Bernie is done. 2020 Election is officially over.

Author: Greyparrot

Posts

Total: 111
#61
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Of the democratic party, in two states only. Meaning he's won the under 35 leftist votes in two sparsely populated states.
Sanders won the popular vote in every state so far (Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada). His national polling shows him up over 11 points. He won in nevada in almost every category, left, right, moderate, young, middle aged, with a college degree, without a college degree, white voters, minority voters etc. The only category Biden was able to get a slight edge in was over 65 voters. 

What year are you talking about? Because last I checked, open borders, and abortions after births are zany left.
lol what are you talking about. No one advocates for open borders or abortions after birth. I don't know why people keep repeating weird lies like that. 

There are lots of conservative democrats. I mean pretty much everyone who appears on MSNBC falls into that category.
Laughable. Even Sanders just said that he has been treated better by CNN than by MSDNC. They aren't even a news channel anymore.
MSNBC is no longer left. The have attacked any progressive candidate and constantly defended the right leaning ones. They are essentially the channel for moderate republicans now. 

oh, so he surrounds himself with criminals and yes men...
Are you able to distinguish between your perception and reality?
several of his friends and cronies are in prison right now. That is reality. Are you able to see reality?

You said this of Trump... "I didn't realize that corruption and giving power to the people were the same thing."

Then you immediately after said this, "Trump's upsides (populism, fighting against corruption, fighting for the people..." 

Do you see why we would think those were contradictory statements?
I'm sorry if I was unclear. I meant that his "upsides" were what people perceived his upsides to be, not what he actually was going to do. His base thinks he fights for them because he uses populist rhetoric, when in reality he is funneling as much money as he can into his own, his family's and other billionaire's pockets while bankrupting the country. He is then trying to cut social spending to pay for it. He is screwing over his own base. 

Bernie on the other hand actually believes in the populist message he uses.

Trump didn't make your contradictory statements. You did.
I didn't make any contradictory statement, i clarified above. 

Yet the economy is better than its been in decades,
wages are stagnant, student debt is crushing a generation of americans, people are dying and being bankrupted trying to get healthcare. The economy is working great for a small chunk of the population. For everyone else is is going pretty badly. 

and Trump has lost personal  riches.
lol he has saudi princes funneling money to him and his corrupt son in law. He has the government of china doing favors for his daughter. He is diverting government funds to his hotels. He is doing quite well profiting from the white house. 

I'm saying the 3rd option, Trump is not who you think he is, and socialism works only on paper. Add in human nature and socialism becomes indistinguishable from stupidity.
You clearly don't understand. Democratic socialism is used all over the world, and has been for decades. Countries like Canada and Denmark have been doing it a long time and they have much higher standards of living than most americans. 


#62
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
It will be interesting to hear what excuse you spin when Trump wins again.
Topic's author
#63
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
wealth gaps are growing..

Wealth gaps were higher under Obama when there was much more unemployment. Why was that?

Simple. You can only go so far up the ladder when the government controls how much wealth you can have with welfare.

Trump instead gave Americans a job and the freedom to invest in yourself and learn more job skills. That's when upward mobility actually happens as it has under Trump with record job opportunities for poor Americans and minorities.

Also, a corresponding drop in welfare participation rates shatters the ceiling the government places on the poor to keep them in their place.

jobs, jobs, jobs.

Now here comes Bernie with his authoritarian schemes about to price fix labor wages so he can destroy all those jobs created and get the poor back on the welfare rolls where they belong. That's the elites kicking the fingers of the poor as they climb the opportunity ladder.

Breadlines are a good thing, Mr. Sanders. Da Komrade. Da.
#64
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Wealth gaps were higher under Obama when there was much more unemployment. Why was that?
The great recession that was triggered by greedy oligarchs. That wiped out alot of working class people. Obama lead the come back from the recession and trump is now trying to take credit for the economy he inherited. 

Simple. You can only go so far up the ladder when the government controls how much wealth you can have with welfare.
When has the government ever controlled how much wealth people can have? 

Trump instead gave Americans a job and the freedom to invest in yourself and learn more job skills.
A more accurate way of phrasing it is, he inherited an economy that was growing and won't stop trying to brag about it. 

Also, a corresponding drop in welfare participation rates shatters the ceiling the government places on the poor to keep them in their place.
this doesn't make sense. 
Topic's author
#65
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
When has the government ever controlled how much wealth people can have? 

There are hard caps on how much welfare you can receive state by state. The only way a poor person can break the cycle of inequality using welfare is to defraud the system.

#66
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
In TDS, does the "D" stand for "derangement" or "delusional"?
#67
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
There are hard caps on how much welfare you can receive state by state. The only way a poor person can break the cycle of inequality on welfare is to defraud the system.
ahh i see. But republicans are constantly trying to cut back on those programs. They are actively trying to screw over the poor. Forcing them deeper into a cycle they cannot escape from. If you have draconian restrictions in place and only provide just barely enough to avoid starving to death, they can't afford to get a suit, a means of transportation etc. These create additional barriers that prevent people from getting a job and improving their lives. 
Topic's author
#68
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
Does it really matter? TDS really means one thing. A weak mind got trolled by a stronger one.

You saw it on the debate stage last night as our "hopeful leaders" descended into anarchy.
#69
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
You saw it on the debate stage last night as our "hopeful leaders" descended into anarchy.
nah, last night you saw desperation. Everyone on that stage knew that they needed a big moment if they wanted any chance of surviving. So they all dog piled on each other trying to create the "moment" that would stave off the death of their campaign. Ultimately, all they did was ensure the status quo, which is Sanders becoming the nominee. 

#70
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
What's amazing is how no reality ever makes them see how clueless they've been.

The economy is great. They say Obama started it and forget they predicted a crash with Trump.

The Mueller report finds no collusion, they simply move to the next deranged thing and forget that for 2 years they said they already had proof of collusion.

Trade is going great. They will forget that they predicted that the USA would be the laughingstock of the world.

NATO countries have ponied up, Canada and Mexico have signed contracts, England is seeking one, and North Korea has settled down. All exact opposites of what they predicted. But they seem impervious to reality.

The supreme court allows Trump to restrict green cards, upholds religious rights, allows Trump to restrict immigration from certain countries, and agrees Trump does not have to produce his tax returns. And it's like they see none of that.

The economy is doing great. Employment is soaring, manufacturing is up, the stock market is booming. Consumer confidence is strong. Yet HB says the opposite. What country is he talking about?

Now HB is claiming Trump is stealing. Yet the court just threw out the emoluments case against him. Where is HB getting this secret information? How does he get access to such privileged information? 

Does it really matter?
No. Not to them at all.
Topic's author
#71
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
I found Sotomayer and Ginsberg's comments suggesting the judicial branch should regulate immigration instead of the executive branch utterly disgusting. These people are destroying the necessary function of the SCOTUS by delegitimizing it through political squabbles.

#72
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Honestly, it depends on the amount of wealth. A billionaire is a threat to democracy in the same way a nuclear weapon is a threat. Even if you put strict rules around how it can be used, the risk of it being used is huge. Someone like bloomberg has the money and connections to pay off virtually everyone in the halls of power. His wealth is a threat. 


A nuclear weapon and money are two entirely different things. Money has near infinite purposes, but a nuclear weapon has one, which is to kill. Having large fines associated with attempts at corruption could make it unprofitable to try to use money to influence politics. What is the threshold at which someone's money becomes a "threat to democracy"? Because just picking on billionaires because they are a small minority of people seems like something used for political viability than a number that actually has inherent meaning associated with it.

ok, but he now has more money than he could possibly spend. He was certainly critical to the success of the company. But the vast majority of the work that was done to make that company a success was done by his employees, not him personally. Does he deserve to be rich for that, absolutely. Does he deserve to have enough money to destroy democracy, absolutely not. 

I will once again have to ask how much money it takes to threaten democracy, because at the least we agree he deserves to be wealthy.

There are lots of improvements we could make to get their money out of politics, but the money itself is a threat. They will always find ways to use it to help them push their agenda (which probably isn't the same agenda as the people). Maybe they buy out all the news agencies, maybe they buy out social media platforms and use those to push their agenda. It doesn't matter what rules you put in place. A man with 100 billion dollars will find a way to use it to benefit himself. It will always be used to amplify his voice to drown out the voices of others. That is not healthy for a democracy. 

Media isn't the end all be all. Bernie is the front runner and the media hates him, no matter how many millions Bloomberg and others are spending. People simply don't trust it anymore.  There are plenty of ways to get money out of politics without robbing people of the wealth they rightfully earned. 

could not disagree more. Bernie spent a lifetime devoted to public service and helping people. Bezos designed a website that sells stuff. He did it really well and deserves to be rich. But to pretend that a lifetime of service to the people is worthless is insane. 

That is a gross mischaracterization of Amazon. (I don't like Bezos btw, I think he is scummy.) But he created a website that provides cheaper and more convenient products for millions of customers. Amazon employs 798,000 people, as well. 

I wasn't trying to compare Sanders and Bezos because public service and private sector entrepreneurialism are two entirely different things. But, I was saying that Bezos undertook a lot of more financial risk, so his resulting much larger financial rewards are to be expected.
#73
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
A billionaire is a threat to democracy in the same way a nuclear weapon is a threat.
Isn't that ironic? Democracy is the only system where a person can become a billionaire honestly, and then have the created billionaire be called a threat to the very system that allowed the possibility.
#74
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Isn't that ironic? Democracy is the only system where a person can become a billionaire honestly, and then have the created billionaire be called a threat to the very system that allowed the possibility.
Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with making money. It is a method of picking the leader of the country. Unregulated capitalism is the mechanism billionaires use to amass insane amounts of wealth. They then use that wealth to twist democracy to suit themselves and allow them to make more money. They are massively reducing the voice of the people and massively amplifying their own agenda. 

Billionaires are a threat to democracy. 
#75
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
A nuclear weapon and money are two entirely different things. Money has near infinite purposes, but a nuclear weapon has one
true, the analogy is limited in scope. But they are both extremely dangerous if they are not properly controlled. 

Having large fines associated with attempts at corruption could make it unprofitable to try to use money to influence politics.
but if they successfully use their money to corrupt the system, they can prevent those kinds of fines from existing. Or build in loopholes to avoid them. It is true you could spend a lot of time and effort trying to fight them back, but in the end they have the resources to find new ways to use their money to corrupt the system. 

What is the threshold at which someone's money becomes a "threat to democracy"? Because just picking on billionaires because they are a small minority of people seems like something used for political viability than a number that actually has inherent meaning associated with it.
This is certainly debatable, but I would say a billion dollars is probably the point at which it becomes a threat. At that point they have the ability to drown out the voices of everyone else. Bloomberg (a republican) has dumped half a billion dollars into ad buys and bribes and managed to buy his way into 2nd place in a democratic primary (in some polls). That is extremely dangerous. 

I will once again have to ask how much money it takes to threaten democracy, because at the least we agree he deserves to be wealthy.
agreed. people who work hard an innovate deserve to reap the rewards of that. But no one can spend 100 billion dollars in their lifetime. The way they tend to spend that kind of money is by dumping it into political campaigns, super pacs and various other ways to buy influence and corrupt the system. 

Media isn't the end all be all. Bernie is the front runner and the media hates him, no matter how many millions Bloomberg and others are spending. People simply don't trust it anymore.
In some polls Bloomberg is in 2nd nationally. And he isn't just buying ads, he is paying off the media and politicians all over the country. That 500 million he has spent on ads didn't just disappear into the ether, it went to MSNBC, CNN etc. That kind of money buys you alot of good will. 

He also dumped millions into the DNC and various other political organizations all over the country to buy endorsements. 

That is a gross mischaracterization of Amazon. (I don't like Bezos btw, I think he is scummy.) But he created a website that provides cheaper and more convenient products for millions of customers. Amazon employs 798,000 people, as well. 
i'm not saying he didn't do something innovative. He absolutely did. He deserves to be wealthy. He does not deserve enough wealth to buy democracy though. 

I wasn't trying to compare Sanders and Bezos because public service and private sector entrepreneurialism are two entirely different things. But, I was saying that Bezos undertook a lot of more financial risk, so his resulting much larger financial rewards are to be expected.
Fair enough. And bezos would struggle mightily to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in a single lifetime. That is a pretty massive reward on his investment and risk. But once he passes the line into billions, and god forbid hundreds of billions, he becomes a massive threat. He has the money to buy up news agencies, politicians, political organizations etc. America has had those kinds of problems before with railroad barons. The solution was to break up their companies so they wouldn't be such a massive threat. We need a modern day method of controlling that kind of insane wealth concentration. 
#76
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm curious. Do you believe....

A. No one is an honest person?
If so, then the real threat to democracy is dishonesty, not billionaires.

Or

B. All Billionaires become corrupt?
Which means then that you think people should be stopped before they become billionaires.

They then use that wealth to twist democracy to suit themselves and allow them to make more money.
I find it difficult to believe a billionaire would twist the very system that made his huge wealth possible. If I became a billionaire, I would want more Democracy.

The richer the general population is, the more money the businesses of billionaires make. Billionaires only become possible and sustainable in prosperous societies.

Saying that billionaires subvert their democracies doesn't make economic sense.
Topic's author
#77
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Democratic Capitalism.

/snicker
#78
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
democratic socialism just means you chose to be socialist, doesn't he want the gobermint to run the utilities too?  I believe I heard that as well.  When the government runs most everything that seems to negate democracy.  You can put lipstick on a pig.........
#79
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@ethang5
@Greyparrot
@bmdrocks21
HB believes that no one should be a billionaire and that govt should stop anyone from amassing that much money because it’s immoral. Doesn’t sound like freedom to me. No country restricts the ability to earn money. Well except for socialist and communist paradises.

#80
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
true, the analogy is limited in scope. But they are both extremely dangerous if they are not properly controlled. 

Agreed.

but if they successfully use their money to corrupt the system, they can prevent those kinds of fines from existing. Or build in loopholes to avoid them. It is true you could spend a lot of time and effort trying to fight them back, but in the end they have the resources to find new ways to use their money to corrupt the system. 

Ok, and you will have the same exact problem as me. You want to tax billionaires much higher. They will fight like crazy to make sure your taxes either don't go through or that there are tons of loopholes in the tax code, like they already do.

This is certainly debatable, but I would say a billion dollars is probably the point at which it becomes a threat. At that point they have the ability to drown out the voices of everyone else. Bloomberg (a republican) has dumped half a billion dollars into ad buys and bribes and managed to buy his way into 2nd place in a democratic primary (in some polls). That is extremely dangerous. 

Bloomberg was temporarily a Republican, but he shares next to no values with them. He is now a Democrat, and he acts like your average moderate Dem. He also said during the debate he spent $100 million to take seats from Republicans in the primaries. 

Him buying his way onto the stage is more of an issue of DNC corruption and changing rules after getting some large donations, and his ads still have yet to put him anywhere near the lead. 

agreed. people who work hard an innovate deserve to reap the rewards of that. But no one can spend 100 billion dollars in their lifetime. The way they tend to spend that kind of money is by dumping it into political campaigns, super pacs and various other ways to buy influence and corrupt the system. 

Or they dump billions into charity. The 1% of income earners are responsible for 1/3 of charitable donations. They sign a "giving pledge" sometimes to give all of it away.

I think all donations to politicians should be capped amounts and only from individual citizens. Not companies, not unions, and not non-profits. Any violation should be harshly punished so that billionaires' incentives are always to make profit through the market instead of the government.

In some polls Bloomberg is in 2nd nationally. And he isn't just buying ads, he is paying off the media and politicians all over the country. That 500 million he has spent on ads didn't just disappear into the ether, it went to MSNBC, CNN etc. That kind of money buys you alot of good will. 

He also dumped millions into the DNC and various other political organizations all over the country to buy endorsements. 
And every candidate shits on him at the debates for a variety of reasons. Just the fact that people are saying he is buying the election turns a lot of voters away from him. He doesn't have any delegates currently, does he? And if people want a winner, they won't vote for someone who spends a lot of money and has no delegates. I really don't think he has any chance from what I've seen.

BTW, have you seen some of his signs? "Donald Trump cheats at golf. Mike Bloomberg doesn't". "Donald Trump eats burnt steak. Mike Bloomberg likes his medium-rare". Nobody will vote for a guy just because he like medium-rare steaks and doesn't cheat at golf lmao.

i'm not saying he didn't do something innovative. He absolutely did. He deserves to be wealthy. He does not deserve enough wealth to buy democracy though. 

Well, nobody says they want anyone to be able to buy a democracy. I am saying that there are other ways to make sure that they don't do that than just taking their money.

Fair enough. And bezos would struggle mightily to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in a single lifetime. That is a pretty massive reward on his investment and risk. But once he passes the line into billions, and god forbid hundreds of billions, he becomes a massive threat. He has the money to buy up news agencies, politicians, political organizations etc. America has had those kinds of problems before with railroad barons. The solution was to break up their companies so they wouldn't be such a massive threat. We need a modern day method of controlling that kind of insane wealth concentration. 

Well, I like anti-trust laws. Apparently, they are looking into enforcing those on Amazon.

So, your method of controlling "insane wealth concentration" is to put what, a 100% tax on every dollar over $1 billion earned or what?
Topic's author
#81
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
This is silly anyway. Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1 and lost. None of the Billionaires are getting any support and all the paid media looks like Russian bots to the average voter. 

Money hasn't decided elections since 2016, so what's the point in restricting wealth?
#82
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I think people get confused. These people don’t just have a billion dollars laying around. They invest in other companies to help people below them. They invest in the stock market to help the average person. It’s simply false to say that the money does nothing to help Americans on a day to day basis.
Topic's author
#83
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
#84
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Here is what HB doesn't know about history and human nature.

I bet you, no current billionaire shot for a billion dollars. He shot high and got a billion. Now, if government takes a billion off the table, fewer people will aim high. Fewer people will keep working after 900 million. The economy will contract.

What do democrats do when the economy contracts? They tax the rich and increase services to the poor. Which in turn contracts the economy even more. See the cycle?

This isn't conjecture. The process has been played out in many countries over history. Anyone who thinks democrats would stop at a billion dollars don't know history or human nature.

Today, we have no Trillionaires, so a billion seems a good place to put the limit. So when we have no more billionaires, where do you think the "right" place will be for liberal democrats looking for more money, having squandered all the taxes on illegal immigrants and abortions on demand? Right, at a million.

Some of the countries they praise as wonderful take as much as 65% of all the  earnings of its populace in taxes!

They see no need to limit how poor a person can get, just keep throwing someone else's money at him, but at the other end, limit how rich a person can get, and take his own money!

There is no critical thinking anymore.
Topic's author
#85
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
You're a little pessimistic. Most of the Nordic countries went through a bankruptcy cycle on socialism before realizing they couldn't exist without free-market capitalism and government free education. Look at the reforms Sweden went through, they used to be terribly socialist.
#86
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
I'm curious. Do you believe....

A. No one is an honest person?
If so, then the real threat to democracy is dishonesty, not billionaires.

Or

B. All Billionaires become corrupt?
Which means then that you think people should be stopped before they become billionaires.

I believe that power leads to corruption. If you have the ability to get what you want, then alot of the time you will do so. If you have 50 billion dollars and can buy up politicians to get your vision of what is "good" done, then why wouldn't you? From their point of view they might not even see this as corruption. But they are effectively silencing the voices of others by using their massive resources. So both of your options are incorrect. 

I find it difficult to believe a billionaire would twist the very system that made his huge wealth possible. If I became a billionaire, I would want more Democracy.
You assume that there isn't massive amounts of corruption right now. So corrupting the system more to suit themselves is not a radical change, it is just more of the same. And it would inherently benefit them to do so. 


The richer the general population is, the more money the businesses of billionaires make. Billionaires only become possible and sustainable in prosperous societies.
lol this is just patently not true. The rich in america have been getting massively richer while wages for the working class have been stagnant. 

Saying that billionaires subvert their democracies doesn't make economic sense.
why? They use their money and influence to get laws that benefit them. If they make their money in oil, bribe politicians to limit environmental laws. They can, and do, make huge sums of money off of corruption.
#87
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ok, and you will have the same exact problem as me. You want to tax billionaires much higher. They will fight like crazy to make sure your taxes either don't go through or that there are tons of loopholes in the tax code, like they already do.
I never said it would be easy. It will absolutely require laws to try to keep their money out of politics as well. But as long as a man can sit on 50 billion dollars and use it to buy out news networks, politicians, endorsements etc, then democracy is at risk. 

Bloomberg was temporarily a Republican, but he shares next to no values with them. He is now a Democrat, and he acts like your average moderate Dem. He also said during the debate he spent $100 million to take seats from Republicans in the primaries. 
no, no he does not. Until right before he decided to run for president he was still espousing republican policies. He pretends he believes in democratic values now because he knows he has to in order to have a chance, but in his heart he is still an authoritarian republican. 

Him buying his way onto the stage is more of an issue of DNC corruption and changing rules after getting some large donations, and his ads still have yet to put him anywhere near the lead. 
i'm actually not all that concerned about the DNC letting him on stage. He had bought 15% support already. He was basically just getting to spin his own story without being challenged. Letting him on the debate stage opened him up to actually being questioned on his record, and he got obliterated. 

Or they dump billions into charity. The 1% of income earners are responsible for 1/3 of charitable donations. They sign a "giving pledge" sometimes to give all of it away
some of them do that. But many of those charities wouldn't even need to exist if proper taxation existed. we wouldn't need to wait for a billionaire to decide he wants some good publicity in order to provide services to people. If we had proper taxation in place we could consistently provide those services. 

And every candidate shits on him at the debates for a variety of reasons. Just the fact that people are saying he is buying the election turns a lot of voters away from him. He doesn't have any delegates currently, does he? And if people want a winner, they won't vote for someone who spends a lot of money and has no delegates. I really don't think he has any chance from what I've seen.
he has no chance of winning the most delegates, but that isn't the point. The point is to bribe enough people so that he will be crowned during a contested convention. Here is a story about it. Basically the plan is to use corruption to steal the nomination. 

Well, nobody says they want anyone to be able to buy a democracy. I am saying that there are other ways to make sure that they don't do that than just taking their money.
how? Are you going to pass laws about what they can buy? They can no longer buy newspapers, facebook ads etc. Will you prevent them from donating to causes to try to buy influence and endorsements? No matter how many laws you pass to restrict what they can do with their money, they will find a new way to use it to buy influence and power. The money itself is a threat. 

So, your method of controlling "insane wealth concentration" is to put what, a 100% tax on every dollar over $1 billion earned or what?
I like the wealth tax idea. It wouldn't prevent them from amassing large amounts of money, but when they get into the hundreds of millions and billions it would get harder and harder to maintain and grow their assets. They would be prompted to spend more, donate more etc because if they don't they will just increase their tax bill. I think that is a very effective way to both boost the economy and control the out of control income gap. 
#88
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
I believe that power leads to corruption.
So there are no honest powerful people?

...then why wouldn't you?
Your moral code?

So both of your options are incorrect. 
How can they both be incorrect? You said that power leads to corruption, therefore,  All Billionaires become corrupt. Which means then that you think people should be stopped before they become billionaires.

And it would inherently benefit them to do so. 
All your charges appear to be what is possible and what could be done, never what actually is done. You convict people on what you think they are capable of doing, instead of what they do.

The richer the general population is, the more money the businesses of billionaires make. Billionaires only become possible and sustainable in prosperous societies.

lol this is just patently not true.
How is it not true? The average American today has a smart phone with a computer in it more advanced that the computer that took man to the moon. People are richer today.

And billionaires do only become possible and sustainable in prosperous societies, this is why Africa has so few. Billionaires make money off of an educated, prosperous population.

Saying that billionaires subvert their democracies doesn't make economic sense.

why?
Because their democracies are what enables them to become, and remain billionaires.

They can, and do, make huge sums of money off of corruption.
That they can is all you can be sure of. You seem again to be convicting people  simply based on the possibility existing.

They use their money and influence to get laws that benefit them.
That is democracy. No law benefits only one person. Everyone is trying to make the playing field easier for them in a democracy. If they get laws changed the legal way, there is nothing wrong with that. We can always sack crooked politicians.

Like all democrats, you think the population is a bunch of morons just waiting to be swindled, so you must protect them.

If you think every rich person is necessarily corrupt, you ether don't know many, or you have bought into the mindset that being rich is evil. You are actually advocating penalizing people for being creative and industrious!
#89
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
So there are no honest powerful people?
There are exceptions, but as a rule, the more power someone gains, the more prone to corruption they are. So when a small group of people gain billions of dollars, most of them are going to engage in corruption. 

How can they both be incorrect? You said that power leads to corruption, therefore,  All Billionaires become corrupt. Which means then that you think people should be stopped before they become billionaires.
sort of. There are always exceptions. Some people have extremely strong morals that keep them from engaging in corruption. So saying all billionaires are corrupt would be incorrect. However these beacons of morality are definitely the exception, not the rule. 

All your charges appear to be what is possible and what could be done, never what actually is done. You convict people on what you think they are capable of doing, instead of what they do.
no. Corruption is rampant right now. Billionaires are engaging in corruption every day. Do you think that mike bloomberg, a republican, is getting glowing endorsements from democrats because they really just want a candidate who demeans his female employees? No, they are endorsing him because he has tons of money and is willing to write checks. 

The richer the general population is, the more money the businesses of billionaires make. Billionaires only become possible and sustainable in prosperous societies.
this is simply untrue. Some of the richest people in history came from countries that were otherwise poor. You don't become a billionaire because you spread the wealth, you become a billionaire by amassing the wealth to yourself at the expense of others. 

How is it not true? The average American today has a smart phone with a computer in it more advanced that the computer that took man to the moon. People are richer today.
I never said that people today were not richer than they were in the past. I said that it is untrue that this is an important component in the wealth of billionaires. 

And billionaires do only become possible and sustainable in prosperous societies, this is why Africa has so few. Billionaires make money off of an educated, prosperous population.
some of them do. Most of them do not. Most of them find ways to exploit the system. The saudi royal family are insanely rich, but it is from oil. Bloomberg got rich by exploiting financial markets, you don't need a strong middle class for that. You need a rich upper class. 

Saying that billionaires subvert their democracies doesn't make economic sense.
why? If they can control the rules of demcracy, they can steer the rules to benefit themselves. You don't get crazy rich from strong competition, most of the richest people get that way by crushing opposition and cornering the market. Corruption helps them do that. 

Because their democracies are what enables them to become, and remain billionaires.
no, no it does not. China has almost as many billionaires as the US does. You will not find any democracy there. 

That they can is all you can be sure of. You seem again to be convicting people  simply based on the possibility existing.
you can watch it happen in real time. Bloomberg donated hundreds of millions to the democratic party just before he announced his nomination, do you think that is a coincidence?

That is democracy. No law benefits only one person. Everyone is trying to make the playing field easier for them in a democracy. If they get laws changed the legal way, there is nothing wrong with that. We can always sack crooked politicians.
lol, so corruption is the fault of the person taking the money, but never the person trying to buy democracy? That is insane. 

Like all democrats, you think the population is a bunch of morons just waiting to be swindled, so you must protect them.
I think that with enough money you can buy alot of things. You can corrupt and undermine the democratic system. We need to protect the country. .

If you think every rich person is necessarily corrupt, you ether don't know many, or you have bought into the mindset that being rich is evil. You are actually advocating penalizing people for being creative and industrious!
taxation is not penalization. It is paying your share back into a system you have profited from. A billionaire has profited far more from the system, they should therefore pay far more back into that system. 
Topic's author
#90
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
So there are no honest powerful people?

It's rare, which is why the founding fathers created a presidency and Judicial branch to keep a corrupt Congress in check.