Bernie's free college idea

[nate]

It's

[ABC]

Its relative.

 

go on...

[Spirit]

lulz

[nate]

go on...

 

maybe a cousin or a brother

[ABC]

maybe a cousin or a brother

 

I think he has no clue what he is talking about but we will see once he answers.

[Tank]

My point is that there isn't enough campaign finance laws out there to remove money from politics.  

 

got it. my point was that congress, the ones who benefit from all the graft in politics, will not pass meaningful legislation against it because it directly hurts their ability to be bought and sold.

[Blarg]

This is poetry. 

 

And a teensy weensy wittle bit gay.

[Adam]

You know I was thinking today. The progressives screw poor people too. Crazy taxes on gas, smokes and booze.

[Spirit]

You know I was thinking today. The progressives screw poor people too. Crazy taxes on gas, smokes and booze.

 

And in SF they can't even get a toy in their kid's Happy Meal.  These folks can't afford a shopping spree at Toy 'R' Us!   In some cases, a Happy Meal toy was about all they could hope to provide.

[Angelsjunky]

"Wealthy" is relative. Making $40k in the US is luxury compared to most people in the world. Making $100k in the US is wealthy compared to making $50k.

 

Not too hard to understand.

[Adam]

So making eight dollars an hour is wealthy compared to making four dollars an hour

[Spirit]

So making eight dollars an hour is wealthy compared to making four dollars an hour

 

 

We need to tax the s**t out of that $8 an hour crowd! 

[ten ocho recon scout]

Risk and reward. A small business owner risks financial ruin if the business goes south, economy shits the bed, some accounts don't pay, etc. An employee, for the most part, loses a job. So while I know many small businesses participate in profit sharing of some kind, I do think those with the greatest risk should reap the greatest rewards

was thinking about this earlier. Its like gambling in vegas, winning big, and having to share your winnings with the people at the quarter slots.

[Tank]

was thinking about this earlier. Its like gambling in vegas, winning big, and having to share your winnings with the people at the quarter slots.

 

based on my extremely limited and quite unsuccessful previous experience, i fully support the implementation of this new idea.

[ten ocho recon scout]

We need to tax the s**t out of that $8 an hour crowd!

thats a decent argument point ivet had before, to piggyback on AJ saying its relative (and im not taking aides aj, i just like playing devils advocate in discussions like this). Its easy to say the rich should kick down money to the less fortunate, and theres a lot of good reasons for that. But where do you draw the line? Should the inner city family thats living in the projects, but has public schools, hospitals, and infrascruture send a bigger piece of their money to appalachia? And should the trailer park redneck kick some money down to the wino in the riverbed? And then should the wino kick some money down to say the homeless in tijuana that doesnt have access to a hospital or shelter in cold weather?

Its not that i dont believe in social programs, and helping the less fortunate, just the argument that only a certain portion of society should do it.

Im nowhere near the income level that some of the politicians are talking about taxing, and unless i hit the lotto i never will be. But even dodging that bullet personally, i dont think necessarily its fair to anyone to have to pay more than me (by percentage) to help out a stranger. You'd hope people would want to be good and generous, and want to help others, but if they dont...i cant say its right to make them

[ten ocho recon scout]

based on my extremely limited and quite unsuccessful previous experience, i fully support the implementation of this new idea.

i think anyone who bet on the bills all 4 times should get some sort of compensation

[ABC]

"Wealthy" is relative. Making $40k in the US is luxury compared to most people in the world. Making $100k in the US is wealthy compared to making $50k.

 

Not too hard to understand.

 

We are talking about the US.

 

$100K compared to $50K is not a difference that amounts to wealth. And what does it have to do with your idea about wealth? You made a sackless statement without any substance to build your POV on the wealthy and taxes. 

 

Anyhow you confirmed most everyone's educated presumption about your grasp of the subject and ability to enunciate your point.

[ABC]

thats a decent argument point ivet had before, to piggyback on AJ saying its relative (and im not taking aides aj, i just like playing devils advocate in discussions like this). Its easy to say the rich should kick down money to the less fortunate, and theres a lot of good reasons for that. But where do you draw the line? Should the inner city family thats living in the projects, but has public schools, hospitals, and infrascruture send a bigger piece of their money to appalachia? And should the trailer park redneck kick some money down to the wino in the riverbed? And then should the wino kick some money down to say the homeless in tijuana that doesnt have access to a hospital or shelter in cold weather?

Its not that i dont believe in social programs, and helping the less fortunate, just the argument that only a certain portion of society should do it.

Im nowhere near the income level that some of the politicians are talking about taxing, and unless i hit the lotto i never will be. But even dodging that bullet personally, i dont think necessarily its fair to anyone to have to pay more than me (by percentage) to help out a stranger. You'd hope people would want to be good and generous, and want to help others, but if they dont...i cant say its right to make them

 

That's the thing. If you want to tax the wealthy more than now, then you have to define wealthy with numbers. Is it yearly income, asset appreciation, accumulated wealth over X amount of years and/or dollars, etc. 

[Spirit]

And where does geographic location play into the wealth debate?  

 

You make $100k a year in San Jose, CA and you're living in an apartment.  You make $100k a year in Laramie, WY and you're living in a great house on a nice piece of land. 

[Adam]

But if you make $50K a year in San Jose you also live in an apartment, but with a roommate. So you're poor

[Tank]

But if you make $50K a year in San Jose you also live in an apartment, but with four roommates. So you're poor

 

fixed.

[Angelsjunky]

We are talking about the US.

 

$100K compared to $50K is not a difference that amounts to wealth. And what does it have to do with your idea about wealth? You made a sackless statement without any substance to build your POV on the wealthy and taxes. 

 

Anyhow you confirmed most everyone's educated presumption about your grasp of the subject and ability to enunciate your point.

 

What are you talking about? All I said was that "wealthy" is relative, and it is. What's "sackless" about that? Its actually basic logic. Do you know what relative means?

 

And yes, $100k is--all other things being equal--wealthy compared to $50k, just as $50k is wealthy compared to $25k. These aren't massive differences in wealth, but they are differences.

 

Again, when I said "wealthy is relative" I'm not making a political statement. It is common sense. I'm amazed how some folks can get upset with just about anything I said.

 

"AJ said X, he wants to take our money!"

[mtangelsfan]

If wealth is relative (which I agree with) how does Bernie's plan deal with that?

[Lou]

I'm kinda with AJ on this one, or at least I understand where he's coming from. I busted my ass about half of the time I was in the Navy and now I have a kush job that pays decent but with very little upward mobility. I often find myself wondering if this is it. Work until I'm old and then hang on for a decade or so; the American dream. My legacy will ultimately be that of another cog in the great big machine.

My god, what have I done?

Perhaps you should have busted your ass the entire time you were in the navy.

It's a new math thing

[Angelsjunky]

If wealth is relative (which I agree with) how does Bernie's plan deal with that?

 

I don't understand the question. How does Bernie's plan deal with the relativity of wealth? Can you clarify what exactly you're asking?