Bernie Sanders Home Run Rant Last Night in The Presenditial Debate!

a reply to: Hypntick

You would get bored really quick with no tv, no paper or pencils or computer to do that writing on, no games. You'd likely have never gotten your spouse by having nothing to distinguish you from anyone else. I could go on, but you'll ignore the point and refuse to believe me that I find it very unlikely you would be truly satisfied with just stability and nothing else, as well as laughable you think you'd have a significant other with nothing to offer them to at least get the relationship going. You're more motivated than you give yourself credit for.

a reply to: MrBlaq

Telling people to suck it up and work harder is not a discussion, and is exactly what most of the right's tslking points boils down to.

a reply to: Puppylove

As I said, we can discuss the basics aspect now. How would you define basics? In this day and age in the US the basics would include; a cellular phone, a netbook or other low powered computer, internet access, access to a library, and if they did not restrict the food costs to being only utilized on food some form of streaming media content. The basics now are considerably different than they were even 20 years ago, a lot of these things are required if you wanted to obtain a job to get to the wants stage of having a job in your proposed solution.

The fact that you mention my wife twice in this post shows that you place a high emphasis on this aspect. Have you seen a majority of couples in this country? Particularly the ones that live off of the government handouts and yet somehow still manage to stay together? Heck when my wife met me, I had no job, no car, no bank account, no money to my name, and I lived at the good graces of my mother in a guest house on her husbands land. We've been together over 15 years now, so explain that one to me, how did I land her? Maybe not all spouses are tied to material things? I will say I'm glad I did meet her how I did, because if I met someone now I would assume they were only with me for my income. Which would make me a bachelor living the fun, albeit emotionally unfulfilling life of one who would most likely die alone.

a reply to: yeahright

Start over taxing the wealthy, and watch the wealth leave the country.

When I worked in the commercial fishing industry, I worked very closely with the owners of the company.

He traveled all over the world selling his product. Three heart attacks. One divorce, she apparently thought he loved his company more than her. There may have been some truth to her accusations....

His net worth, last I heard, was something on the order of 350 million dollars, or there 'bouts. No one will ever convince me he didn't earn it... He started with nothing, except an old fish processing barge he bought for 40 K in the early '70's, and gradually put a serious footprint in the American, and global, commercial fishing industry.

He earned his toys. A yacht in Central America. A few houses all over the world.

I was the hired help--an extra, if you will. Nope, I didn't get wealthy, but I could have, had I really, really wanted to. Back when I was still in the industry, there was still room for the small time entrepreneur to get a start. Now with regulations to limit catch sizes and assorted other things--some necessary, some not so much--there isn't that room anymore.

You can make a good living, but the age of starting from nothing and going global is gone.

Start taxing guy and gals like him, and what's the incentive to succeed? I submit there is none.

a reply to: Hypntick

Basics. Food, shelter and health care. As long as these are met BEFORE compensation from work, everything else can be work required. This way, no matter what happens, a person knows they are taken of until they can find another job, AND that all their work is for extras not the basics.

The only reason so many things get added to basics is because work is expected to cover them, which means work is required for basic life, which means basics increase as, by necessity it now includes everything required to gain, maintain, and get to a job.

Seperate work from the things I mentioned and work becomes no longer expected to cover them, at which point the other stuff becomes extra. Require work to cover the basics and those things are no extra.

As for the wife thing. Yeah I was wrong to go there. My relationship isn't materialistic either. I'm just irritatable.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Waterglass

I wish I could trust Sanders, but I no longer feel I can.

One thing I can't stand from the right is their stubborn refusal to even acknowledge there's any issue with the widening wealth gap. Just calling everyone whiners and are doing everything they can to protect the status quo.

Tho complete refusal to tackle or even acknowledge this issue is one of the biggest turn off for me from the right. Is the main reason I wish the left would pull their head out of their ass and get their act together. At the moment they are completely nuts and can't be voted for. At the same time, the right will NEVER give a # about the wealth gap, so #ed either way.

Everyone talking about a "wealth gap" also happen to be wealthy, talking about why wealthy people are bad...

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Hypntick

Basics. Food, shelter and health care. As long as these are met BEFORE compensation from work, everything else can be work required. This way, no matter what happens, a person knows they are taken of until they can find another job, AND that all their work is for extras not the basics.

The only reason so many things get added to basics is because work is expected to cover them, which means work is required for basic life, which means basics increase as, by necessity it now includes everything required to gain, maintain, and get to a job.

Seperate work from the things I mentioned and work becomes no longer expected to cover them, at which point the other stuff becomes extra. Require work to cover the basics and those things are no extra.

We've already established a welfare state that allows people to buy more than the basics. Your suggestion won't fly, unless you're willing to be labeled a racist for a couple generations, while the dynamic changes.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Welfare is different because it covers the same amount and sometimes more than most low end jobs. Which makes working low end jobs often worse than just staying on welfare instead of an improvement like it should be. Again the basics and working need to be seperate or we end up with the welfare trap that exists today.

a reply to: seagull

That is part of the problem and I see that argument. The wealthy have us blackmailed and will jump ship as soon as you threaten their money. They don't care about America first. They care about the almighty dollar first. Money the root of all evil.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Yeah that point has been made already, but um... that applies to everyone in politics, and as I said earlier, your logic implies the only solution is revolution.

so when everybody starts paying a 25% sales tax and the 1% start paying a 65% income tax on top of that.
let see how many keep on screamong medicare for all.

a reply to: Waterglass

Geez , the Guy IS Really Crazy . I Almost had a Heart Attack Following that Freakin' Wicked Pretzel Logic .........

a reply to: conspiracy nut

Blackmailed? Because they want to keep their money?? How evil of them!!

Many, maybe even most, got their money because they God damned well earned it! So much of this "tax the wealthy" is sheer unadulterated jealousy. Nothing more, nothing less...with a levening of class warfare tossed in for good measure.

a reply to: seagull

I'm not so much as angry with wealthy individuals as I am with corporations, they are the ones I meant will jump ship and take their businesses with them. They take advantage of tax loopholes and then squirrel away the profits instead of paying their employees and providing benefits. investors want to see higher profit margins to continue investing in said corporations further guaranteeing the American worker will get the short end of the stick. It's all a vicious cycle that keeps the average Joe working check to check for peanuts and little to no benefits. Trickle down economics keeps the working man poor and widens the wealth gap.

I don't want to hate on the rich many of them have worked their tails off to get there I just wish the corporations and highly profitable businesses would share the wealth with the employees that helped them get there. My company does but if it wasn't for our union we would be struggling like the employees of nonunion businesses in the same field.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

But the guys in INTEL love him because hes a socialist softball smurf that can be nudged around. That's also why The Squad loves him.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ah but he was full of rage, vigor and spit was flying. Got himself pretty worked up for a 78 year old multi-millionaire.

a reply to: Waterglass

Someone ought to tell him he is too old to be a commissar. He should have done that bit when he was a young man back in the 1920s.

Cheers

originally posted by: Puppylove
One thing I can't stand from the right is their stubborn refusal to even acknowledge there's any issue with the widening wealth gap. Just calling everyone whiners and are doing everything they can to protect the status quo.

So... what exactly do you propose?

A limit on how much wealth/money someone can accumulate? How exactly would that help Joe Blow make more money himself?

originally posted by: Puppylove
The only robbery going on is by the rich from the poor. We are used and taken advantage of. People need food and shelter, they have no choice but to work. The rich take advantage of that need. I'm so sick of the stealing from the rich accusation. It's not, it reclaiming our fair due. A very different thing.

Is also absurd to base wage on innovation when the skill of innovating is something 90% of the population lacks.

Wow. Just wow.

Maybe you should move to Russia or China. You'd fit right in.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Yeah that point has been made already, but um... that applies to everyone in politics, and as I said earlier, your logic implies the only solution is revolution.

Or maybe just stop voting for the people that get hella rich while holding public office for 40+ years.