America's youth are extremists is itself an extremist position to take.

Narrator: "It wasn't."

Not to mention the joy you seem to find in medical emergencies befalling those who are politically opposed to you.

Love it when extremists put words in my mouth. I don't give a crap about him either way.

establishment neoliberals

The cringe of listening to extremists. They have a label for fucking everything.

 

[Seliph]

Democracy is the best bad system of government we've come up with do far - it's tyranny of the stupid, but there is no better alternative, so it will do for our purposes. Success is not democratic - it is elective. You have to choose to put yourself forward first, take risks which either pay off or they don't, depending on a combination of skill, effort and a great degree of luck. This may involve a bank loan - success is not based on safety, it's based on risk. There is a democratic component to success, and that component is the open market. Your customers have to choose between what you're offering and what the competition offers, and make a valued judgement on which product or service they choose to buy. The same translates to employers - you have to sell yourself to them as well, it's a contract in which you sell your time and expertise for money. You have an incorrect perception of equality wherein giving people who are poor free money will make them successful - it will not. Poor people overwhelmingly stay poor even when they're temporarily rich because they have a mindset that inevitably leads to failure - we know this because, statistically, 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt within the first couple of years after winning ludicrous amounts of money. They don't know how to invest, they don't take good financial advice, they don't save for a rainy day and blast through millions of dollars.

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2016/01/why_do_70_percent_of_lottery_w.html

I have a feeling that the remaining 30% consists of sensible people who are successful in their own right, but overall poor people stay poor unless you lift them out of poverty, and the only way to lift them out of poverty is enabling them to climb out of it one dollar at a time in a healthy economy unencumbered by excessive taxation.

Stop saying I'm talking about giving people who are poor "free" money. I have established multiple times that I am not. I am not saying we should be giving people money, and I'm not saying that we should be taking that money from rich people.

I am saying that we direct the funds of rich people towards services that provide poor people venues for success. By taxing the rich more and stopping needless expenditure (specifically on the military) we direct those funds towards services such as affordable housing, universal health care, equal access education, etc. This provides these services to poor people who otherwise would not have access to them. This very clearly is not "giving people who are poor free money", obviously that is an inane idea. This is simply giving them access to the same services that give white college graduate males from affluent families (which will now be abbreviated as privileged persons) success. This is equal opportunity.

A person's success should not be dictated by their privilege, but it is. And until we are able to provide everyone with the services that privileged persons have access too, we will never have a truly democratic, meritocratic or egalitarian society.

 

[Foxi4]

Stop saying I'm talking about giving people who are poor "free" money. I have established multiple times that I am not. I am not saying we should be giving people money, and I'm not saying that we should be taking that money from rich people.

I am saying that we direct the funds of rich people towards services that provide poor people venues for success. By taxing the rich more and stopping needless expenditure (specifically on the military) we direct those funds towards services such as affordable housing, universal health care, equal access education, etc. This provides these services to poor people who otherwise would not have access to them. This very clearly is not "giving people who are poor free money", obviously that is an inane idea. This is simply giving them access to the same services that give white college graduate males from affluent families (which will now be abbreviated as privileged persons) success. This is equal opportunity.

A person's success should not be dictated by their privilege, but it is. And until we are able to provide everyone with the services that privileged persons have access too, we will never have a truly democratic, meritocratic or egalitarian society.

Ah, so it's not free money on a check, rather it's free money through a variety of inefficient government institutions, now I understand.

Obviously I'm caricaturising your stance a little bit here, but that's only because it's funny to me. The cost of additional taxation is just passed on to the consumers - if a company that sells 100 coffee mugs for $1 each gets taxed an additional 10% on those sales, they'll just price the cups at $1.10 to cover the difference, they're still making $100 because, presumably, that's the amount required to cover the cost of manufacturing and have some remaining profit margin. The consumer won't mind since it's just 10 cents, but on aggregate the price hike just funded the additional sales tax. Of course that means this 10 cents from consumers goes through an inefficient machine consisting of government pencil pushers, so you end up with 5 cents when all is said and done.

Now, I too believe that some services are essential, but make no mistake, we have a very different idea on what is and is not essential. Contrary to what you believe, you haven't "demonstrated" anything, you just said "this is how things are" and supported it with nothing but personal beliefs.

We should probably get back to Sanders and his campaign though, this isn't really an Economy 101 thread, we're straying off topic.

 

[Seliph]

if a company that sells 100 coffee mugs for $1 each gets taxed an additional 10% on those sales, they'll just price the cups at $1.10 to cover the difference. The consumer won't mind since it's just 10 cents, but on aggregate the price hike just funded the additional sales tax. Of course that means this 10 cents from consumers goes through an inefficient machine consisting of government pencil pushers, so you end up with 5 cents when all is said and done.

Which is why we tighter regulate companies so they can't do that. I also looked at the article in your last reply and it doesn't cite any studies so I doubt its validity.

Of course, I'm supporting my statements with personal belief, that's how politics work. That doesn't invalidate my belief or the points I've made. I've supplemented reasons for why I have those beliefs. Just because I personally believe something doesn't mean my belief is not factual or not based in fact. I could have non-factual personal beliefs, absolutely, but you cannot just invalidate my argument because of my personal beliefs.

 

[Foxi4]

Which is why we tighter regulate companies so they can't do that. I also looked at the article in your last reply and it doesn't cite any studies so I doubt its validity.

Of course, I'm supporting my statements with personal belief, that's how politics work. That doesn't invalidate my belief or the points I've made. I've supplemented reasons for why I have those beliefs.

Can't do what? Set recommended retail prices for their products? Pray tell, how do you intend to enforce that? Price control is a characteristic of totalitarian governments, I hope you realise that. The government can't come into my house and tell me "you can't sell your couch on Craigslist for $100, you're going to sell it for $50 because that's our evaluation", I'm just not going to sell my couch at a loss and I'm pulling it off sale immediately. There are some regulations regarding *price gouging*, but that's a different story altogether, those are mostly effective in states of emergency, not everyday business.

As for your beliefs, they're inconsequential in a debate - I can believe in flying intergalactic hamsters, that doesn't make them real. This is a problem with a lot of Sanders' proposals and a lot of the demands of his fan base, and it is a fan base, not a political movement - they're not grounded in reality. These are things that you wish were real, but aren't, not even in the "European social-democies" you guys seem to love so much.

If I want to sell something that I own, *the market* will decide how much it's worth, not me, not you and not the government. I can advertise it at a price that I think is fair and customers will either buy it or they won't at that price point. There is a ceiling of price at which the customers will no longer buy the product because they will perceive it as overpriced, there is also a price floor at which the sales barely cover the cost of putting the product out there. You can't *force* me to sell products at prices lower than what it costs me to make them - that'd be indentured servitude, or slavery. In fact, I *have* to make a profit in order to operate, expand and, well, eat. If you artificially decrease my prices, I'm just going to go out of business and you're going to drink your coffee not out of a mug, but out of the jar it came in.

 

[Seliph]

Can't do what? Set recommended retail prices for their products? Pray tell, how do you intend to enforce that? Price control is a characteristic of totalitarian governments, I hope you realise that. The government can't come into my house and tell me "you can't sell your couch on Craigslist for $100, you're going to sell it for $50 because that's our evaluation", I'm just not going to sell my couch at a loss and I'm pulling it off sale immediately. There are some regulations regarding *price gouging*, but that's a different story altogether, those are mostly effective in states of emergency, not everyday business.

As for your beliefs, they're inconsequential in a debate - I can believe in flying intergalactic hamsters, that doesn't make them real. This is a problem with a lot of Sanders' proposals and a lot of the demands of his fan base, and it is a fan base, not a political movement - they're not grounded in reality. These are things that you wish were real, but aren't, not even in the "European social-democies" you guys seem to love so much.

If I want to sell something that I own, *the market* will decide how much it's worth, not me, not you and not the government. I can advertise it at a price that I think is fair and customers will either buy it or they won't at that price point. There is a ceiling of price at which the customers will no longer buy the product because they will perceive it as overpriced, there is also a price bottom at which the sales barely cover the cost of putting the product out there. You can't *force* me to sell products at prices lower than what it costs me to make them - that'd be indentured servitude, or slavery. In fact, I *have* to make a profit in order to operate, expand and, well, eat. If you artificially decrease my prices, I'm just going to go out of business and you're going to drink your coffee not out of a mug, but out of the jar it came in.

Regarding beliefs, I elaborated on that point in an edit. You automatically assume that personal beliefs can't be factual, which is a fallacy. By that logic, I can say that your argument of "forcing someone to sell products at prices lower than what it costs you to make them is indentured servitude" is entirely invalid simply because you believe it, even though it may very well be absolutely correct.

You are correct that price control is totalitarian, I don't advocate for that. My statement was vague so I'll elaborate. I'm not saying we increase the sales tax on products because obviously that can easily lead to companies simply inflating the prices of their goods, but we should be increasing the income taxes on the CEOs and higher-ups in these businesses. This way, even if sales taxes are raised, these people within the companies are taxed proportionally to the wealth they generate.

So yes, companies can price their goods however they like, and people can buy the company's goods however they like. That makes sense. I just think that it ALSO makes sense to tax the higher-ups within these companies proportional to their incomes.

 

[Xzi]

Love it when extremists put words in my mouth. I don't give a crap about him either way.

You repeated the "heart exploding" line of attack for like four posts in a row, dude. Bold of you to believe you can get away with the Trumpian tactic of "I didn't say what you just heard me say."

The cringe of listening to extremists. They have a label for fucking everything.

Such a lack of self-awareness borders on parody. Are you a writer for The Onion?

 

[Foxi4]

Regarding beliefs, I elaborated on that point in an edit. You automatically assume that personal beliefs can't be factual, which is a fallacy. By that logic, I can say that your argument of "forcing someone to sell products at prices lower than what it costs you to make them is indentured servitude" is entirely invalid simply because you believe it, even though it may very well be absolutely correct.

You are correct that price control is totalitarian, I don't advocate for that. My statement was vague so I'll elaborate. I'm not saying we increase the sales tax on products because obviously that can easily lead to companies simply inflating the prices of their goods, but we should be increasing the income taxes on the CEOs and higher-ups in these businesses. This way, even if sales taxes are raised, these people within the companies are taxed proportionally to the wealth they generate.

So yes, companies can price their goods however they like, and people can buy the company's goods however they like. That makes sense. I just think that it ALSO makes sense to tax the higher-ups within these companies proportional to their incomes.

See, you just removed the problem and put it few step higher up the chain. You didn't resolve it, you just hid it under the carpet. Instead of taxing the company directly, you taxed the CEO, who in turn will simply take out larger dividends/increase their paycheck, which will decrease the company's operating budget, so they will have to increase the profit margin via either a price adjustment or a decrease in quality. The same thing happens, you just made the cause removed from the result by a couple of stages.

I don't know what you mean by "taxing CEO's proportionately", that doesn't mean anything. Proportionate taxation would be a flat tax, everyone regardless of income paying X% of what they make - that's a "fair share". I think you will find that this approach would have the opposite effect to what you intended - as it stands, the top 50% of society accounts for a *staggering* 97% of all income tax revenue. Out of those 50%, the top 1% pays 37.3% of the total, which is *more* than the bottom 90% *combined*. In all factuality, if the bottom 50% of taxpayers just *didn't* pay income tax *at all* and the IRS coasted exclusively on the top 50%'s contributions, tax revenues wouldn't even notice the dent. Food for thought.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

I'm not saying that everything you believe is crazy, what I am saying is that the way you're trying to achieve your goals is destined to fail, and has failed repeatedly, for very predictable reasons. With that said, you're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe - beliefs are faith-based, not fact-based. Me, I just look at the numbers.

 

[Seliph]

See, you just removed the problem and put it few step higher up the chain. You didn't resolve it, you just hid it under the carpet. Instead of taxing the company directly, you taxed the CEO, who in turn will simply take out larger dividends/increase their paycheck, which will decrease the company's operating budget, so they will have to increase the profit margin via either a price adjustment or a decrease in quality. The same thing happens, you just made the cause removed from the result by a couple of stages.

I don't know what you mean by "taxing CEO's proportionately", that doesn't mean anything. Proportionate taxation would be a flat tax, everyone regardless of income paying X% of what they make - that's a "fair share". I think you will find that this approach would have the opposite effect to what you intended - as it stands, the top 50% of society accounts for a *staggering* 97% of all income tax revenue. Out of those 50%, the top 1% pays 37.3% of the total, which is *more* than the bottom 90% *combined*. In all factuality, if the bottom 50% of taxpayers just *didn't* pay income tax *at all* and the IRS coasted exclusively on the top 50%'s contributions, tax revenues wouldn't even notice the dent. Food for thought.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

I'm not saying that everything you believe is crazy, what I am saying is that the way you're trying to achieve your goals is destined to fail, and has failed repeatedly, for very predictable reasons. With that said, you're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe - beliefs are faith-based, not fact-based. Me, I just look at the numbers.

Right, I meant to say tax based on the wealth they generate, not proportionate. That's my bad.

Also, the study you cited was created by Tax Foundation, which is a conservative think tank so of course, their results are going to be biased. I won't ignore your numbers if you can find me a non-partisan source that can corroborate them, but as it stands, I don't trust them.

 

[Foxi4]

Right, I meant to say tax based on the wealth they generate, not proportionate. That's my bad.

Also, the study you cited was created by Tax Foundation, which is a conservative think tank so of course, their results are going to be biased. I won't ignore your numbers if you can find me a non-partisan source that can corroborate them, but as it stands, I don't trust them.

It's an analysis of the official IRS report for 2016, if you want to slog through a wall of text, you can just click the source link - it's right there, in the very first paragraph.

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-rates-and-tax-shares

"I don't like your source" is a losing argument, a number isn't biased, it either supports or debunks your theory. The wealthy cover the *overwhelming* majority of the income tax revenue because in order for your income tax contribution to be meaningful you need to first have meaningful income. This isn't a big mystery that we've uncovered here.

 

[Waygeek]

You repeated the "heart exploding" line of attack for like four posts in a row, dude. Bold of you to believe you can get away with the Trumpian tactic of "I didn't say what you just heard me say."

The point is you DIDN'T hear me say it made me happy, because I don't care, extremist, you are reframing so you can virtue signal.

You are an extremist and I'm glad extremists like you are salty.

Look at the propaganda you spread lol

https://gbatemp.net/threads/bernie-...th-his-fox-news-town-hall-performance.536516/

Such a lack of self-awareness borders on parody.

Yeah you're clearly not smart enough to follow... my argument is not 'take away all proper nouns'. It's that everything that doesn't fall in line with your extremism gets a cringey nonsensical term from you lot while you're frothing at the mouths.

 

[Xzi]

Look at the propaganda you spread lol

https://gbatemp.net/threads/bernie-...th-his-fox-news-town-hall-performance.536516/

From my OP there:

Feel free to use this thread to discuss your preferred 2020 candidate(s) and debate their policy platforms as well.

If that's the type of rhetoric you consider "extremist," then what exactly qualifies as being moderate in your mind? When everything is extremism, then nothing is.

 

[Waygeek]

From my OP there:

Literally does not change your propaganda spreading.

And no, your hostile and toxic posting style while reframing the work of other candidates like Warren, while pushing a realistically terrible candidate make you an extremist.

 

[Foxi4]

@Waygeek @Xzi Okay boys, that's enough. You've had your time to get personal, but enough is enough. If you want to prod at each other some more, take it to PM's, or preferably knock it off. You both think you're toxic, we get it.