Breaking down Bernie's plan

• queencitybuckeye

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784432 wrote:I get what he's saying .. I understand his point.. but he might as well have said "Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely.. but tough shit it is what it is." because you never hear a solution to the problem.

  So do we do something known not to work because "something needs done". Not just a waste, it actually makes things worse.
• queencitybuckeye

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784460 wrote:Someone who's not a selfish prick? : thumbup:

  Someone who knows the difference between persuasion on coercion (one is despicable).
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  queencitybuckeye;1784471 wrote:So do we do something known not to work because "something needs done". Not just a waste, it actually makes things worse.

  You're being untruthful if you say its known not to work. Europe and Australia have been doing it longer than we've been a country.
• Al Bundy

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784474 wrote:You're being untruthful if you say its known not to work. Europe and Australia have been doing it longer than we've been a country.

  No place in Europe or Australia was socialist in 1776. Most of the parts of Europe that became socialist in the 20th century had it done by force.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  Al Bundy;1784499 wrote:No place in Europe or Australia was socialist in 1776. Most of the parts of Europe that became socialist in the 20th century had it done by force.

  Most still aren't Socialist. Just like America wouldn't be socialist. They're still Capitalistic with Social safety nets.
• sleeper

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784432 wrote:I get what he's saying .. I understand his point.. but he might as well have said "Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely.. but tough shit it is what it is." because you never hear a solution to the problem.

  The only way to fix income equality without dragging everyone to the bottom of the barrel is to create a robust job market. A surplus of available work vs. a limited supply of skilled workers will ramp up wages to compete for that labor which benefits everyone.
  
  How can the government help?
  
  #1) Lower taxes on corporations to be more competitive with the world. No explanation needed. If you do nothing else, this will make the largest impact but allowing entrepreneurs to get a higher ROI for taking the risks of starting a new business as well as allow international companies to invest in the US.
  #2) Fix intellectual property law so that new businesses aren't constantly being sued by garbage lawyers. Allow for cases in IP law to pierce the corporate veil to go after IP trolls who are just out to make a quick buck on flailing businesses.
  #3) More government funded research in science(not social science) and technology. Grants are good.
• Al Bundy

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784500 wrote:Most still aren't Socialist. Just like America wouldn't be socialist. They're still Capitalistic with Social safety nets.

  We already have social safety nets.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  sleeper;1784501 wrote:The only way to fix income equality without dragging everyone to the bottom of the barrel is to create a robust job market. A surplus of available work vs. a limited supply of skilled workers will ramp up wages to compete for that labor which benefits everyone.
  
  How can the government help?
  
  #1) Lower taxes on corporations to be more competitive with the world. No explanation needed. If you do nothing else, this will make the largest impact but allowing entrepreneurs to get a higher ROI for taking the risks of starting a new business as well as allow international companies to invest in the US.
  #2) Fix intellectual property law so that new businesses aren't constantly being sued by garbage lawyers. Allow for cases in IP law to pierce the corporate veil to go after IP trolls who are just out to make a quick buck on flailing businesses.
  #3) More government funded research in science(not social science) and technology. Grants are good.

  
  Do you really think the wealthy in England and Germany and so on and so forth have been dragged to the bottom?
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  Al Bundy;1784502 wrote:We already have social safety nets.

  You're right... And we're asking for other ones like the aforementioned countries have which offset income inequality.
• QuakerOats

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784504 wrote:You're right... And we're asking for other ones like the aforementioned countries have which offset income inequality.

  Almost every person in this country has the ability to do something about their income. It is up to them.
  
  Stop forcing a failed system onto the rest of us. You cannot build up the poor by tearing down the rich.
• QuakerOats

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784504 wrote:You're right... And we're asking for other ones like the aforementioned countries have which offset income inequality.

  
  And by the way, who died and left you libs in charge of income and defining inequality. Many people elect to have lower incomes in return for not having management responsibilities, or to have more free time, or to simply to have an easier job. Who the hell are you and the other marxists to force change on them or any of us?
• sleeper

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784503 wrote:Do you really think the wealthy in England and Germany and so on and so forth have been dragged to the bottom?

  Well the honest answer is that it depends on how to define "the bottom". They are certainly less better off than the US by any reasonable economic analysis. If you want to use subjective and BS metrics like "quality of life", then maybe you could argue they are better off but that isn't reality.
  
  Keep in mind, it's much easier to manage a country with a homogeneous demographics like UK and Germany(mostly white people with similar ideologies) with smaller populations than it is to manage the most diverse country on the planet with a much larger population.
• BR1986FB

  QuakerOats;1784507 wrote:Almost every person in this country has the ability to do something about their income. It is up to them.
  
  Stop forcing a failed system onto the rest of us. You cannot build up the poor by tearing down the rich.

  Well said and reps.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  QuakerOats;1784509 wrote:And by the way, who died and left you libs in charge of income and defining inequality.

  You did (neocons) when you repeatedly fail to address it.
• fish82

  

  sleeper;1784511 wrote:Well the honest answer is that it depends on how to define "the bottom". They are certainly less better off than the US by any reasonable economic analysis. If you want to use subjective and BS metrics like "quality of life", then maybe you could argue they are better off but that isn't reality.
  
  Keep in mind, it's much easier to manage a country with a homogeneous demographics like UK and Germany(mostly white people with similar ideologies) with smaller populations than it is to manage the most diverse country on the planet with a much larger population.

  This.
  
  Continually comparing the US to these other countries is beyond stupid.
• BR1986FB

  fish82;1784540 wrote:This.
  
  Continually comparing the US to these other countries is beyond stupid.

  It's funny how many consider the US the "greatest country in the world" yet want to take shitty ideas from other countries.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  sleeper;1784511 wrote:Well the honest answer is that it depends on how to define "the bottom". They are certainly less better off than the US by any reasonable economic analysis. If you want to use subjective and BS metrics like "quality of life", then maybe you could argue they are better off but that isn't reality.
  
  Keep in mind, it's much easier to manage a country with a homogeneous demographics like UK and Germany(mostly white people with similar ideologies) with smaller populations than it is to manage the most diverse country on the planet with a much larger population.

  Your last point is true which is why its easier for them to buy into social concepts. But, that can be said about any number of policies made recently, including ACA. Our country is already changing. And it doesn't bode well for classical conservative ideas. Republicans know they'll need to adapt if they ever want to win again. The winds aren't shifting in their favor.
• sleeper

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784545 wrote:Your last point is true which is why its easier for them to buy into social concepts. But, that can be said about any number of policies made recently, including ACA. Our country is already changing. And it doesn't bode well for classical conservative ideas. Republicans know they'll need to adapt if they ever want to win again. The winds aren't shifting in their favor.

  I agree the Republican party needs to adapt, especially on social issues. However, I don't think adopting European style socialism is a useful solution to the problem and will almost certainly make things worse overall for everyone.
• like_that

  

  sleeper;1784548 wrote:I agree the Republican party needs to adapt, especially on social issues. However, I don't think adopting European style socialism is a useful solution to the problem and will almost certainly make things worse overall for everyone.

  Yeah if they keep their fiscal beliefs and adjust their social stance, they would be just fine.
• QuakerOats

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784538 wrote:You did (neocons) when you repeatedly fail to address it.

  
  It is not up to a political party to address; it is up to individuals and the choices they wish to make. What is it about that that you do not understand?
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  QuakerOats;1784557 wrote:It is not up to a political party to address; it is up to individuals and the choices they wish to make. What is it about that that you do not understand?

  Individuals make up parties. They're not mutually exclusive. What is it about that you do not understand?
• QuakerOats

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784559 wrote:Individuals make up parties. They're not mutually exclusive. What is it about that you do not understand?

  
  
  Incredible.
  
  Why not take your socialist propaganda back to Europe where it sells. The U.S. became the greatest nation in history and lifted billions worldwide out of poverty because of free market capitalism, not socialism/marxism/communism.
  
  
  But then, you knew that.
• sleeper

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1784538 wrote:You did (neocons) when you repeatedly fail to address it.

  The neocons have been in power exclusively for the last 8 years?
  
  Your boy Obama hasn't done shit for income equality except make it substantially worse.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  QuakerOats;1784565 wrote:Incredible.
  
  Why not take your socialist propaganda back to Europe where it sells. The U.S. became the greatest nation in history and lifted billions worldwide out of poverty because of free market capitalism, not socialism/marxism/communism.
  
  
  But then, you knew that.

  Yeah! You don't think like me so you can just get outta here! Merica!
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  sleeper;1784568 wrote:The neocons have been in power exclusively for the last 8 years?
  
  Your boy Obama hasn't done shit for income equality except make it substantially worse.

  No he's a neolib. Similar to a neocon, just gives money to different people than the neocons.