"Billinaires shouldn't exist." Do you agree with Bernie? (1 Viewer)

[Surrealistik]

No. The President's power comes to him or her from the Electoral College, which derives from the States, which in turn, to varying degrees, derives from a relatively small minority made up of a sought majority of the people who both had the ability to vote and showed up to do so. Those people get one choice, once, every four years. They don't get to split their vote along the lines of "Yes to his domestic policy, but no to Good foreign policy" or "Yes to his expansion of education vouchers, but no to reducing future Medicare expenditures". One choice, one time, four years, by a relatively small portion of the populace to inform and guide what the States Electors do.

The market, on the other hand, is immediate feedback, by all interested parties, on a daily basis, and at the level of individual items (yes to the Coke Zero, no to the New Coke). It is the most Democratic institution we have, and you succeed in it only to the extent that others believe you serve them well. Politicians, in contrast, generally succeed to the extent that they can terrify Americans about the Evils of other Americans. I'll rate the responsive servant who I can easily replace model over the Fearmongering autocrat whom I can't.



If money was enough to win an election, Hillary would be President. The Democratic Primary front runners would be Steyer and Bloomberg, not Bernie and Biden.

And if your complaint is that Senators can be unresponsive to the people... Well, that sounds quite a lot like my earlier point about the President v the Market. What you really seem to have a problem with there isn't Billionaires, but rather the nature of government power.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

First of all, yes, the president's power does indeed ultimately source from the people and votation, despite there being filters between that vote and the final assignment of office; your pedantics, which disingenuously try to minimize the role of democratic participation in a clumsy attempt to dismiss it, do not change this.


Second, even if we entertain the absurd notion of the market as a real democracy, there are multiple glaring problems:

One is that the extent your enfranchisement is a function of your dollero which is increasingly consolidated among the wealthy and those who otherwise govern the markets.

Two is that market dominance, oligopoly and monopoly totally undercut the power and options of your dollero based franchise.

Three is that market participants don't actually have to respond to your 'vote' in dolleros, and you can't actually vote them out; if a president loses an election on a guaranteed and routine schedule, he's gone, if a corporation does bad things and loses an 'election', it gets to stick around, unless you define that as going out of business which could well take persisting and/or truly egregious failures that well exceeds the duration of a political term. This is especially problematic in the case of oligopoly and monopoly in which case you may not even really be able to vote for an alternative.


Also that money allowed a negative charisma, patently unlikeable and openly racist and sexist billionaire without a notable platform to go from nothing to front runner status in the Dem primaries in roughly 2 months, while compelling the DNC to change its rules is one of the most clear and obvious testimonies I've yet seen to the massive power money in politics has, besides Gilens and Pages' hallmark 2014 study on the corrupting effect of wealth on the federal political process which has certainly deepened since: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Steyer is a non-factor because Steyer is a one issue candidate.

 

[cpwill]

Re: "Billinaires shouldn't exist." Do you agree with Bernie?

Yes anything after 500 million is gratuitous


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why is 500 million that magical dividing point instead of, say, 450 million, or 506 million?

Given that that value will be overwhelmingly held in equities and the like, how do you intend to account for the fact that market shifts may make a fortune worth $499 million worth $501 million at noon, and then worth $498 million at close of business? Take away one million at noon, and then return it later in the day?

How do you intend to value non-cash items of value, such as brands? What if we one day get to a point where someone's personal brand is worth $500 million? Take everything physical from them and force them to live in poverty?

Why should I, as a consumer, suffer for your sense of aesthetics? If my life is made better by the ability to buy something from Jeff Bezos, or use Bill Gates' software, why should I let you lower my standard of living simply because you don't like the fact that Bezos and Gates turned out to be very good at serving people like me in that fashion?

Mind you, this is a nightmare that would never pass Constitutional muster, but yeesh. This isn't a thought out policy - it's emotional gesturing against an Other.

 

[Winston]

Re: "Billinaires shouldn't exist." Do you agree with Bernie?

Why is 500 million that magical dividing point instead of, say, 450 million, or 506 million?

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Someone asked me for a number, I think 500 million is sufficient.

 

[Hatuey]

Re: "Billinaires shouldn't exist." Do you agree with Bernie?

I still don't see a non-emotional, logical post from you.

How do you know billionaires are cucks? LOL

And how do you know those arguing against higher taxes are cubicle dwellers? Lots of emotional rhetoric from your responses.

You don't speak for everyone. Your posts on this thread have been highly emotional over someone else's money. LOL

Bloomberg, Trump and Clinton, Epstein were all in the same business. That much should be obvious by now.

That said, splitting posts up is for rookies and folks from the 90s. I gave a simple response. If you can buy your way into election with no guarantee of winning, you can be taxed that same money.

Seems simple enough. Not much emotion in the matter, it's about perspective.

Please don't white knight cubicle dwellers.

Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

 

[Hatuey]

Re: "Billinaires shouldn't exist." Do you agree with Bernie?

Someone asked me for a number, I think 500 million is sufficient.

Yeah, they keep asking for a number and then you give them one, and they give some version of "well I don't like that number".

I think millionaires can exist and should, I could care less about billionaires not existing.

Are we supposed to be in favor or against all massive accumulations of wealth?

Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: "Billinaires shouldn't exist." Do you agree with Bernie?

I agree. We allege to subscribe to Capitalism, so we should do it at the rock bottom cost of a minimum wage.

Rest assured that the federal government has no plans to operate on a rock bottom budget.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: "Billinaires shouldn't exist." Do you agree with Bernie?

Why? Why wouldn't you want them to make their business bigger, better, hire more people, give raises, etc.?

It is my greatest wish that the top .2% would give them what they want and completely shut down all profit earning operations once they hit 500 million and go on vacation. Do it for a 2, maybe 3 years. Get out of all the markets, shut down businesses...pull money out of all investments...500 million...capped...done for the year.

 

[Winston]

Re: "Billinaires shouldn't exist." Do you agree with Bernie?

Yeah, they keep asking for a number and then you give them one, and they give some version of "well I don't like that number".

I think millionaires can exist and should, I could care less about billionaires not existing.

Are we supposed to be in favor or against all massive accumulations of wealth?

Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

Yes, and I'd rather do ~ anything this afternoon than argue the excesses of capitalism with conservatives.

 

[joko104]

Re: "Billinaires shouldn't exist." Do you agree with Bernie?

Yes anything after 500 million is gratuitous


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We (the public) is seeing the result of not pursuing greater wealth in our (Mrs) company. A few years ago decided we had piled up enough money and rolled the business way, way down to avoid the time demands, economy of scale issues and constantly increasingly government interaction and battling.
The covid-19 scare (real or not) has caused a radical increasing in interest in a product we manufacture and had become the largest/highest volume producer in the USA - a niche market obscure product. Sales are growing near geometrically as all other sources are running out. We are having to consider it is not going to be possible to keep up with product no matter what we do as the production process takes many weeks.
We are raising prices to try to cause people to not hoard it or over order, not for the extra profit, and likely still probably will run out. It is not only used by consumers, but also labs, hospitals, food product facilities, even such as ranchers, large chicken and egg farms etc. When/if we run out it will likely literally not be available in the USA at any price - and we will have to prioritize who gets production runs as it is completed. YOU and other general public will not make the priority list.
That is a price when there is a cap on income and wealth. When we reached it, we stopped growing, laid off permanently probably 75+% of employees and reduced facilities and capabilities an equal amount - with this now causing price increases and probably a shortage.

Bernie Sanders supporters mostly are young naive white people who have NO clue about economics, products or anything else other than mommy and daddy took care of them for free - and the want government now to be their mom and dad providing everything for free. They want everyone else to labor for them to give them their money. Candidly, I think most Sander's supporters are a mass collection of lazy, greedy and truly ignorant people who would turn this country into Venezuela.

Why? Because of a political tele-evangelist doing the typical tele-evangelist promise that if you follow him you will have wealth and health for free. The only difference is he replaces that it is "God" who will provide everything for free with he himself will do so.

So who is the person promising everything for free in completely restructuring government and nationalizing (government seizing) huge aspects of the private sector?
Who is Bernie Sanders? A 78 year old million who is a racial segregationist who:
fled NYC to an whites-only community to put his kid in a whites-only school,
who openly despises liberalism,
who voted in support of the NRA 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 times
voted against Democrats in Congress to deny 6 million Dreamers a path to citizenship
voted against Democrats to legalize migrant immigrant workers with guest worker permits
sings praises of Fidel Castro
and has accomplished absolutely nothing whatsoever in the private or public sector - other than as Senator he was able to get 2 post offices in Vermont. Otherwise, that old racist and segregationist millionaire tele-evangelist has never accomplished anything.

Candidly, mostly only absurdly gullible and naive people who lived sheltered lives all their lives support SS Sanders. (Social Segregationist Sanders).

 

[joko104]

Re: "Billinaires shouldn't exist." Do you agree with Bernie?

Yes, and I'd rather do ~ anything this afternoon than argue the excesses of capitalism with conservatives.

Maybe you would prefer to praise Castro, Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. Each of them made some great promises identical to the promises of Bernie Sanders.

 

[cpwill]

Yes, you're wrong. The President is supposed to act on behalf of the people as an elected official. Our government derives its power from the people, something I learned in Civics long ago.

Eventually and through many layers, which is something that you also should have learned. We are a Republic, not a nation of plebicites.

When billionaires buy off politicians to crush or, water down legislation that would lower the billionaire's profits that's unfair malfeasance in the government's role to legislate on behalf of the people. I wouldn't have a problem with people acquiring as much wealth as they wanted so long as it did not render popular sovereignty neutered.

So, your complaint is that government power is exercised in a way that is unresponsive to the people (which is part of it's design), and your solution to this is to reduce the power of those in our system who are most responsive to the people, and give more power to those who are the least responsive.

That's really well thought out, man.




As a thought exercise for the legitimacy of this kind of conspiracy thinking, I recommend you consider your above statements while replacing the word "Billionaires" with "Jews".

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[cpwill]

]

Steyer is a non-factor because Steyer is a one issue candidate.

If that is true, then it means that his hypothesis that money = electoral victory is falsified, and his complaint against the mere existannce of those who prove wildly successful in serving others is moot.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[joko104]

Re: "Billinaires shouldn't exist." Do you agree with Bernie?

Why is 500 million that magical dividing point instead of, say, 450 million, or 506 million?

Given that that value will be overwhelmingly held in equities and the like, how do you intend to account for the fact that market shifts may make a fortune worth $499 million worth $501 million at noon, and then worth $498 million at close of business? Take away one million at noon, and then return it later in the day?

How do you intend to value non-cash items of value, such as brands? What if we one day get to a point where someone's personal brand is worth $500 million? Take everything physical from them and force them to live in poverty?

Why should I, as a consumer, suffer for your sense of aesthetics? If my life is made better by the ability to buy something from Jeff Bezos, or use Bill Gates' software, why should I let you lower my standard of living simply because you don't like the fact that Bezos and Gates turned out to be very good at serving people like me in that fashion?

Mind you, this is a nightmare that would never pass Constitutional muster, but yeesh. This isn't a thought out policy - it's emotional gesturing against an Other.

The Sander's doctrine is that that stuff you buy is all evil materialism. You don't need any of that. All that wasted money should go to provide medical care, free education, free housing, free food - for everyone in the entire world. If you disagree with that then you are a greedy, evil person who should be re-educated if possible - and eliminated if not.

You should get back to the land. Work on a collective farm pulling weeds and digging up potatoes. Use leaves and a trench you dig rather than toilet paper and a toilet. Rather than having a computer and being online, you should read your pocket versions of Mao's Little Red Book and the Communist Manifesto - both that you should have at all times - to get your head straight.

 

[Surrealistik]

If that is true, then it means that his hypothesis that money = electoral victory is falsified, and his complaint against the mere existannce of those who prove wildly successful in serving others is moot.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

No one is claiming money is an 'electoral victory' in and of itself; it's just a huge, powerful force multiplier, but as is the case with all multipliers, you actually need some kind of coefficient.

 

[joko104]

Re: "Billinaires shouldn't exist." Do you agree with Bernie?

'Cause we need a revolution

That is what Sanders and his supporters want. $60 trillion in more spending will reduce American money to worthlessness. This wipes out the wealth and savings of every American - making everyone equally poor and equally desperate. THIS causes a revolution.

To maintain order, the government, military and super rich must then join forced to bring order to the other 95% of the population, taking control of everyone. In this way, the USA could be turned into Cuba within a 4 year presidential term, maybe even so successful as to turn the USA into Venezuela. Then old man Sanders would just be tossed aside and the intelligence community (becoming the American Gestapo and KGB) takes over.

That's is the 100% predictable revolution Sanders is calling for. It's what he wants, though he believes he could remain in power, when he could not.

 

[Michael Johnson]

Re: "Billinaires shouldn't exist." Do you agree with Bernie?

Bloomberg, Trump and Clinton, Epstein were all in the same business. That much should be obvious by now.

That said, splitting posts up is for rookies and folks from the 90s. I gave a simple response. If you can buy your way into election with no guarantee of winning, you can be taxed that same money.

Seems simple enough. Not much emotion in the matter, it's about perspective.

Please don't white knight cubicle dwellers.

Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

Again....what does someone else's money have to do with you? You're not going to see any of it, even if they pay higher taxes.

Your party removed the restrictions for a billionaire candidate because they're that desperate to beat Trump. Address that before trying to check someone's wallet.

And you've failed to prove how someone who doesn't want higher taxes is a "cubicle dweller."

 

[cpwill]

Re: "Billinaires shouldn't exist." Do you agree with Bernie?

Someone asked me for a number, I think 500 million is sufficient.

Why not 500,000 or 5 million or 501 million? Because you find one particularly rounded number aesthetic? And how do you plan to address any of what was raised?

This sounds very much like you are arguing for something you find emotionally gratifying, and very little like a well thought out and rigorously tested policy position.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

(Let's pretend everything is spelled correctly in the title.)

No I do not agree, however I also don't even remotely believe that Sanders harbors any foolish illusions of somehow eliminating them either.
To say "Billionaires shouldn't exist" is like saying that four legged humans shouldn't exist, ergo billionaires, particularly ones with financial worth totaling in the TENS or even HUNDREDS of billions, are an anomaly.

And they are. That's why there are only a small handful of them. And it doesn't make sense that they have free exercise of enough raw power to set aside the rule of law itself, much less a laundry list of other perversions.

Even more foolish is to harbor the notion that there is such a thing as "benevolence" in any system which protects the rights of such people at the expense of all others, due to any belief that these people are (A) infallible, (B) unassailably good and virtuous, (C) entitled to be above the law, (D) indispensible.

In all authoritarian governments, the authoritarianism itself rests not with a government, but with the supernumerary moneyed elite themselves.
The authoritarian government is nothing more than their muscle.
And the same risk is possible in both left leaning and right leaning authoritarian regimes.
Thus one must take special caution with regard to the authoritarian power OF the billionaire class on all sides of the political spectrum.

 

[SkyChief]

I believe we need to promote the general welfare by solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

The best way to promote the General Welfare is to minimize the scope (and power) of the government, and maximize liberty and freedom of the people.

Abolishing the Income Tax and the IRS would leave each US taxpayer an average of $17,000 more discretionary money to spend each year.

Imagine how this would stimulate the economy!

 

[d0gbreath]

I think that our current billionaires should try to monopolize more industries and become trillionaires. Why not? At least make the term popular enough to pass spell check.

 

[Eriech]

(Let's pretend everything is spelled correctly in the title.)

You should not be able to become a millionaire serving in congress, Bernie. What have you EVER accomplished other than get elected? Not a thing, ever in 35 years of "service".

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Idontbelonghere]

Innovation requires huge piles of private capital.

What do you mean?

 

[grip]

I think there should be a limit to how much individuals and corporations should be allowed to hoard wealth. Capitalism, to a point, is the best system but not open-ended. They eventually become so powerful that they alone reshape the economy and civilization more than do the masses. They also rig the system, through lobbying and buying influence, to change laws in their favor, so they become even more wealthy and powerful.

Though it may be too late to change this now, especially with the sheep's approval.

 

[Hatuey]

Re: "Billinaires shouldn't exist." Do you agree with Bernie?

Again....what does someone else's money have to do with you? You're not going to see any of it, even if they pay higher taxes.

Your party removed the restrictions for a billionaire candidate because they're that desperate to beat Trump. Address that before trying to check someone's wallet.

And you've failed to prove how someone who doesn't want higher taxes is a "cubicle dweller."

It's not "someone" else's money. We are talking a specific number of people. 650 to be exact.

You seem mad that I don't care for parties when it comes to taxation. The only people concerned about billionaires not having more billions are cubicle dwellers who believe they'll see a million if they just work really hard. Nah, life is bigger than that.

Please stop white knighting for billionaires. Anyone in this forum could die from not being to pay medical bills and they wouldn't care. None of us should care if they have one billion dollar less and that goes towards paying for the medicines of millions.

Seems simple.



Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

 

[VanceMack]

I think there should be a limit to how much individuals and corporations should be allowed to hoard wealth. Capitalism, to a point, is the best system but not open-ended. They eventually become so powerful that they alone reshape the economy and civilization more than do the masses. They also rig the system, through lobbying and buying influence, to change laws in their favor, so they become even more wealthy and powerful.

Though it may be too late to change this now, especially with the sheep's approval.

Would you say Tom Steir or Mike Bloomberg got rich by rigging the system?