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

[DivineMind]

I agree with that part. But in this like with sjw, he will over shoot and cause far more harm than he ever intended. Dude has two good ideas and a lot of bad ones. Basically as stocks go, his up side is capped. While his down wide is infinite

I'm glad you agree!

The down side is capped too because of checks and balances...

Congress still has very strong neocon elements, and the Court is relatively conservative.

People forget that the presidency doesn't change much. A president is only in charge of foreign policy, the bureaucracy, and has the final say in enacting law. He can't pass legislation. People thought the election of Bush, Obama, and/or Trump would be the end of the world. In reality, you just get a 'nudge' in a certain direction.

After very many 'nudges' towards corporatism, it's about time for a 'nudge' back towards the well-being of regular people.

 

[Blake_UK]

@AlexDB9
If you're being intellectually honest, you should try to confront the opponent's strongest version of his argument, not contrive the weakest form and attack that.

You know what I'm getting at. And you're confusing free enterprise, capitalism, and being in the capitalist class.

Taking out debt to make a profit doesn't all of a sudden put you in the capitalist class. Then any schmuck with 0 savings could convince a bank to give him a series of mortgages, and boom, capitalist. That's not how it works.

The business eventually has to be profitable, and the profit has to exceed the value of the loan, and eventually exceed $2.5 M. Come on man, you know what I'm talking about.

If you're being intellectually honest, you should try to confront the opponent's strongest version of his argument, not contrive the weakest form and attack that

I didn't contrive anything; I answered the point as it was made and was merely pointing out that the OP's main argument is incorrect (and frankly bizarre).

And you're confusing free enterprise, capitalism, and being in the capitalist class.

It is the OP that is confused. The lending of capital to facilitate private enterprise and create further wealth is the definition of capitalism - the size of the loan/business involved doesn't change that. The "capitalist class" is an antiquated concept with no real bearing on the reality of modern society due to the reasons I previously outlined. The level of inequality and the unjust nature of certain aspects of the system would be better described as crony capitalism. The argument therefore is for reform of an otherwise very successful framework for society - not for a complete change to one that has failed time and time again. That needs to be done in a targeted and smart manner - simply taxing profits will not only negatively affect the wider economy but also the millions of ordinary citizens who are stakeholders in the system.

The business eventually has to be profitable, and the profit has to exceed the value of the loan, and eventually exceed $2.5 M

Which is capitalism in a nutshell. Socialism doesn't believe in the principal of individual profit. If you take out a loan in the hope of returning a net profit but your business fails it doesn't make you a hypothetical "worker" it makes you a failed capitalist. For example Corbyn had the idea here to requisition certain publicly listed companies in key industries (thus killing their share value) - forgetting the fact that the biggest investors in said companies were pension funds followed by small investors. So the real losers were not the CEOs (who would walk away rich) nor the lenders (who would be paid back) but the ordinary citizens whose pensions/share value would crash.

Come on man, you know what I'm talking about.

Not really. I think you are confusing being (super) rich with being a capitalist. Moreover you are making a reductive argument by ignoring the myriad different situations that your incorrectly lumped together hypothetical "worker" class face.
The changes in tax/regulations/rights that would benefit a salaried professional will be markedly different from those that would benefit a small business owner, self employed tradesman or landlord; even if they make the same money annually. To lump them together is bogus and to expect them to vote for the same candidate against some hypothetical class enemy is naive.

That is why the voter base for the democrats has shifted from blue collar workers to the middle classes (as has happened to many centre left parties across the west). The days of mass labour movements are long gone.

 

[DivineMind]

I didn't contrive anything; I answered the point as it was made and was merely pointing out that the OP's main argument is incorrect (and frankly bizarre).



It is the OP that is confused. The lending of capital to facilitate private enterprise and create further wealth is the definition of capitalism - the size of the loan/business involved doesn't change that. The "capitalist class" is an antiquated concept with no real bearing on the reality of modern society due to the reasons I previously outlined. The level of inequality and the unjust nature of certain aspects of the system would be better described as crony capitalism. The argument therefore is for reform of an otherwise very successful framework for society - not for a complete change to one that has failed time and time again. That needs to be done in a targeted and smart manner - simply taxing profits will not only negatively affect the wider economy but also the millions of ordinary citizens who are stakeholders in the system.



Which is capitalism in a nutshell. Socialism doesn't believe in the principal of individual profit. If you take out a loan in the hope of returning a net profit but your business fails it doesn't make you a hypothetical "worker" it makes you a failed capitalist. For example Corbyn had the idea here to requisition certain publicly listed companies in key industries (thus killing their share value) - forgetting the fact that the biggest investors in said companies were pension funds followed by small investors. So the real losers were not the CEOs (who would walk away rich) nor the lenders (who would be paid back) but the ordinary citizens whose pensions/share value would crash.


Not really. I think you are confusing being (super) rich with being a capitalist. Moreover you are making a reductive argument by ignoring the myriad different situations that your incorrectly lumped together hypothetical "worker" class face.
The changes in tax/regulations/rights that would benefit a salaried professional will be markedly different from those that would benefit a small business owner, self employed tradesman or landlord; even if they make the same money annually. To lump them together is bogus and to expect them to vote for the same candidate against some hypothetical class enemy is naive.

That is why the voter base for the democrats has shifted from blue collar workers to the middle classes (as has happened to many centre left parties across the west). The days of mass labour movements are long gone.

Skimming this, by your reasoning, everyone is in the capitalist class.

Clearly, that's not how I'm using it.

I have stipulated multiple times that a person who can live off of a significant accumulation of "capital" (which is unencumbered, liquid money that can be invested) is a capitalist.

You seem to be wanting to say that anyone who engages in our system of capitalism and/or free enterprise is a capitalist. Fair enough, but I'm using it differently.

Don't know what you're in a huff about.

 

[Fedorable]

done.

 

[DivineMind]

@Blake_UK

And I didn't engage with the rest of your points because you seem to be throwing a lot of unrelated stuff out there and arguing semantics. Debating how "right" you think you are is not the point of this thread.

I will say that yes, I do strongly believe that the worker, the professional, and the tradesman have a hell of a lot more in common with eachother than they do with a rich capitalist.

And the declining "middle class" is precisely the reason why. One look at the income distribution and you'd see this.

 

[DivineMind]

done.

SAWEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTT! Well done!

 

[franklinstower]

I have and will again. This is the ONLY candidate who has ever gotten a penny out of me.
I am ALL in on the Bernie train.

 

[franklinstower]

I am going to laugh so loud when Bernie is up on that podium telling his followers to support Biden.

The amount of Bernie followers who are going to lose their mind is going to be glorious.

Everyone I know will vote BIden if Bernie does not get the nomination because Trump is a giant golden turd.

 

[DivineMind]

I have and will again. This is the ONLY candidate who has ever gotten a penny out of me.
I am ALL in on the Bernie train.

 

[Shinigami]

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

he is a real commie and a cuck not a fake one

 

[ElKarlo]

You voting 3rd party?

Because if your choice is Bernie and the threat of his unintended consequences, or Trump and the threat of his unintended consequences, isn't that a easy choice?

I've voted for the libertarian for a couple times now. I want a third party that gets 5% of the vote so they can be in the debates. Still we've seen what Trump does. I am much more ok with what he does, especially his not actually going to war than what many have done. Bernie will ruin much more than he'll fix

 

[AlexDB9]

done.

Are we all going to post this to fuck with TS?

he is a real commie and a cuck not a fake one

I don’t say that word often but I would reserve “cuck” for people who actually gave him their money haha

 

[DivineMind]

Are we all going to post this to fuck with TS?



I don’t say that word often but I would reserve “cuck” for people who actually gave him their money haha

Poor schmucks like you have the most reason to be voting for Bernie, ultimately you end up being side-tracked by some anti-SJW issue and vote against your own self-interest.

 

[Richie Madano]

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!

Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll take another Trump term.

 

[JimmyFresno]

Fuck that. No more life-long politicians who haven't worked a day in their lives.

No more fuckin boomers. They had their chance, already. Get the fuck out of the way.

I'd sooner vote Cardi B 2020, than another dried up, crusty old turd, like Sanders.

 

[ElKarlo]

I'm glad you agree!

The down side is capped too because of checks and balances...

Congress still has very strong neocon elements, and the Court is relatively conservative.

People forget that the presidency doesn't change much. A president is only in charge of foreign policy, the bureaucracy, and has the final say in enacting law. He can't pass legislation. People thought the election of Bush, Obama, and/or Trump would be the end of the world. In reality, you just get a 'nudge' in a certain direction.

After very many 'nudges' towards corporatism, it's about time for a 'nudge' back towards the well-being of regular people.

I do like the checks and balances. Which really has allowed the US to avoid a full on crash of confidence.
That said, the president usually gets Congress as well. Which would allow him to push through a lot of regulations that would be harmful and only mildly helpful.

 

[nostradumbass]

I've been waiting for a candidate offering to double my taxes for shit that doesn't apply to me and for shittier versions of things I already have.

 

[AndroidRage]

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

You should try reading your own posts sometime Susan.

 

[Holic]

 

[Blake_UK]

Skimming this, by your reasoning, everyone is in the capitalist class.

Clearly, that's not how I'm using it.

I have stipulated multiple times that a person who can live off of a significant accumulation of "capital" (which is unencumbered, liquid money that can be invested) is a capitalist.

You seem to be wanting to say that anyone who engages in our system of capitalism and/or free enterprise is a capitalist. Fair enough, but I'm using it differently.

Don't know what you're in a huff about.

Your usage of "capitalist" is both arbitrary and incorrect; you can't just claim to be using it "differently". Speak to any political theorist and they will tell you the same.

You are conflating (very) rich with capitalist. That is a mistake, and frankly one which many on the left deliberately push in order to convince ordinary citizens invested in the system that the system is stacked against them and that giving yet more power to the state (and the largely privileged types who run said state) will somehow benefit them.

As you have already conceded problems like unfair lobbying, corruption, corporate malfeasance and anti-competitive business practices are not a left-right issue. Just be honest with what your aims are instead of proffering a bullshit argument that peeps running their own businesses earning hundreds of thousands a year are somehow "workers".

I do strongly believe that the worker, the professional, and the tradesman have a hell of a lot more in common with each other than they do with a rich capitalist.

Your belief doesn't make it so - and the rejection of said fatuous notion has occurred numerous times across the west. Take Labour here in the UK - they had a flagship tax reform policy that they claimed would result in anyone earning over £80k (as direct income) paying more tax, but that anyone earning under wouldn't be affected.
Even if you take that as true (which I and the and majority of people don't) what they deliberately downplayed was that this didn't apply to the self employed or business owners: all of whom would lose certain tax deductions and breaks. So myself as a small business owner (who employs others and contributes both to the general economy through service usage and to the taxman through VAT/employers NI/corporate taxes etc) would pay far more than someone who is salaried but makes a similar amount annually, despite the fact that I take far greater risks and contribute far more to the wider economy. So my best interests in terms of tax and regulation align more with other business owners (regardless of size) than with salaried employees.