[hey mtangelsfan] How Bernie pays for his proposals

[Angelsjunky]

AJ, the bottom line as far as I am concerned is that you cannot tie up such a significant chunk of our national economy within the government infrastructure. This is because there are no forces competing against inefficiency, no check against failure and no internal motivation to promote innovation. 

 

Ultimately you cannot get away from basic economics. Every dollar redistributed returns a fraction of it's original value back into the economy. 

 

It's one thing to promote taxing the rich to lend a hand to the poor, it is entirely another to then tell the poor that the government can handle their money better than they can.

 

Good post. My only disagreement is with regards to the myth that if there is little government oversight, the wealthy won't take advantage. History bears this out, again and again: low regulations does NOT bring about a thriving economy that works for all. What it does is increase wealth for those that already have it.

 

One of the main purposes of the government is to protect people from other people, usually less advantaged from more advantaged. Without that, well, you get robber barons. Now it isn't so clear and obvious today as it was in the late 19th century, but it is still there.

 

Anyhow, one of the benefits of heavily taxing corporations is that it encourages them to "redistribute" wealth back into the system in the form of new businesses, new jobs, and innovation. If a corporation is minimally taxed, they generally either pocket it (shareholders, CEOs) or re-invest it in the stock market. In other words, they use the money to make more money - for themselves. If a corporation is heavily taxed, with no loopholes or offshore shenanigans, they are able to "keep" some of their wealth by re-investing it into new businesses, which drives continual growth.

 

You say it isn't to exploit and take advantage.  I say it is.  This is what the government has been doing now since I have been alive.  Amassing power, wealth, influence, taking our rights and our money as they see fit.  They do this all on the pocketbooks of the middle class.  

 

They = federal government.  Why, in the name of logic and reason, would I think that this time would be any different?

 

So here's the difference: you think Bernie is speaking in bad faith. I don't. I agree with your cynicism about government in general, but the main reason I'm so passionate about this election is that I think Bernie is actually different, whereas Hillary is just the same old oligarchic approach.

 

No, because it's not the gov'ts job to do this, and because it'll cost a lot more to each of us than you think. If it's "only" $8 per week for a guy making $16k, how much will it be for people making $50k or $80k or $120k?

They're selling snake oil.

 

It is only snake oil if that money doesn't buy you anything. But you can't get shit for the free, as the saying goes.

 

And yes, it will cost more, the more you make. That's what a percentage is. But the reason the percentage can be kept low is so that it doesn't so heavily tax people with little money.

 

 

I pay about $300 per week to insure my family. Thankfully, my employer pays about half that.

I also pay several thousand dollars per year in co-pays and prescriptions (which I am in the hook for completely).

So call my skeptical about a plan that gives me all this for the low low price of $8 per week. In fact, I am guessing my costs would dramatically increase to (1) pay for the government bureaucracy required to administer the system, and (2) pay extra for those who "can't afford" the healthcare.

 

I don't know how much you make. The $8 a week is based upon someone who makes $16K. I'm guessing you make quite a bit more.

 

But again, Bernie's plan is that you'll be paying more in up-front taxes, but less in co-pays and medical bills - quite a bit less.

[mtangelsfan]

So here's the difference: you think Bernie is speaking in bad faith. I don't. I agree with your cynicism about government in general, but the main reason I'm so passionate about this election is that I think Bernie is actually different, whereas Hillary is just the same old oligarchic approach.

 

If Bernie were a dictator, this might be true.  In other words, he has to work through the existing system that already exists.   Money will be wasted, promises will be broken and the middle class will be the ones taking it in the ass from the poor, the rich and the government.

[mtangelsfan]

"The existing system that already exists"

 

Sigh.  I need to go back to school for English again.

[Angelsjunky]

So here's the difference: you think Bernie is speaking in bad faith. I don't. I agree with your cynicism about government in general, but the main reason I'm so passionate about this election is that I think Bernie is actually different, whereas Hillary is just the same old oligarchic approach.

 

If Bernie were a dictator, this might be true.  In other words, he has to work through the existing system that already exists.   Money will be wasted, promises will be broken and the middle class will be the ones taking it in the ass from the poor, the rich and the government.

 

Yes, I hear that - and you're right. Actually, there was a very intense interview with Bernie and Chris Matthews a few days ago that addressed this. It is really worth watching:

 

 

The point being, Bernie's thinking big - revolutionizing the system, getting the people more involved.

 

"The existing system that already exists"

 

Sigh.  I need to go back to school for English again.

 

LOL, I feel your pain. Just the other day I wrote a sentence with the same word in it three times, but was able to correct it before anyone had a chance to ridicule me.

[mtangelsfan]

I could have edited it but felt that I needed to be ridiculed for that one.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Good post. My only disagreement is with regards to the myth that if there is little government oversight, the wealthy won't take advantage. History bears this out, again and again: low regulations does NOT bring about a thriving economy that works for all. What it does is increase wealth for those that already have it.

 

One of the main purposes of the government is to protect people from other people, usually less advantaged from more advantaged. Without that, well, you get robber barons. Now it isn't so clear and obvious today as it was in the late 19th century, but it is still there.

 

Anyhow, one of the benefits of heavily taxing corporations is that it encourages them to "redistribute" wealth back into the system in the form of new businesses, new jobs, and innovation. If a corporation is minimally taxed, they generally either pocket it (shareholders, CEOs) or re-invest it in the stock market. In other words, they use the money to make more money - for themselves. If a corporation is heavily taxed, with no loopholes or offshore shenanigans, they are able to "keep" some of their wealth by re-investing it into new businesses, which drives continual growth.

 

It's not about oversight or regulation it's about the natural forces at play. No one in government is spending their own money, or taking ownership of their product. It is a fundamental flaw. No matter how much people want to think they are doing the right thing, or making fair decisions in the end they are not equipped to do so. Balanced regulations are reasonable, but once the corporate perspective changes from offering a more competitive product to simply complying with the letter of the law then we as the consumer have lost.

 

One thing I worry about with the Sanders movement is illustrated by your third paragraph. People need to gain a better understanding of what the stock market is and what corporations are fundamentally. The stock market is our retirement plans, our investment portfolios, the force behind the existence of many of our jobs and the main driver of new business growth and job creation within our country. Corporations are social structures that organize individuals around their most valuable skills in order to meet the demands of every day human life here on earth.

 

Liberals like to dehumanize and negatively connote both institutions yet both are inherently made up of people. Both are profit seeking structures - another phrase that has been given negative connotations, but profit is simply maximizing customer satisfaction while minimizing the work that goes into it. What corporations do with their money is generally always in the interest of profit - the exact opposite of government behavior. Their ability to seek out profit is limited only by their available funds. Taxes on corporations then are by definition not some magical force promoting growth or a trick to convince CEO's to make money but rather a drain on their effectiveness as the major provider of virtually everything we see around us today. Taxing corporations may be a necessary evil, but to say any less than that is just spin. 

[halobob]

Good post. My only disagreement is with regards to the myth that if there is little government oversight, the wealthy won't take advantage. History bears this out, again and again: low regulations does NOT bring about a thriving economy that works for all. What it does is increase wealth for those that already have it.

 

One of the main purposes of the government is to protect people from other people, usually less advantaged from more advantaged. Without that, well, you get robber barons. Now it isn't so clear and obvious today as it was in the late 19th century, but it is still there.

 

Anyhow, one of the benefits of heavily taxing corporations is that it encourages them to "redistribute" wealth back into the system in the form of new businesses, new jobs, and innovation. If a corporation is minimally taxed, they generally either pocket it (shareholders, CEOs) or re-invest it in the stock market. In other words, they use the money to make more money - for themselves. If a corporation is heavily taxed, with no loopholes or offshore shenanigans, they are able to "keep" some of their wealth by re-investing it into new businesses, which drives continual growth.

 

 

So here's the difference: you think Bernie is speaking in bad faith. I don't. I agree with your cynicism about government in general, but the main reason I'm so passionate about this election is that I think Bernie is actually different, whereas Hillary is just the same old oligarchic approach.

 

 

It is only snake oil if that money doesn't buy you anything. But you can't get shit for the free, as the saying goes.

 

And yes, it will cost more, the more you make. That's what a percentage is. But the reason the percentage can be kept low is so that it doesn't so heavily tax people with little money.

 

 

 

I don't know how much you make. The $8 a week is based upon someone who makes $16K. I'm guessing you make quite a bit more.

 

But again, Bernie's plan is that you'll be paying more in up-front taxes, but less in co-pays and medical bills - quite a bit less.

What???  You have absolutely no business sense at all AJ.  It's like trying to teach a 3 year old calculus at this point with you.  

[Angelsjunky]

It's not about oversight or regulation it's about the natural forces at play. No one in government is spending their own money, or taking ownership of their product. It is a fundamental flaw. No matter how much people want to think they are doing the right thing, or making fair decisions in the end they are not equipped to do so. Balanced regulations are reasonable, but once the corporate perspective changes from offering a more competitive product to simply complying with the letter of the law then we as the consumer have lost.

 

One thing I worry about with the Sanders movement is illustrated by your third paragraph. People need to gain a better understanding of what the stock market is and what corporations are fundamentally. The stock market is our retirement plans, our investment portfolios, the force behind the existence of many of our jobs and the main driver of new business growth and job creation within our country. Corporations are social structures that organize individuals around their most valuable skills in order to meet the demands of every day human life here on earth.

 

Liberals like to dehumanize and negatively connote both institutions yet both are inherently made up of people. Both are profit seeking structures - another phrase that has been given negative connotations, but profit is simply maximizing customer satisfaction while minimizing the work that goes into it. What corporations do with their money is generally always in the interest of profit - the exact opposite of government behavior. Their ability to seek out profit is limited only by their available funds. Taxes on corporations then are by definition not some magical force promoting growth or a trick to convince CEO's to make money but rather a drain on their effectiveness as the major provider of virtually everything we see around us today. Taxing corporations may be a necessary evil, but to say any less than that is just spin. 

 

First of all, I appreciate the civil discourse without the usual insults thrown at me (see halobob in the post above). Kudos to you.

 

Anyhow, it seems that there is a fundamental difference in assumption. You seem to take the view that laissez-faire capitalism is how things really are and should be, rather than one way in which humans organize themselves economically. This is one of the main things I get again and again on this board, and a similar accusation waged at Bernie: "You're unrealistic, you don't understand how things really work, you won't get any of this done," etc etc. But "how things work" depends upon human beings, how we choose to make them work. The underlying goal of Bernie's campaign is to diminish the plutocracy and return power to the people, to get people involved in the democratic process. So yes, this is radically different than the corporatist ideology you seem to emphasize.

 

So I see a very corrupt system that needs a massive overhaul. In baseball terms, not a re-tooling but a re-building. And I don't think the way to do it is to go back to where Reagan started and continue from there. Actually, that's pretty much what the Clintons did. It worked in some ways, but the long-term impact has been to bring us to where we are: new wealth going to the wealthy, and the lower and middle class stagnating at best or, often, circling the drain.

 

So for instance, I don't think it has to be a choice between corporations either "offering a more competitive product" or "complying with the letter of the law." Even more so, I don't see human beings and citizens as most fundamentally "consumers." Again, this is the consumerist paradigm that we live within, but which I question - and which I think Bernie questions. In that regard, I think Bernie is far more radical than many realize.

 

I hear you about the stock market and corporations, and from the paradigm you are speaking from it makes perfect sense, but again, the whole system is terribly corrupt and exploited. The reason libertarianism doesn't work is because people take advantage. I would say the same thing about capitalism as we see it today. And yes, I put a negative light on such structures and systems because they are dehumanizing, their focus is on generating profit, not improving quality of life. And, to me, that is the fundamental problem. Our focus is on quantity of stuff, not quality of life.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Angelsjunky

[Adam]

Stick to the fluffy social issues dude

[Angelsjunky]

Adam, I don't claim to know much about economics, but I also don't agree with something unless it makes sense to me. So I'm not just going to say, "OK, you are a businessman and I'm not, so you must be right - even though there are plenty of economists who disagree with you." And, to be honest, I believe other experts more than the Angelspin pundits that claim to be experts on economics.

 

As I've said to nate, it isn't a matter of right vs. wrong, but different and competing paradigms. Nate didn't get this at all.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Angelsjunky

[Adam]

I get it dude. I've just observed that you tend to use a lot of words to defend opinions that aren't really your strongest opinions.

I probably do the same thing from time to time.

It's cool.

[Angelsjunky]

I get it dude. I've just observed that you tend to use a lot of words to defend opinions that aren't really your strongest opinions.

I probably do the same thing from time to time.

It's cool.

 

Adam, maybe so. I can't win the battle of knowledge about economics, nor am I trying to. But what I'm trying to express is something a bit different, yet I keep getting the "you're wrong, don't know shit, etc," which is just missing what I'm actually trying to express.

 

Here's another stab at it: the board game of Monopoly has certain rules. A lot of folks here are saying that the rules are inviolable, and if you question the rules then you don't know the game. I'm saying, and I think Bernie is saying, that not only can we change the rules, but we can play a different game. Actually, Monopoly is a pretty nasty game. Kind of fun on occasion, but it is only a narrow slice of what life is about.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Angelsjunky

[AngelsLakersFan]

First of all, I appreciate the civil discourse without the usual insults thrown at me (see halobob in the post above). Kudos to you.

 

Anyhow, it seems that there is a fundamental difference in assumption. You seem to take the view that laissez-faire capitalism is how things really are and should be, rather than one way in which humans organize themselves economically. This is one of the main things I get again and again on this board, and a similar accusation waged at Bernie: "You're unrealistic, you don't understand how things really work, you won't get any of this done," etc etc. But "how things work" depends upon human beings, how we choose to make them work. The underlying goal of Bernie's campaign is to diminish the plutocracy and return power to the people, to get people involved in the democratic process. So yes, this is radically different than the corporatist ideology you seem to emphasize.

 

So I see a very corrupt system that needs a massive overhaul. In baseball terms, not a re-tooling but a re-building. And I don't think the way to do it is to go back to where Reagan started and continue from there. Actually, that's pretty much what the Clintons did. It worked in some ways, but the long-term impact has been to bring us to where we are: new wealth going to the wealthy, and the lower and middle class stagnating at best or, often, circling the drain.

 

So for instance, I don't think it has to be a choice between corporations either "offering a more competitive product" or "complying with the letter of the law." Even more so, I don't see human beings and citizens as most fundamentally "consumers." Again, this is the consumerist paradigm that we live within, but which I question - and which I think Bernie questions. In that regard, I think Bernie is far more radical than many realize.

 

I hear you about the stock market and corporations, and from the paradigm you are speaking from it makes perfect sense, but again, the whole system is terribly corrupt and exploited. The reason libertarianism doesn't work is because people take advantage. I would say the same thing about capitalism as we see it today. And yes, I put a negative light on such structures and systems because they are dehumanizing, their focus is on generating profit, not improving quality of life. And, to me, that is the fundamental problem. Our focus is on quantity of stuff, not quality of life.

 

I agree that there are fundamental issues with the system, but they are so deep how do we even start to address them? Obama is the great reformist politician of my lifetime but his singular biggest accomplishment is his compromised health care plan. The merits of that plan aside it was something specifically that no one wanted. Conservatives wanted no part of it, liberals thought it didn't go far enough, and as a result it is fairly unpopular. That was the best he could do in 8 years.

 

How do we really change the system? People at their core are animals. As animals we are governed by basic survival skills, a need for food, shelter, and really cool shit. Capitalism is not so much a chosen paradigm as it is a construction born out of our most basic behavior. Saying there are alternatives to capitalism is akin to saying there is an alternative to gravity. We can choose to work against it, but it is an ever present force. 

[Adam]

It makes so little sense to me that anyone of sound mind would welcome more government and wish to enable it to secure more power and control over the basic functions of our lives. Even is Sanders is truly a good hearted person, only wanting what he thinks is in the best interest of the majority of people, the structure he would potentially create would be in place for really bad people to use for evil down the line.

[Angelsjunky]

Bernie voted against the Patriot Act. He also voted against the Iraq War. He's also against reducing or abolishing NSA surveillance of US citizens. And Adam, I don't think Bernie is necessarily about more government, but better government - meaning, better allocation of resources.

 

Anyhow, I don't think our "animal nature" is all that we are. Or rather, animals aren't just lone predators, many are also social animals. The key is a balance of the individual and the group. This is why I say the key is to find a healthy combination of socialism (group) and capitalism (individual), not go to one extreme or the other.

 

This isn't only about this election, or even the US - it is the human journey, the quest for the "ideal society." Of course, I would argue, there is no such thing - but we are always striving towards it, and you can see numerous attempts throughout history, some pretty good (US) some horrible (Nazi Germany). In a way you could look at US history as a kind of ongoing dialogue on what freedom means, on what the good life is, and how we live in freedom but also together.

 

Bernie's answers to the question of "how to do change" is simple, but also revolutionary. In fact, it is revolution itself - its getting the people more involved, really embracing democracy. Here's a quote from a recent interview with Chris Matthews: "You make change not by sitting down with Mitch McConnell, you make change when millions of people in this country demand change - that's the way change has always taken place."

 

On one hand, this is a Hail Mary pass. On the other, it is the only way real change will actually ever happen. Everything else is just tweaking the status quo.

[Adam]

I see it as pretty much the opposite of that

[Angelsjunky]

What?

[ten ocho recon scout]

Adam and Nate nailed it.

I've got friends with HS diplomas who work blue collar jobs that they busted their asses at and clear 6 figures. They had to stick it out for a while making very little doing back breaking work to climb their way up. Now friends of ours are asking for help to get jobs and the response is always the same - "apply online to any of the cities you're willing to drive to, get your foot in the door and pick up as many shifts as you can." Another one of my good friends who I've known forever went to the fire academy and instead of going the paramedic or hospital route to get experience while he applied for jobs he stayed at the same job he had been at. It's not a bad job and he definitely gets by but he could be making 2x+ as much or more while getting in line for a great pension. He didn't want to make the time and effort sacrifice to set himself apart from other candidates. I heard from him for a while how hard it was to get a firefighter job and I don't doubt that it isn't easy but I've met multiple other people that are younger than him who all got jobs after him. The difference is they made the sacrifices he wasn't willing to make to get where they are. Just having a diploma only gets you so far it's what you do once you start working that will set you apart.

i knew a guy just like that. Put himself through the fire academy and did nothing after. Didnt want to be an emt because it pays shit and he was making more as a bartender.

Hes the senior bartender there now, ten years later...

[Amazing Larry]

I'm sure his retirement plan is impeccable.

[Adam]

[Spirit]

 

 

Spot on.

[Angelsjunky]

I love it when rich people say to poor people, 'Just get a job."

 

As usual with libertarianism, it is woefully naive and limited in perspective, but makes an important point that liberals often miss and should be part of the conversation.

[Adam]

There are lots of jobs out there. Shit, we can't find enough people

[m0nkey]

I love it when poor people come up with excuses. I'm not rich either

[Jay]

There are lots of jobs out there. Shit, we can't find enough people

 

correction: you can't find enough smart, hard-working people.