Comments by "marisafari" (@marisafari1806) on "Fox Business"
channel.
-
7
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
51MontyPython“What, in your view, would constitute a "progressive" tax policy?”
Bernie’s tax proposals which include a top marginal tax rat of 50 percent and elimination of loopholes that allow the wealthiest to not pay. It still wont be anywhere near republican eisenhower’s levels, but its a start.
But Obama’s and Bush’s and most likely Hillary’s are/were too low for the very top.
as much as faux news and the rest of the reich wing like to claim obama is a FAR LEFT SOCIALIST, he is a MODERATE. Obamacare is almost identical to the proposed Romneycare. As Flourideina said in the debate- it is CRONY CAPITALISM- written by big pharma and insurance companies.
This is what i keep saying- we have CORPORATE FASCISM.
OUR government- which should be representing US - are only representing the big corps and the megarich. they are CONTROLLED by the megarich.
Only political and electoral reform- AS BERNIE SANDERS HAS PROPOSED - can reverse this.
check out
feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-political-and-electoral-reform/
Which candidate are you in favor of? I gather youre a conservative/classical liberal, or a tea partier? Does this mean you want Rand?
“I'm saying that "Reaganomics" and "Trickle down" are two different things.”
ok. this is news to me. Reaganmomics, to me means supply side or “trickle down” ie you keep giving more and more tax breaks to the wealthiest so that they will supposedly be “incentivized” to loan more or to keep business in america, thus their wealth “trickling down” to the masses.
But i completely disagree with this premise. it doesn't happen this way. the economy grows from the Middle Out- not from the Top Down or from the “Supply Side”
not all entrepreneurs wait for handouts from the wealthy overlords.
Rather- if the middle class and lower are PAID MORE, they will have MORE TO SPEND, which will INCREASE BUSINESS, and also free people to have the TIME and ENERGY to create- to INNOVATE.
Have you heard of Dan Price, the CEO who decided to pay all of his employees 70k, including himself, which meant he gave himself a pay cut from his multimillion salary? His business is booming and his employees are happy. Why? because there is a big difference in quality of life between 30-40k and 70k, but any more than 70k is redundant- it adds NOTHING to well-being, so its ridiculous to assume that cutting the top marg tax rate or corp taxes more would be of any benefit.
henry ford was smart enough to recognize that paying his employees more would ALSO benefit his business, but the megarich are short term thinking greedy psychopaths. they don't see or don't CARE to see the benefits of redistribution.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
WHATISUTUBE sorry if it gets your panties in a bunch, but ill use corporate fascism because it fits. TPP and the like give far too much control to corporations and they undermine the power of any government to Protect its People. the TPP protects corporate “people” not We the People.
so fascism fascism fascism it is, along with oligarchy, plutocracy, socialism for the rich, corporatism, and the corporate state! all of these words are descriptive of our system, and are the Antitheses of what Bernie wants.
the claim of “free trade” agreements used to be that they would add jobs and would not depress wages. now they sometimes admit that they take away more jobs than they add, and that the majority’s incomes are stagnant or decreasing with respect to inflation.
but theyre using the new retarded argument that that doesnt matter because-
“wah wah wah increased purchasing power wah.”
uh, FALSE. - all “free trade” does is increase the profits of the corporate fascist bosses.
prices only fall when new products arise and/or supply is greater than demand. dur. and this, even coupled with no tariffs, is still not enough to offset decreasing incomes and the rising costs of Basic Necessities.
what good is a cheaper iphone made with chinese slave wage labor if you cant afford Rent?
and why do you think there’s so much secrecy and fast tracking for the TPP? if it was good for the majority of americans, corporate MSM wouldnt be trying so hard to avoid mentioning it and our government wouldnt be keeping it secret from all but a select few. it is secret because it only benefits the top FEW. read the wikileaks.
and that was a lame joke, but you know whats really funny? so called “middle class” service sector jobs often pay Less than the dwindling manufacturing jobs! hardy har har.
and this, coupled with the fact that there are more college educated/higher skilled people than ever means there’s an over supply of service sector employees which just decreases wages/salaries even more.
so again, youre wrong.
plus, both service and manufacturing jobs are being Automated as well as outsourced.
face it- “free trade” deals just help the megarich get richer and everyone else poorer. you said it yourself- our government Subsidizes big corporations- that IS Corporate Fascism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
51MontyPython _“So just where would you have (the top marginal tax rate) be?”_
didnt we discuss this? scroll up.
”Oh, yeah, because Romney, much less *obamneycare," is a "conservative" much less "conservative" policy, Are you seriously trying to make me laugh?”
i cant always tell what type of “conservative” im speaking with- apparently romney’s not your type of conservative. fair enough.
“Welcome to the TEA party. Wow, you're more conservative than you even knew.”
youve tried to convince me that im a tea party conservative, but it aint gunna work.
perhaps it is you who is more SOCIALIST than you know-
try
https://www.facebook.com/republicansforbernie
or this article-
https://www.laprogressive.com/more-republicans-for-bernie/
and sorry, but i would never associate myself with a group that was funded by the billionaire koch bros- whose goal is for america to become even more of a corporate totalitarian country than it already is. disgusting.
check out the BBC documentary Tea Party America to learn what the Tea Party is really about. basically, you've been suckered.
i know there are decent people within the Tea Party and there are points of agreement between some tea party libertarians and progressives, but im sorry, you guys have been suckers. the tea party is not a grassroots organization- it was astroturfed by the kochs.
i prefer representative democracy. and like ive tried to explain to you before, a certain degree of economic equality is required for democracy to work. if you still cant udnerstand this, if you still cant see how big money undermines our political and electoral systems, well, then, this is very disheartening :(
1
-
51MontyPython _”Supply side" is more correct, for lack of better term(s), though I really don't even care for that one, but, it will do for now. "Trickle down," on the other hand, is, as I said before, a misnomer created by the left.”_
no, its not a “misnomer” your panties are just wadded up.
But because supply side economics has Not led to any “trickling down” of wealth like it Claimed, ill use it only in quotes. and you can think that i mean “supply side doesnt work the way it claimed to- ie supply side only benefits the super wealthy and their corporations”
“Obviously, if tax incentives incentivize (HEH) companies to make their profits here rather than abroad, then it is only natural (and common sense) that they will do so.”
and this is why you are a corporatist and i a democratic socialist- because i believe that People should come before corporate Profits.
its We the People, not Corporate “People”
check out the charlie rose interview with sir james goldsmith where he explains how former pres clinton’s “free trade” GATT would undermine the rest of america- basically, we keep giving tax breaks and other profit incentives to big business with the delusion that this will help our economy, but it only benefits those top corporations - and a fraction of the population. the rest of us are getting shafted because of corporate fascist policies. so yeah, maybe we cant stop globalization or “free trade” deals, but you cant expect to lower taxes so fucking much and expect that to benefit workers. workers will CONTINUE TO GET SHAFTED- WITH OR WITHOUT GLOBALIZATION- if we end REGULATIONS AND REDISTRIBUTION
_the economy grows from the Middle Out- not from the Top Down or from the “Supply Side”
How about from the bottom to top? Have you ever studied the water cycle, by any chance? Meaningless (political) terms._
check Nick Hanauer. we are a CONSUMER based economy. if the middle class doesnt have enough to CONSUME, we dont GROW. DUH.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
51MontyPython pretty sure I've already explained or insinuated what i mean by trickle down. if you couldnt catch it, try bernie's speech on trickle down.
and doesn't paul's tax policy include FLAT TAX? so, no , not exactly a strawman.
also, isn't paul backed by the kochtopus? the kochs who support TPP? might want to investigate that.
but there doesn't seem to be much point bickering over paul, considering it looks like marco is going to be the corporate/establishment nominee because no one likes cruz.
"And I just love how you use this catchall phrase "corporations," as if that in itself is supposed to be a bad word, or all bad or corrupt."
i think I've mentioned this to you before, but i simplify assuming you understand I'm not speaking of small business, but rather the transnational corporations such that are involved in the TPP, such that want to have our government (which is designed to represent We the People) work for only them.
so take care, my tea party sucker.
1
-
1
-
51MontyPython youre back? gross.
the structure of the internet leads to monopolization. internet is a natural monopoly and monopolies shouldnt be FOR PROFIT. besides, calling the government a monopoly is absurd and its doublespeak. the government is supposed to be representative of WE THE PEOPLE. it has the POTENTIAL to be so if idiots would wake the fuck up and DEMAND representation. so why would you want to give monopolies the ability to divide up the internet similar to how cable tv is divided/"bundled" where the premium subscribers get the most access? entertainment isnt a necessity, but the net is more than that. it provides information- you know, that thing that people Need to learn and innovate. so it should be equally accessible/equal speed for ALL. and that is what we CURRENTLY HAVE- ie isps are common carriers ie we have NET NEUTRALITY. net neutrality is just regulating and classifying them as such, to prevent any more inequality. anything else you've read to the contrary is corporate propaganda.
and stop bullshitting- i DID explain what trickle down is.
go read my posts again or watch bernie’s trickle down speech because i cant be bothered with your trolling. you disagreed with my definition. if you had been nice, i wouldve c/ped it, so your loss. im not going to play the repeat game with you because youre a troll.
the TPP is corporate fascism. it is corporate control over governments. it gives transnationals the ability to sue governments if government regulations (you know, those things that protect the Health and Safety of people- even trolly people like You) get in the way of profits. it is corporatism. or to use a teatard word- crony capitalism (which is really just what capitalism naturally devolves into without taxes and regulations, as I've explained to you numerous times before).
when Bernie Sanders got the federal reserve audited, they found that it provided 16 trillion in financial assistance to the biggest corps. bernie called this “socialism for the rich and rugged youre on your own individualism for everyone else”.
any corp that is contracted by the government or any private institution that spits out politicians, or has a continuous revolving door-
like between wall street and washington- is suspect of fascism.
and the bigger the corp, the greater the ability to bribe the state for more special favors. thats what big money does. thats why inequality is so dangerous. fascism is authoritarianism and centralization.
libertarians want DE-centralization. power should be DE-centralized. government should work for ALL, not for the FEW. a governmnet, unlike private institutions, at Least has the POTENTIAL to be representative of all, IF we are VIGILANT in Maintaining our Representation. we haven't been vigilant, which is why we now need a revolution.
and the kochs are NOT libertarians.
sure, they SAY they are, but they are corporate fascists. and the TPP is corporate fascism. so, can you connect dots?
they dont want fewer regulations and lower taxes for the good of We the People. they want fewer regulations and lower taxes for THEM and THEM ALONE. that is what happens when you allow the super wealthy and big corps to bribe politicians. theyre not bribing for some ridiculous tea party idealogy, but for THEMSELVES and themselves ALONE. they want consolidation of wealth/power. they want centralization.
OPPOSITE of what libertarians want.
and i cant remember what video source i learned it from, but a quick search pulled these up-
ohiodems ( DOT) org /koch-industries-spent-up-to-40-million-lobbying-on-pacific-trade-deal/
examiner ( DOT) com /article/behind-the-obama-koch-glenn-beck-collaboration-on-international-corporate-rule
http://wetlands-preserve.org/phpUpload/uploads/Koch_TPP dot PDF
and koch funded ALEC-
alec.org/model-policy/resolution-urging-congress-pass-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-tpp/
“RESOLUTION URGING CONGRESS TO PASS THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (TPP)”
is that clear enough for you?
so im not sure what your problem is. maybe next time try pressing the ENTER button after you type in your search.
or maybe obvious troll is being obvious?
and check out koch bros exposed to see what else the kochtopus has their slimy tentacles in, like wanting to resegregate schools.
you want to segregate schools?
why are YOU a racist?
and if you think you need more money than 75k, you might be trying to fill a bottomless greed hole, because according to the deaton and kahneman study, well-being does not improve after that amount. and piketty’s stats prove that return on wealth grows faster than the economy. the richest are getting richer and the rest of us poorer, thanks to decades of stupid supply side/trickle down/low taxation and low regulation reaganomics. also check out the RSA video of true motivation. clue- monetary incentives DONT ALWAYS WORK.
smh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
51MontyPython for a monty python fan, certainly you've heard of anarcho syndicalism? watch?v=R7qT-C-0ajI
i think i said before that i include clinton as one of the corporatists. even right wing faux news darling ann coulter said she would vote for clinton. why? because clinton is right wing.
“I think [democratic socialism] means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship all of our people have healthcare; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality childcare, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly. That’s all it means.” - Bernie Sanders
i think you're missing the point. our government has been captured by the wealthiest and their corporations. we have a CORPORATE STATE i.e. COLLUSION OF CORPORATE AND STATE i.e. CORPORATE FASCISM i.e. an OLIGARCHY.
if you can't understand how a pure free market will always devolve into centralized control, then I'm sorry for you.
but if you do want to understand, here is a simple explanatory video-
watch?v=OLJvsyAETqc
1
-
1
-
1
-
Moving America Forward
1. it says Patriots for Trump (a SuperPAC) GAVE zero, but oddly he SPENT 290,000 from them. hmm.. strange. opensecrets also strangely left out Citizens for Restoring USA, another SuperPAC for trump.
also, i thought he promised his campaign would be 100 percent self financed? and you say he’s only 33% self financed? well, so much for that. and his small dollar donors is a measly 19 percent compared to Bernie’s 74 percent for small. why does trump want to be president if he is only 19 percent beholden to ordinary working class people? that seems disingenuous. it seems like he isnt really in it for We the People, isnt at all representing millions of thoughtful voters like Bernie is.
it seems like trump just wants to beef up his brand, stroke his ego, all that.
but you know, great if he wants to do that!
2. the “99”% for cruz means from his Committee donations only. but add in his outside dark money and that 99% becomes less than 50%
and those Bernie PACs are bunk. he has not accepted any SuperPAC money. as this campaign continues you will see the others spending more from their SuperPACs, but Bernie will not because he refuses to be Bought.
do any of the other candidates have political and electoral reform as one of their priorities? maybe you can prove me otherwise, but i dont think they do because the other candidates can and are bought by big corporations and billionaires-
Especially cruz.
i mean just look at cruz’s fundraising totals- look at all his superPACs- keep the promise 1, 2, etc) he hasnt spent much from them Yet, but we still have time.
and looking closer, cruz’s top donor is a Bank and his 4th top is GOLDMAN SACS.
sorry, but this just proves he’s a crony. he’s not beholden to We the People at all.
further evaluation shows that a majority of his funds has come from a SINGLE BILLIONAIRE- Robert Mercer, a hedgefunder who has donated at least 31 MILLION, spread out of course, among cruz’s Many SuperPACs.
so what was this you were saying about small donations from cruz?
but you know, great if he wants to prioritize the interests of wall street and billionaires! its whats to be expected from the gop.
3. not sure why you keep saying “union bosses” - unions represent working people and it is their Organization who has donated, not “bosses” and they're certainly not billionaires that want to short change the rest of america with corporate fascism.
give it up, dude. Bernie Sanders works for We the People and always has. the others are beholden to the big money. they may say they want to help the middle class grow and stop wall street fraud, but those are impossibilities when you get your FUNDS from wall street and other billionaires representing big corps.
Bernie raised 26 million, 2 mil short of hillary, yet his average donation was 30 dollars from over a million donations. he set a record.
the largest donation bernie has ever received in his entire career was 105k. from a bank? from big pharma? big media? NO- from a union representing WORKING PEOPLE.
whats cruz’s second largest donation? looks like 15 MILLION from TWO BILLIONAIRE BROS.
does that seem like democracy to you? rhetorical- NO- of course not, its OLIGARCHY.
So, to recap-
Its great that Trump is one third self financed and lies about accepting SuperPAC money and is only 19 percent beholden to working people, and its great that Cruz has been getting multimillion dollar donations from wall street banks and billionaires, was elected in 2012 with the help of the Koch financed astroturf (ie fake grassroots) Tea Party, has received more from the kochs through their “club for growth” group, and is less than half financed by small individual donations because the majority of his money has come from a few billionaires through dark money and superPACs. not We the People. but a few Billionaire donating to a bunch of SuperPACs that can spend unlimited sums.
so thats all fine and dandy, but lets not be too hard on Bernie Sanders who wants to break up the Too Big to Fail Banks, has absolutely zero ties to wall street and other corporate fascist interests, and who wants nothing to do with donations from billionaires because he understands that billionaire and corporate donations undermines our REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
51MontyPython “The terms "right" and "left" are meaningless.“
not completely meaningless. the “left” still has better social policies- so theyre not full of idiotic hate. but yeah, theyre the same with regards to economic policies because the megarich (who couldnt give two shits about social issues) bribe both parties.
are we in agreement here or not?
im not sure because if you do agree, i dont understand why youre not also in support of the only candidate who wants to put an END to political bribery. “left” and right arent BECAUSE of the influence of BIG MONEY- which makes our system a corporatocracy/corporate fascism/inverted totalitarianism/oligarchy/plutocracy/socialism for the rich.
jeezus.
“I also wouldn't equate the Koch brothers with the likes of George Soros.”
i dont think i can debate with you any more if this is what you think. you just seem like a koch shill. figures if youre a “tea partier”
let me give you a rundown of the kochs-
theyre against social security, medicare, medicaid, environmental protection, public education, unions, minimum wage, and they want to end the already limited restrictions on campaign financing. i.e. theyre against anything that helps the middle class and poor.
theyre for a complete “anarcho” capitalist system, which as ive explained, would quickly devolve into totalitarianism of private institutions. right wing “libertarianism” has been tried and has FAILED miserably with the end result being exactly as i've explained. and since the kochs already have too much control, doing away with government regulations would bring us KOCH totalitarianism.
they claim to be libertarians, but they fund organizations such as the tea party and anti gay platforms- in other words, they sucker anyone they can to progress their “anarcho” cap/corporate totalitarian system. they dont give a FUCK about true freedom- they just dont want the government in THEIR way because THEY want COMPLETE POWER.
“the question of who gives (or is allowed to give) the most money to this or that political campaign is an entirely separate argument from policy in and of itself. So, can we rather discuss specific policy itself?”
i know you hate me conflating issues, but these issues RELATE. how can you not get this?
issues arent islands, dude. policies are SHAPED by the WEALTHIEST. average income americans have zero effect on policies BECAUSE average income americans dont have the money to BUY the political policies. we need more WEALTH EQUALITY for policies to work for EVERYONE- for REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY to work. i dont think you have ever offered a reason for why i might be wrong about this.
and you just whine about “trickle down” not meaning “supply side” and never explain WHY every political wonk i listen to or read thinks trickle down is the same as supply side/reaganomics/voodoo economics.
1
-
51MontyPython "The left's social policies is one of the main things that makes them so insane, and more commie than 'libbie' in the true sense"
disagree with you on the left’s social policies. how can you say equal rights for marriage and pro choice are more authoritarian statist than libertarian? or by “commie” do you mean actual commie of which there has never been?
the more “moderate” left are actually not. clinton is more “moderate”/"right" than sanders, but that just means she’s a corporatist and militarist, closer to the establishment GOP and obama.
i think its better to think of political views more like politicalcompass.org - in quadrants, with top authoritarian, bottom libertarian, and then left and right. this still seems simplistic, but offers mroe nuance than “left” and “right”
this compass also shows how Bernie Sanders is the most libertarian of all state politicians and past presidential candidates. more freedom under Bernie. seems like you tea partiers would appreciate that.
only, i would disagree that there could ever be pure right wing “libertarianism” because it would quickly devolve into private tyranny. concentrated wealth leads to concentrated power. ive explained this to you before and given you links.
and i really dont want to get into obamacare, but my undersanding is that the insurance corporations benefit the most because they watered it down with their corporate lobbying. so “ocorporatist” care does seem fitting, only i would not classify obamacare as socialist in the decentralized libertarian sense.
and if libertarian socialism seems like a contradiction to you, try noam chomsky or check out that compass.
1
-
51MontyPython "Do you know what it's like being a part of the minority 1%? Apparently these days everyone's out to get you, no matter how much integrity you may have or lack. It's all just, "business owner! = corporate fascist = evil!" "
when i or others speak of the 1% we're really speaking of the .1 or less- the Fraction like the 200 or so families that own Half of the u.s. wealth- not towards Every Single Business owner.
but no, of course i dont know what its like being part of the 1% Do You?
monty, the impression im getting from you is that you feel attacked or feel that maybe people you know are being attacked?
but try looking at it from this perspective-
studies show that the richer you are the less empathy you have and the more you cheat. maybe not you. maybe beneath your asshole remarks youre a good person. but on average, this is what great wealth does.
and something like 90 percent of economic gains have gone to the top 1 percent. so if people are out to get the 1% ers, its not working. they're getting richer, even under "socialist" obama, while the rest of us get poorer.
and it Seems that great wealth disparity is not good for social cohesion. does it not Seem that way to you? i can find stats to confirm my bias- like the studies that shows the lower the gini coefficient of a population, the greater their happiness.
but come on monty, do i really need to pull out the stats? do you really think its good to have 200 families owning HALF of the entire u.s. wealth? cant you see how this might cause problems? tension? pitchforks coming for the plutocrats?
and can you not see how great wealth will inevitably be used to influence policies so that those with the most can attain even more, while making the lives of everyone else more difficult? maybe you would never do this. maybe you respect representative democracy, but i can guarantee you that the koch bros and company Do NOT.
i think the vast majority of people believe that money should not equal SPEECH.
ill give you another possible explanation for why corporations and their wealthiest owners feel the need to bribe politicians so much - the goal of corporations is to make profit. that is their only objective. so when government has restrictions (even if these restrictions are benefiting People) they will do whatever they can to end the restrictions. this may not be inherently evil, but it is at least a FLAW in the system.
we're both against the TPP, so it seems you would also agree with me that Profits should never come before People.
1
-
1
-
1
-
51MontyPython "So I take it you don't appreciate the insurance companies giving all that money to the politicians for Obamacare, for which they are now making money hand over fist, raping people all the more?"
no, i dont appreciate that at all. did i ever say i liked obama/romneycare? thanks to corporate influence, obamacare is watered down and probably shit.
single payer would be better and cheaper.
it is idiotic or psychopathic to privatize things like HEALTH.
"So you want to talk about "economic policy," or "campaign finance?" Again, -- TWO DIFFERENT THINGS."
lets talk about BOTH since they RELATE. lobbying/political bribery SHAPES economic policies to benefit the ONES DOING THE BRIBING ONLY. thus creating a system that benefits the RICHEST AND CORPORATIONS ONLY. how can you not understand this??
you think the policies of cruz or rand are to reduce government which will somehow benefit ordinary people? thats what they say, right? “big bad government” “cut spending and regulations and taxes on the rich for this will make teh trickle downs”? and the rest of the GOP are all fakers, right? because theyll really increase teh big bad guvment same as the left?
but who will cruz have to return favors to if he is elected? robert mercer who gave cruz 31 mil? or the two fracking billionaires who gave him 15 mil? or his top donors which are the big banks like Goldman? or the kochs who gave cruz who knows how much out of the 900 plus Mil that they will spend on candidates? and do you think any of these donors are against the TPP? rand says he is against, but do you think he’ll keep his promise if he has large donations from any TPP transnationals that he must repay? obama also said he was against “free trade” and spoke out against it frequently in his first campaign, but ho ho ho look how things have changed.
and guess who else supports the TPP?
the KOCHS.
so do you think cruz or rand who have both begged for and sucked the koch are really going to support policies that would benefit the 99 percent? they can say whatever the fuck they want to on their campaigns, but their funding speaks louder.
and about rand’s flat tax- supposedly that will be more Fair, right? thats the koch backed propaganda- that its more FAIR. but lets look at this.
for simplicity, lets say everyone was taxed at 10 % - if it was truly flat then that would mean a person making 15k a year would owe 1.5k which is rent and food and other BASIC NECESSITIES for an entire MONTH. now of course 10 percent of 15 MILLION is much more- 1.5 mil. but that still leaves richman with 13.5 MILLION to do whatever he wants to, including paying poorman’s rent for his entire freakin lifetime. even if richman was taxed at 50 percent, he would still have 7.5 MILLION. thats MORE than enough to have what you need- and for MOST people, what they WANT -to be happy. any extra after 70k doesn't provide any more happiness unless you're an emotional tard. and richman is just as FREE with 7.5 million as with 15 million, but poorman is less free with 13.5k as opposed to 15k because thats 1500 less he has for NECESSITIES.
now does that seem FAIR?
ok, but you say your hypothetical flat tax would only start after 20k, so a person making 25k would only get 10 percent taxed on the additional 5k. but still- 500 dollars can make a huge difference for someone making only 25k. that could be rent or medicine or even go to purchasing a television or some other non necessity- actual Growth for the economy, rather than sticking that 500 dollars in an offshore account to collect interest.
and the “left” supposedly wants to increase gov spending, but BOTH parties increase in the areas that benefit the transnationals and the kochs and co. and reduce or throw crumbs at the programs that could benefit middle class and poor. if the “left” has good intentions, they are Watered Down by CORPORATE INFLUENCE.
both sides are owned by the richest and their corporations. both sides prop up the CORPORATE STATE.
all except Bernie because only Bernie is not owned. his policies are aligned with the interests of ordinary people as opposed to superwealthy financiers- because he HAS NO SUPERWEALTHY FINANCIERS. he has no SUPERPAC. he doesn't suck the koch or any corporation. he is beholden to WE THE PEOPLE and therefore his economic policies will REFLECT THE PEOPLES WILL.
FINALLY we have a candidate that has the Potential to reverse the corporate fascism!
1
-
51MontyPython " [average income americans have zero effect on policies BECAUSE average income americans dont have the money to BUY the political policies.]
"Zero," you say?"
youre confused about this or youre in denial, so here’s the study. i looked it up just for you-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/government-wealthy-study_n_5154879.html
i mean really, just THINK-
who do you think will have more influence- the koch bros who are donating almost a billion (probably more if you count dark money) to help their candidate favorites, plus more to their think tanks and groups like their tea party to convince people that the policies they want will also help the “99” percenters?
or a 50 dollar donation from a middle income person?
keep in mind that the 99% must have the time and energy- in between their 2 or more part time minimum wage jobs -to overcome the koch and co. propaganda.
and they have to get their news from places other than the 5 or so corporate MSM conglomerates which limit information, including not discussing TPP.
the policies we have- obama's “socialist” policies that are making the richest fraction of the population richer and everyone else poorer- are policies that the richest WANT.
maybe we (or should say i, if youre a 1 percenter?) got a few more crumbs under obama, but just look at the stats dude. the policies we have benefit the big corps including the big banks like goldman who heavily funded obama's campaign.
i mean, come ON- OBAMA SUPPORTS TPP! do you think the TPP was shaped with the influence of the “99” percent?!
“So in other words, your solution is one of 'equal opportunity' cronyism, by making everyone's political contributions the same, and this will happen by making everyone's level of income the same?”
first off- “ ‘equal opportunity’ ” cronyism” doesnt even make sense. i mean, WTF? are you training in doublespeak? you really are a shill, arent you?
second- my ideas are a bit more nuanced than what you suggest- of course i believe in economic equality, and i believe more wealth equality could be a solution or partial solution to the extravagant bribery going on by the megarich, BUT there are solutions that could be used instead or coupled with wealth redistribution.
for one- END CITIZEN’S UNITED.
another is public funding of elections
here are bernie’s other proposals-
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-political-and-electoral-reform
nick hanauer put it this way- “the closer society becomes to a plutocracy, the more likely it is that the plutocrats will deploy the tools in ways which advance the interests of plutocrats and nobody else.
and this is why economic inequality and political inequality are so pernicious and self reinforcing and why everyone except the koch brothers has a stake in trying to prevent that.”
so you can respond and insult me some more, but i need a shower. ill respond to you maybe in a week or so, after ive scrubbed away my disgust.
1
-
1
-
1