2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by mike1498

So we both agree the system is broken then. Is it the fault of the people to take advantage of broken policies? The problem with socialism is that it doesn't cause incentives for hard work. The same can be argued with pure capitalism. The government sending you a check every week doesn't make you work more. The CEO that gets an insane salary when earnings are down doesn't deserve that either. That's why I think stronger legislation on the top will have the trickle down effect to the bottom. The redistribution of money doesn't change the problem. Finding ways to generate more money (which starts from the top) does.

Without ever implementing it, we will never know. There have been small scale studies though that UBI does increase productivity as people are far less worried about being able to afford basic needs and it also increases innovation. It also would encourage more people to start their own business ventures as you have a fall back if something goes wrong, where if you do it without that you can ruin yourself financially for decades. It can also allow people to go back to school while possibly working part time to acquire a more productive skill.

Sure, you will always have people that leach off the system, but most people would still continue to work so that they could maintain a higher quality of life.

To the bolded part, no, it isn't, but when I find a republican who does it that votes for defunding social programs I find it extremely hypocritical.

[trixstar]

Just infuriating lol



https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-d...ay-11601844813


Now jut sticking secret service in close proximity for a photo op

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/s...66037675814913

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

What amount of socialist policies are you comfortable with? And in which sectors are increased 'socialism' skillful?

The difficulty in dialoguing that seems to be taking place is that some folks who are opposed to "socialism" don't seem to understand socialist principles they are in support of.
There is a manipulation of buzz words coming from both sides of the aisle/media but in this case the manipulation of the concept of socialism is coming from the right.

This is a great post.

Both sides use buzzwords, but in this case I agree that the right tosses around "socialism" too much. I'm not sure if it's some irrational fear of suddenly being transported into 1950s USSR, or what.

Being in favor of some plans that are in line with socialism does not make one in favor of an entirely socialist government. Government is inherently partially socialist by definition.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

Without ever implementing it, we will never know. There have been small scale studies though that UBI does increase productivity as people are far less worried about being able to afford basic needs and it also increases innovation. It also would encourage more people to start their own business ventures as you have a fall back if something goes wrong, where if you do it without that you can ruin yourself financially for decades.

Sure, you will always have people that leach off the system, but most people would still continue to work so that they could maintain a higher quality of life.

People would put more hours in without UBI because they don't have that supplement income so that doesn't even make sense. Innovation would increase when you have a potential higher return but in a socialist society, your return would be less (because of taxes). Less people will start ventures if taxes is higher.

Socialism doesn't value risk reward.

[lionsfan20]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

Like I said, the elusive Nebraska Corn Mogul.

https://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/...019/index.html

Funny thing is there are plenty of millionaires here. I am not one of them. I was simply pointing out that if I was a millionaire I am supposed to just pay 50% taxes just because I was extremely successful. Because that's fair? Again out definition of fair is way different. Lol nice try though twisting things once I quoted your stupidity.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by mike1498

People would put more hours in without UBI because they don't have that supplement income so that doesn't even make sense. Innovation would increase when you have a potential higher return but in a socialist society, your return would be less (because of taxes). Less people will start ventures if taxes is higher.

Socialism doesn't value risk reward.

Ehh, I would still work 40 hours a week, without a doubt. I think most people would. If I got a check for 500-1000 dollars a month though, I would also certainly put much more money into the economy (probably through my local card shop hahahaha).

And yes, taxes would likely be higher, but again, it would be done by primarily raising on the mega rich and closing loopholes. Do people not realize how the progressive tax scale works? Most people aren't magically going to go from making 100K a year to one million plus.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

One of my most hardcore right wing friends, who decries really anything that is government funded, is a teacher in a very strong union. I point that out to him constantly, and he generally ignores it.

Like you do with Biden's racism. Nice!

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by lionsfan20

https://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/...019/index.html

Funny thing is there are plenty of millionaires here. I am not one of them. I was simply pointing out that if I was a millionaire I am supposed to just pay 50% taxes just because I was extremely successful. Because that's fair? Again out definition of fair is way different. Lol nice try though twisting things once I quoted your stupidity.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

OUr most successful economy in our country's history was in the 50's and 60's. Do you care to tell me what the tax brackets looked like at that point?

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

Ehh, I would still work 40 hours a week, without a doubt. I think most people would. If I got a check for 500-1000 dollars a month though, I would also certainly put much more money into the economy (probably through my local card shop hahahaha).

And yes, taxes would likely be higher, but again, it would be done by primarily raising on the mega rich and closing loopholes. Do people not realize how the progressive tax scale works? Most people aren't magically going to go from making 100K a year to one million plus.

1) You spending money at your local card store doesn't change the long term economy. If we are trying to not create an artificial economy where people spend money they didn't earn, then it needs to be invested into something that can give a return in the future. This can be things like machinery, education, equipment etc.

2) You were talking about innovation before. Who do you think invests in innovation? The poor? You want to take the money out of the rich who could be investing in technology that can make use more efficient in the future. Socialism sacrifices the long term for the short term.

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by mike1498

1) You spending money at your local card store doesn't change the long term economy. If we are trying to not create an artificial economy where people spend money they didn't earn, then it needs to be invested into something that can give a return in the future. This can be things like machinery, education, equipment etc.

2) You were talking about innovation before. Who do you think invests in innovation? The poor? You want to take the money out of the rich who could be investing in technology that can make use more efficient in the future. Socialism sacrifices the long term for the short term.

Supporting small businesses, regardless of what they are, doesn't help the economy. Whether I say my LCS or local restaurants it is the same things.

To number two, new business ideas, especially on the tech side do often come from normal everyday people. Startups are exactly that, and not always the rich. It would encourage new business in general.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

I'm only ~50% sure this is satire, but either way amazing post.

That guy didn't even know who Hillary Clinton is!

I kid, Clark, I kid.
Clark, your magic is real, and I believe in you.

Originally Posted by Jopeal

I've talked with Clark enough for it to be unclear.

As I mentioned to you earlier, you'll find all sorts of folks posting in this thread.
It takes time to parse everyone out.

I recommend newcomers read the entire thread from the start, with eyes mechanically pried open, a nurse present to administer eyedrops, and the music of Beethoven loudly playing in the background. Pay special attention to the posts of my alter ego, "cnewby", also marked by the familiar jdandns "Freak Brothers" avatar, for ease of discovery. The secret codes are in there, usually in emoji form, or else short, repeated phrases, and lots of exclamation points.

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

His post said $5 million earners. How do you equate that to you?

Two people with reading comprehension deficiencies in this thread.

A lot of people think they'll someday make that much, and therefore work now to make sure the tax code is favorable to them when they get there.
Visionaries.
Dreamers.
I have no quarrel with them.

[oldgoldy97]

Titans game must be over.


There are lots of socialist countries that do pretty good for themselves.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

Supporting small businesses, regardless of what they are, doesn't help the economy. Whether I say my LCS or local restaurants it is the same things.

To number two, new business ideas, especially on the tech side do often come from normal everyday people. Startups are exactly that, and not always the rich. It would encourage new business in general.

I'm aware. Do you realize how much capital a lot of these tech startups take? Your UBI won't be paying for it is all I have to say. The people you want to tax 50% will. They have less incentive to take risks because returns won't be as high and they are losing more money in taxes anyway

[rman112]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Titans game must be over.


There are lots of socialist countries that do pretty good for themselves.

Yeah yeah.. 1 win and the jab floodgate opens.

[trixstar]

This dude literally works at Walter Reed they probably can’t wait to discharge Trump

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by mike1498

I'm aware. Do you realize how much capital a lot of these tech startups take? Your UBI won't be paying for it is all I have to say. The people you want to tax 50% will. They have less incentive to take risks because returns won't be as high and they are losing more money in taxes anyway

They will make less money, you are correct. However, they will still make a TON of money, and they won't lose money from coming up with something new.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by Alvarez09

Without ever implementing it, we will never know. There have been small scale studies though that UBI does increase productivity as people are far less worried about being able to afford basic needs and it also increases innovation. It also would encourage more people to start their own business ventures as you have a fall back if something goes wrong, where if you do it without that you can ruin yourself financially for decades. It can also allow people to go back to school while possibly working part time to acquire a more productive skill.

Sure, you will always have people that leach off the system, but most people would still continue to work so that they could maintain a higher quality of life.

To the bolded part, no, it isn't, but when I find a republican who does it that votes for defunding social programs I find it extremely hypocritical.

The platform still needs to be improved upon.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/02/why-...socialism.html

"The socialism vs. capitalism debate is dated and unproductive. We need to break out of this simplistic mindset and pass legislation that would benefit all Americans, without regard for labels that are rapidly losing their relevance." - Andrew Yang

Originally Posted by JustRachel

This is a great post.

Both sides use buzzwords, but in this case I agree that the right tosses around "socialism" too much. I'm not sure if it's some irrational fear of suddenly being transported into 1950s USSR, or what.

Being in favor of some plans that are in line with socialism does not make one in favor of an entirely socialist government. Government is inherently partially socialist by definition.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

For sure! Reallocating funds and building upon providing more streamlined basic necessities for our citizens at the bottom (food, water, clothing, shelter, health care) is not a condemnation of capitalism. Some economic hierarchy can actually serve a purpose in national stability as government is not able to have too much influence over it's citizens, just as economic stability at the lowest income levels can do the same to build a more peaceful nation.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by trixstar

This dude literally works at Walter Reed they probably can’t wait to discharge Trump

I thought Trump went to the hospital by helicopter?

[Brobocop]

If it's indeed true that Trump knew he had COVID-19 and failed to take proper precautions and helped spread it, then that should seriously be the end of his presidential reelection hopes. But, we live in a time where people would vote for the guy if he murdered someone live on tv, so the election will be closer than it has any right to be. I would respect the GOP much more if they had dumped Trump and ran someone else, but we all know that's not going to happen.

[Alvarez09]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

The platform still needs to be improved upon.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/02/why-...socialism.html

"The socialism vs. capitalism debate is dated and unproductive. We need to break out of this simplistic mindset and pass legislation that would benefit all Americans, without regard for labels that are rapidly losing their relevance." - Andrew Yang



For sure! Reallocating funds and building upon providing more streamlined basic necessities for our citizens at the bottom (food, water, clothing, shelter, health care) is not a condemnation of capitalism. Some economic hierarchy can actually serve a purpose in national stability as government is not able to have too much influence over it's citizens, just as economic stability at the lowest income levels can do the same to build a more peaceful nation.

I am a huge fan of Andrew Yang's plan.

Also, I would add internet access to your basic utilities at this point. You can live without it, but it is so essential for employment, education, and just to get information in general that at this point I consider it a basica utility, and frankly the cost of it in this country has gotten very much out of control and needs to be regulated.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by rman112

Like you do with Biden's racism. Nice!

rman, if you would stop saying these terrible things about Biden, I could talk to some Hollyweird higher-ups I know and maybe we could get you a special dispensation to use a couple of our pop culture references, maybe something from a movie or TV show you like (no "Seinfeld", though. They were very clear on that.).

No promises, but what do you say?

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by mike1498

1) You spending money at your local card store doesn't change the long term economy. If we are trying to not create an artificial economy where people spend money they didn't earn, then it needs to be invested into something that can give a return in the future. This can be things like machinery, education, equipment etc.

2) You were talking about innovation before. Who do you think invests in innovation? The poor? You want to take the money out of the rich who could be investing in technology that can make use more efficient in the future. Socialism sacrifices the long term for the short term.

Micro venture capitalism.

If those at the bottom and middle have more financial freedom to spend and invest, it reduces the necessity to rely solely on the rich for investment in innovation.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by jdandns

rman, if you would stop saying these terrible things about Biden, I could talk to some Hollyweird higher-ups and maybe we could get you a special dispensation to use a couple of our pop culture references, maybe something from a movie or TV show you like (no "Seinfeld", though. They were very clear on that.).

No promises, but what do you say?

Pass.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by jdandns

I recommend newcomers read the entire thread from the start, with eyes mechanically pried open, a nurse present to administer eyedrops, and the music of Beethoven loudly playing in the background. Pay special attention to the posts of my alter ego, "cnewby", also marked by the familiar jdandns "Freak Brothers" avatar, for ease of discovery. The secret codes are in there, usually in emoji form, or else short, repeated phrases, and lots of exclamation points.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by rman112

Pass.

I can't get you anything from the original "Die Hard", but anything from the sequels, you name it!