Favorite Politican (Usa presidental election 2016)

Donald Trump!

JK everyone hates Donald Trump

 

lolwut. America is socialist in many ways. Take the postal service, amtrak, public libraries, public schools, tax refunds, cooperatives, and hell even public restrooms for clear examples of socialism in America. And last I can remember not a lot of people complained about public libraries and public schools when they received decent funding and didn't constantly see their budgets cut to make up for recent tax breaks for wealthy Americans and corporations. Ironically, if you think about it tax breaks for wealthy Americans and American companies is also a form of socialism, although it is socialism for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful.

Furthermore, America didn't fight the revolutionary war to lower taxes either, Americans fought the revolutionary war because they were getting taxed without representation, among other reasons. Whether or not taxes would have been lower had Americans been represented in the British parliament is also dubious although the application of certain taxes in America would have undoubtedly been different.

In other words your statement that America was founded upon capitalism is bullsh*t, unless you can show me a place in the constitution that states that "America shall be a capitalist country". (However, what you will find is that capitalism is not even mentioned once ANYWHERE in the constitution)

Oh and one more thing, that 5.5% unemployment rate that the Obama Administration loves to point to is a total lie. Real unemployment in this country is closer to 11%.

 

Well, you are right, I should not of put fully capitalist and should of explained better the revolutionary war. We went to war over the stamp act/intolerable acts and the lack of representation. I was proving points I had made earlier in which I doubt you read regarding socialism. We do have socialist ideas, as you have stated and health care such as the failed Obama care. I am more arguing that the USA can not go fully socialist as some other countries. The balance between capitalism and socialism is best.

 

Thank you for clarifying your point. I agree that a good balance between capitalist and socialist policies is the best for America. However, keep in mind that no one is arguing that the U.S. should go 'full socialist', not even Bernie Sanders. Even France, which has a Socialist President is not completely socialist and neither is Finland. In fact, no country that I can think of is fully socialist. As someone from England I can tell you that the U.K. is capitalist in many ways especially under the current Conservative government (which has actually done a pretty decent job governing imo).

What Sanders is advocating for, is to rein in the excesses of capitalism and I and others believe he is the one to do that as he is not ridiculously tied in with the special interests as Hillary Clinton is or utterly insane like many of the Republican candidates. America may have the best standard of living in the world, but that standard is available to too few and unattainable for too many.

(mind, I did read what you were talking about earlier @bassmaster6 )

 

Yes, because eventually that money will run out.
Not everyone can be indefinitely wealthy.

I've always thought that we should abolish income tax entirely, but raise regular taxation of non-essential purchases. That way everyone is always taxed equally, no matter their wealth.

Who cares? That was 50 years ago. He could have been communist and it wouldn't matter.

You did, but it's standard of living. And I can see it. More money is spread to more people so more people enjoy the benefits of money.

That's a toughie. On the one hand, there's better pricing, more innovation, more forward thinking, and generally better standards of production and service.
On the other hand, shortage of raw material becomes an issue after a while as most of it becomes used and discarded and obsolete. It also promotes hatred and rivalry, but ah well.

Actually, I have to argue that while they don't need our money, they certainly deserve all of what they've earned. I'm not at all for taking money away from the rich simply because they're rich, because at that point there'd be no point to strive for a better service or product because there'd be no end personal reward.

What they need less of is power. Less tax breaks, less ability to dodge the law. However, they still deserve their money as much as the next person.

You mean 'gamble'?
I don't mind wall street personally. There's big opportunity to make money there, just as there's big opportunity to lose it all. It may be a 'gamble' but there are many things that can make wall street more of a certain return than blackjack would.
(eyy, blackjack)

 

2. So if we tax people 100% of their income it will be good? No fun in life, just work and sleep, at least we will have free health care so we can get healed for depression.
7. You sound like Andrew Jackson (king Andrew). He feared the bank was too large and dominated interests. So he took the money out and put it into smaller pet banks. The small banks did not have specie to back the currency and led to a depression when people could not repay their debts. When banks fail, we go into recession... So you are clearly stating you want Bernie to win and kill the banks so we can go into recession. Gotta love how history repeats.

 

Bro what even

If I invest all of my money in a single company, and I make fortunes off of it, have I worked hard? Have I done more work than the next guy? Or, have I gotten lucky? If I am lucky, then do I really deserve it more than the starving people on the streets?

I made a horrible decision, got rich, and now I deserve that money?

You realize that money doesn't "run out" right? It gets recycled through the economy. There isn't some big garbage collector that gathers all spent money.

 

In short, yes. If it wasn't obtained illegally I have no issues with how they made their money. Again though, they should be taxed on extravagances such as large houses, nice cars, expensive wines, suchforth. Everybody should have to pay equal taxes on equal, non-essential purchases.

Yeah, say that to the 3 trillion in debt. I'm sure that's been recycled properly, eh?

 

Morals are flexible though, which is why it's impossible to make laws based on them. I mean, is it morally correct for the poor of the USA and Canada to want money to live when there are starving kids overseas who never had the same chances as western people have?

Would it be moral for those kids to ask for the money to help themselves when it would be taking away money from medicinal sciences?

Morals are never black and white, sir, and as such I don't mix them with matters of money beyond legality.

However, I think that how people spend their money reflects what's important to them.

On their small houses, no. On their cheap cars, no. On their wines? Yes.

Like I said twice now, non-essentials to life should have the same levels of taxation across the board. Expensive cars should run higher tax rates, while cheaper cars should run lower if none at all.

And those people who got their money through their parents are just as entitled to that money as you are to your allowances. If it's given to you in a legal manner it's no issue of mine.

Ironically, if you want healthcare, the first place you should look at is the 73 billion in taxpayer military spending before you look at the pockets of the rich. However, when the rich wish to spend their money on something extravagant or uneccessary like alcohol, a large house, a nice car above a certain price range, etc, they should pay the same percentage on something that a poor person would, because it's equally unfair to tax the rich more and the poor less as it is to tax the rich less and the poor more.

To be fair, the rich make money because they sell things people will pay them for. It doesn't just gravitate to them, they put themselves in positions to catch it.

Redistribution of wealth is a good idea which would be absolutely terrible in application. I mean, I'm all for making those who have more money indirectly contribute more to the country they live in, but I am not ok taking their money by force simply because "they're rich". Richness is a goal we all strive for and then subsequently hate people who have achieved richness when we haven't.

I think that in order to keep society fair, people should be able to remain rich and purchase more, and through those purchases, their money should go to the government, which should then be spread to the people.

It should NOT be taken by force, because then what's stopping them from just taking all the money from everybody and evolving into a communist socialist state?

You quoted this already and I know what Bernie's policies are. Please use your own arguments.

 

What do you mean by non essentials? What is essential to one person may be very different to another. A person who works for a large multinational corporation may need that private helicopter or jet (suppose they are a high level executive) because it allows them the mobility to do business for their company. On the other hand, the average family in America certainly doesn't need a helicopter in almost any situation that I can fathom, not that they could even afford to rent one anyway. Point is, it sounds like you're encouraging policy based off of opinions here.

Lmao. I didn't know you had such a naive opinion of how the wealthy make their money in this country BAWSS. Let me correct your statement here. First off, it is incorrect to focus simply on the 'wealthy' in this discussion, we must also focus on the numerous corporations in America as they are run by many of these wealthy that we are talking about and have a far greater impact than the individual.

I do agree with you that money does not just gravitate to wealthy people, like how the earth naturally gravitates towards the sun or how the moon gravitates to the earth in each planet's respective patterns of orbit. While, that might be how the wealthy individuals and the powerful corporations make their money it is a very simplistic and wrong way of looking at things.

But I digress, wealthy people and powerful corporations do not simply make money because they sell things that people will pay for. With the wealthy individuals in particular they build most of their fortunes by playing the stock market and in the case of both the individual and the multinational corporations, they keep their profits by dodging government taxes. They can then expand their incredible wealth by letting it sit in Swiss banks, in the case of the individual wealthy, or by betting it on the stock market as is the case with both corporations and their CEOs. Consequently, the wealthy and powerful can stack the federal reserve board with their own people and shake all the congressional and judicial hands or bribe them with whatever they want to get legislation or court decisions that will help them maximize their profits and keep them from paying their fair share in taxes. Take the TPP for example, it is a multinational trade deal that will make up 40% of the global economy and it was negotiated largely by 600+ corporate advisers (with virtually no input from labor, regulatory, or environmental groups) to all the major corporations involved and consequently it is a major sell out to corporations in every area it covers. The point? That wealthy people and powerful corporations do not simply make money off of selling their products, they make money by stacking the government with their cronies, hijacking international trade deals, evading taxes they should have to pay, and playing the stock market. Furthermore, if you look at the nightmarish state of healthcare in the United States (not helped that much by Obamacare, and in some ways made worse) you will find that the pharmaceutical industry makes enormous profits off of human pain and suffering. Especially in the case of the healthcare world, this is not merely making money off of things people will pay them for, this is extorting people with ludicrous fees and premiums in addition to selling products that 'people will pay them for'.

Maybe this is what you meant when you said that the wealthy put themselves in a position to earn their money. But I wanted to clarify that the wealthy and powerful individuals and corporations in this country do not make a large share of their money by simply selling items but rather through tax evasion/undeserved rebates, the stock market, and organized extortion with a smiley face.

That is complete nonsense. People don't hate wealthy people because they're wealthy. People don't like it when wealthy people decide that they want to be even wealthier and try to do so by screwing over everyone else.

As such, you are also completely missing the point about why some form of redistribution of wealth in this country is necessary. The reasoning for greater equality between the rich and the poor as according to many Democrats and some Republicans is because the wealth inequality in this country is so great that many people are not only increasingly powerless economically and politically but that most Americans cannot attain a reasonable standard of living, let alone the highest in the world. I am not saying that wealthy people should have a portion of their money taken from them via higher or more death taxes etc. but that they should DIRECTLY contribute back to society, and not in the form of a hallmark card with a 100 dollar Christmas bonus or in some scattershot philanthropy effort.

Could you clarify what you mean by this as what you're saying sounds a lot like trickle down economics, which has been proven not to work time and time again since Reagan. Also, your use of socialism is out of context as it is radically different than communism. Nevertheless, I agree that the wealthy should not be unfairly taxed and that their wealth should certainly not be taken by force as that is the definition of anarchy.

 

I'm going with everyone but Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton
Lol,
CamoQueenAlaina

 

Honestly almost anyone except Hillary, The Clinton foundation is so utterly corrupt its disgusting. Donald Trump is a joke but at least he isn't corrupt, though every idea he has ever had has have been crazy. Ted Cruz is good, I hope Trump will get him as his VP. I haven't looked into Bernie Sanders very much, mostly because I only watch the Republican debates because #1 Donald Trump and #2 They don't have three candidates. I sort of liked Rubio at the beginning then I realized, this dude is way to soft on immigration. Ben Carson is smart but he has a weakness when it comes to military action.