Time to put your money where you mouth is and donate to Bernie

[DivineMind]

Our current system is definitely flawed. But Bernie would just add nonsense to it and make it worse for everyone. Some simpler fixes are needed. Like the ceo of GE or Boeing walking away with tens or hundreds of millions despite damaging their companies. They should get nothing. Holding people and companies responsible would go a long way in fixing what is wrong.
Bernie thoguh honest, I don't feel he has any real answers that would work in the USA

I understand that you believe the problem is complicated.

One of the real problems in this country is that the politicians aren't actually interested in finding real solutions.

Bernie is credible and actually has the will to change things, unlike Obama, Hillary, or Trump.

He seems like he's too simple in his message, but that's exactly why he's been so popular. You need simple messaging in a campaign.

We have to put someone in office who cares first. In the short-term, he'll put more money in our (workers) pockets. In the long term, he'd be many times more thoughtful than anyone else in finding good solutions.

Bernie baby!

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

A) Free market is an illusion that has never existed in the history of the planet. That's not what Republicans are actually promoting. Free-marketeers would have let the banks fail in 2008. We don't live in a world where Republicans are actually in favor of a free market. So the dichotomy is not centrally managed economy vs. free market, it's a socialist leaning system of capitalism vs. a corporatist-leaning system of capitalism.

B) The state is growing regardless of party, in case you haven't been paying attention. The only difference is that Republicans are cutting benefits that are going to you.

C) Agreed on the first part, but less regulation isn't the problem. You just need to regulate the big corporations more heavily than the small businesses - Bernie is your man for that.

D) It's a literal fact. If you don't make money with money, you aren't part of the 0.1%. You are working for a paycheck. The real con is convincing people that make over $100 k a year that they AREN'T workers.

E) HELL YEA BABY!

If a person earning over a 100k and isn't making investments then they're idiots

 

[DivineMind]

If a person earning over a 100k and isn't making investments then they're idiots

They can't LIVE off of their investments, my man. They're not capitalists. They have to work.

People in this category are so friggin overconfident when things are going well for them. But all it takes is one bad downturn and they're panicking. If only they had the sense to realize sometimes you need a little insurance when things go bad.

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

They can't LIVE off of their investments, my man. They're not capitalists. They have to work.

Got to start somewhere. I know plenty of people, myself included who have plans to retire early and live off their investments. Just because you're a worker now is no reason to give up on bettering yourself

 

[Deleted member 263856]

Giving money to any candidate let alone a fake communist with a summer home....with heart problems...who was kicked out of a hippy commune for being too lazy...who will get passed up again by the more viable candidate..craziest thing I’ve read on the dog today and that’s saying something

Nail on the head. OP would be better off donating to a local charity if he actually wanted to make a difference.

 

[DivineMind]

Why no love for Yang?

He has decent ideas, but a good candidate is not just about ideas. There needs to be a genuine will to fight for average, everyday people.

I see him more as a policy wonk who correctly anticipates a need to address automation, but he doesn't have much depth beyond that. He'd make a good vice president, as would Tulsi.

 

[DivineMind]

Got to start somewhere. I know plenty of people, myself included who have plans to retire early and live off their investments. Just because you're a worker now is no reason to give up on bettering yourself

You have plans to retire early. What if there's another 2008 - would that put a damper in those plans? Even if you save 1 million, the returns would be quite meager to live off of ~ $100 k on a good year. Not exactly a member of the capitalist class.

And the percentage of people who could save that much in this current economic climate is quite small.

Everyone would be far better off with a strong social safety net.

Which is where Bernie comes in !!!

 

[Gunny]

He has decent ideas, but a good candidate is not just about ideas. There needs to be a genuine will to fight for average, everyday people.

I see him more as a policy wonk who correctly anticipates a need to address automation, but he doesn't have much depth beyond that. He'd make a good vice president.

TBH you may like Bernie’s “fight” but I honestly think Yang would be more successful in cultivating bi-partisan support and enacting at least some of his policies.

 

[DivineMind]

TBH you may like Bernie’s “fight” but I honestly think Yang would be more successful in cultivating bi-partisan support and enacting at least some of his policies.

If we're talking about likelihood of actually enacting these policies, Yang has no shot at it, because while he puts up respectable numbers he's nowhere near the top three in the primary. Especially with people like Bloomberg and Steyer (people who are somewhat similar to Yang) spending tons of money.

Bernie's policies are actually not radical at all, with some tuning to his messaging he can get a lot done.

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

You have plans to retire early. What if there's another 2008 - would that put a damper in those plans? Even if you save 1 million, the returns would be quite meager to live off of ~ $100 k on a good year. Not exactly a member of the capitalist class.

And the percentage of people who could save that much in this current economic climate is quite small.

Everyone would be far better off with a strong social safety net.

Which is where Bernie comes in !!!

If 2008 happens again I put as much cash into the stock market as I can and make a killing.

You don't save your way to a million. No one ever gets rich by saving

 

[DivineMind]

If 2008 happens again I put as much cash into the stock market as I can and make a killing.

You don't save your way to a million. No one ever gets rich by saving

Bro, your entire plan hinges on speculation in financial markets... don't you see the folly in that?

After 2008, I saw articles where former traders making over $1 M a year were in despair because they lost their jobs and couldn't find new work, and they actually hadn't managed to save much. They probably would have felt much better knowing there was a stronger social safety net in place.

Anyway, Bernie's plan is not to dog people like you. It's to tax the uber-rich so they stop unfairly influencing our political system, and to give us workers better benefits. We live in a corporatist oligarchy at the moment, and with automation the good jobs are going to be harder to come by, so we need a guy like Bernie to take the edge off of a stronger corporate elite class.

 

[Goatenstein]

You want my vote? Legalize marijuana federally and bring back atmospheric nuclear testing or just nuke some enemies.

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

Bro, your entire plan hinges on speculation in financial markets... don't you see the folly in that?

After 2008, I saw articles where former traders making over $1 M a year were in despair because they lost their jobs and couldn't find new work, and they actually hadn't managed to save much. They probably would have felt much better knowing there was a stronger social safety net in place.

Anyway, Bernie's plan is not to dog people like you. It's to tax the uber-rich so they stop unfairly influencing our political system, and to give us workers better benefits. We live in a corporatist oligarchy at the moment, and with automation the good jobs are going to be harder to come by, so we need a guy like Bernie to take the edge off of a stronger corporate elite class.

My plan doesn't rely on stock markets much actually but that doesn't matter. I'm not arguing about Bernies policies just the idea that people earning large salaries are all just workers when they should be working on building their wealth. If they don't then it's their own fault.

 

[DivineMind]

My plan doesn't rely on stock markets much actually but that doesn't matter. I'm not arguing about Bernies policies just the idea that people earning large salaries are all just workers when they should be working on building their wealth. If they don't then it's their own fault.

Yea but it's better to have benefits in case you need it rather than not have them. Things can go wrong that are out of your control, like secular shifts in the economy.

Lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, etc. are not immune from these shifts.

The goal of large corporations is to increase revenue while decreasing costs, period. If they can find a way to maintain profitability without employing lots of people, they will. They are ALWAYS looking to cut people. And if the CEO doesn't do it, an activist hedge fund manager will make them do it. It will happen eventually.

The guys making the most money below senior level are ironically the most vulnerable, because their salaries are high and cutting them would save a lot of money.

 

[kpt018]

Ok folks, here's the deal... I'm about to go Kevin Lee in this B.

Either you're a capitalist, the type of person that makes most of his money investing his capital, or you're a worker. If you have greater than $2.5 million in CAPITAL to invest, then you're a capitalist (a 10% year of investment would give you $250 k, enough to live off of).

For everyone else, you're a worker! I don't care if you're making $20,000 a year or $250,000. You're a worker, you earn a paycheck, you don't live off your money.

Workers have gotten a raw deal in the last 40 years. Rising costs, stagnant wages, and declining benefits from the government. After the new Deal, workers were sitting pretty and were able to enjoy the fruits of a strong post-war economy. Slowly, those benefits have been eroded.

This isn't by accident. The business community got together and decided they would work together to take most of those benefits back. They promoted a 'trickle-down' or 'supply-side' theory of economics as an alternative, with the idea that while you personally would get less benefits, everyone would benefit from a stronger economy.

We now know that is completely false. The evidence is right there, the capitalist class made tremendous profits in the last 10 years, and the workers got shafted - inequality skyrockets.

We need to elect the one guy who's going to fix the balance of benefits between worker and capitalist - BERNIE! Not Warren, not Biden, not anyone else. BERNIE!

DONATE NOW TO HELP GIVE HIM MOMENTUM.

BERNIE SANDERS IN THIS BITCH!

Lol!

 

[Blake_UK]

A) Free market is an illusion that has never existed in the history of the planet. That's not what Republicans are actually promoting. Free-marketeers would have let the banks fail in 2008. We don't live in a world where Republicans are actually in favor of a free market. So the dichotomy is not centrally managed economy vs. free market, it's a socialist leaning system of capitalism vs. a corporatist-leaning system of capitalism.

B) The state is growing regardless of party, in case you haven't been paying attention. The only difference is that Republicans are cutting benefits that are going to you.

C) Agreed on the first part, but less regulation isn't the problem. You just need to regulate the big corporations more heavily than the small businesses - Bernie is your man for that.

D) It's a literal fact. If you don't make money with money, you aren't part of the 0.1%. You are working for a paycheck. The real con is convincing people that make over $100 k a year that they AREN'T workers.

E) HELL YEA BABY!

A) I agree. The “too big to fail” argument showed government hypocrisy; a freer market would hit big business harder. (And yes an absolute free market wouldn’t work and has never existed).
B) That doesn’t make it desirable. It’s also true that it seems to grow where it shouldn’t and doesn’t grow where it should.
C) That isn’t easy and can cause further problems; for example in France once a company has 50 employees the labour/tax rules change which hampers growth. Secondly I don’t trust any politician who denies history; any new taxes/regs on big business will inevitably end up being universal applied. The state rarely if ever gives back power.
D) What about the millions of self employed? Small business owners? Contractors/landlords/moonlighters with side hustles etc etc. It’s not the 70’s - workers vs capitalists is yesteryears over-simplification.
E) As long as the rich paternalists that infest the centre left these days don’t screw Bernie out of the nomination he has a good chance but then so does Trump for a second term.

People in general don’t trust the government and Bernie is trying to sell them more government (albeit of a different outlook). That isn’t easy.

 

[Blake_UK]

They can't LIVE off of their investments, my man. They're not capitalists. They have to work.

People in this category are so friggin overconfident when things are going well for them. But all it takes is one bad downturn and they're panicking. If only they had the sense to realize sometimes you need a little insurance when things go bad.

Which is exactly why you diversify your assets to ensure multiple income streams and not just rely on your main employment.

Property, franchises, stocks/shares, pension funds, cryptos etc etc.

These will protect your quality of life better than any possible state handout.

 

[DivineMind]

A) I agree. The “too big to fail” argument showed government hypocrisy; a freer market would hit big business harder. (And yes an absolute free market wouldn’t work and has never existed).
B) That doesn’t make it desirable. It’s also true that it seems to grow where it shouldn’t and doesn’t grow where it should.
C) That isn’t easy and can cause further problems; for example in France once a company has 50 employees the labour/tax rules change which hampers growth. Secondly I don’t trust any politician who denies history; any new taxes/regs on big business will inevitably end up being universal applied. The state rarely if ever gives back power.
D) What about the millions of self employed? Small business owners? Contractors/landlords/moonlighters with side hustles etc etc. It’s not the 70’s - workers vs capitalists is yesteryears over-simplification.
E) As long as the rich paternalists that infest the centre left these days don’t screw Bernie out of the nomination he has a good chance but then so does Trump for a second term.

People in general don’t trust the government and Bernie is trying to sell them more government (albeit of a different outlook). That isn’t easy.

On your point about small businesses- they absolutely are workers. If you're running a business based on debt, then you have to look at the value of the business minus the debt. The amount of small businesses with a net value of over $2.5 M is quite small. Apply this to any other business. If you're a landlord, if the value of your properties + cashflow from rent is not $2.5 M greater than the total value of the mortgages, I'm sorry, you're not a capitalist.

The distinction isn't working for yourself vs. for other people. It's being able to survive on investing your liquid CAPITAL (not debt), versus not being able to survive off of it and needing to work. All those guys you mentioned are workers.

The "deep state" and waste/corruption/bloat problem is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. Both parties are guilty.

The solution is to get a man of integrity in there. Someone who has displayed consistency and moral integrity. Not showmen like Trump or Obama. Not neocons like Hillary, or billionaires like Bloomberg.

BERNIE!

 

[Seano]

I like having money, so I will not be contributing to a guy promising to take it from me to give poor people free stuff.

 

[Blake_UK]

On your point about small businesses- they absolutely are workers. If you're running a business based on debt, then you have to look at the value of the business minus the debt. The amount of small businesses with a net value of over $2.5 M is quite small. Apply this to any other business. If you're a landlord, if the value of your properties + cashflow from rent is not $2.5 M greater than the total value of the mortgages, I'm sorry, you're not a capitalist.

The distinction isn't working for yourself vs. for other people. It's being able to survive on investing your liquid CAPITAL (not debt), versus not being able to survive off of it and needing to work. All those guys you mentioned are workers.

The "deep state" and waste/corruption/bloat problem is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. Both parties are guilty.

The solution is to get a man of integrity in there. Someone who has displayed consistency and moral integrity. Not showmen like Trump or Obama. Not neocons like Hillary, or billionaires like Bloomberg.

BERNIE!

“If you're running a business based on debt, then you have to look at the value of the business minus the debt”

What? Are you claiming that if you borrow capital (at interest) in order to invest it to make a profit you are not a capitalist?! Seriously?

Entrepreneurship is the definition of capitalism; the very reason why the old worker/bosses paradigm is no longer relevant is that so many ordinary people are now stakeholders in the capitalist system. Anyone who owns a small business, any landlord, anyone with a pension investment, even any mortgage holder who bought in order to level up is a capitalist. All these people rely on the liquidity of capital and continuous economic growth/currency inflation.

Being rich and being a capitalist are not the same thing.