[QUOTE]Under the bill, dubbed the Accountable Capitalism Act, corporations with more than $1bn in revenue would have to obtain a charter from the federal government—and the document would mandate that companies consider more than the interests of shareholders.
Elizabeth Warren Unveils Bold New Plan to Reshape American Capitalism
|by Anonymous||reply 313||10/12/2018|
[QUOTE]Employees at large corporations would be able to elect at least 40% of the board of directors. An estimated 3,500 public US companies and hundreds of other private companies would be covered by the mandates.
[QUOTE]In an article announcing the bill, Warren said she was looking to reverse “a fundamental change in business practices” dating back three decades that made corporations beholden to the bottom line at the expense of better worker wages and local investment.
[QUOTE]The proposal would create a new Office of United States Corporations within the Department of Commerce, which would be responsible for granting the charters – and which could revoke a charter if a state attorney general requests it, and the office finds the firm has a history of egregious and repeated illegal conduct and has failed take action to correct it.
[QUOTE]Large companies dedicated 93% of their earnings to shareholders between 2007 and 2016 – a shift from the early 1980s, when they sent less than half their revenue to shareholders and spent the rest on employees and other priorities, Warren said.
[QUOTE]“Real wages have stagnated even as productivity has continued to rise. Workers aren’t getting what they’ve earned. Companies also are setting themselves up to fail,” she wrote.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||08/16/2018|
This is the best idea I've heard in many years. If corporations were "people", they would be diagnosed as psychopaths. Warren's plan covers about the top 1500 corporations in the country, suddenly making them responsible, law abiding entities.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||08/16/2018|
Forget capitalism. Capitalism is done for. And I like Elizabeth Warren.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||08/16/2018|
Correct, R2. This is what is posited in The Corporation (book and film, 2003).
|by Anonymous||reply 4||08/16/2018|
We need this discussion on a national level.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||08/16/2018|
[QUOTE]Forget capitalism. Capitalism is done for.
Capitalism can be reformed.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||08/16/2018|
This plan is also known as Communism. Hint: It never works.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||08/16/2018|
How the hell is this Communism?
|by Anonymous||reply 8||08/16/2018|
She's coming up with ideas. Very different from other senators.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||08/16/2018|
Very different from practically any other politician, period.
Of course the response from loons like R7 goes to show why they don’t like sticking their necks out.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||08/16/2018|
Just pronounce R7 brain dead.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||08/16/2018|
[quote]How the hell is this Communism?
Private businesses have to get government "permission" to do business.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||08/16/2018|
Who defines what these non-shareholder interests are?
|by Anonymous||reply 13||08/16/2018|
[QUOTE]Private businesses have to get government "permission" to do business.
Like they aren’t doing that right now?
|by Anonymous||reply 14||08/16/2018|
And if you're a fucking shareholder of Goldman Sachs and dumb ass Elizabeth Warren is trying to cut your profit, do you think you're going to invest in large companies. This sounds like a great way to shut down large businesses.
People are shareholders for a reason. THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY INVESTING IN A COMPANY!
|by Anonymous||reply 15||08/16/2018|
[QUOTE]Who defines what these non-shareholder interests are?
[QUOTE]businesses would have to consider all major corporate stakeholders – which could include workers, customers, and the cities and towns where those corporations operate.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||08/16/2018|
You go girl !
|by Anonymous||reply 17||08/16/2018|
Commitment to shareholders isn’t even good for the long range success of the company.
This will indeed be painted as communism, and I suppose it could be a slippery slope, but runaway capitalism and corporate power aren’t just hurting common people, they’re wrecking the planet.
I’m in favor of the free market, but I wonder if it’s my generation’s acquiescence to it that will be the final nail in the coffin of Earth.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||08/16/2018|
[quote]businesses would have to consider all major corporate stakeholders – which could include workers, customers, and the cities and towns where those corporations operate.
What about the 401Ks that are investing in these companies? If you're going to start messing with profits in companies like Apple, Microsoft, etc, then everyone's 401k is going to tank.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||08/16/2018|
If I were American I'd be voting Elizabeth Warren 2020, no question.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||08/16/2018|
No one would vote for a faux Native American.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||08/16/2018|
R21 is another brain dead putz.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||08/16/2018|
Sounds kind of like the German model. Which works brilliantly compared to ours.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||08/16/2018|
[quote]Sounds kind of like the German model. Which works brilliantly compared to ours.
Yes, we should be following the German model. Well, except for that little bit where they killed all the Jews. Oh, and also letting in more Muslims than they can control. But yes, by all means, follow the Germans.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||08/16/2018|
R23 meant post-WWII Germany. 🙄
|by Anonymous||reply 25||08/16/2018|
I love that broad, madly and deeply.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||08/16/2018|
[quote]meant post-WWII Germany
You mean the bit where Muslims are attacking innocent people in the street? That Germany?
|by Anonymous||reply 27||08/16/2018|
Wouldnt this turn off moderate voters?
|by Anonymous||reply 28||08/16/2018|
First of all, corporations have ALWAYS been required to have charters - that goes back to before the colonies were even settled. (Dutch East India Company, Hudson Bay Company, chartered by monarchs or parliament). Whoever argued that private businesses should not have the permission of government to operate needs to take a refresher course in history. Secondly, in our country, corporations receive their charters from individual states. That's why in the fine print, you'll see things like "incorporated in New York" or, more commonly "incorporated in Delaware". Why Delaware, you ask? In the early days of our nation, EVERY state had it written into their laws that corporations could never EVER lobby government or donate to election campaigns. Delaware, being a tiny state, and poor, advertised that it would eliminate those provisions if companies would incorporate there. Once that dam was broken, the other states eventually followed suit, leading to the nightmare we have now, where our government is bought and paid for by corporate money
|by Anonymous||reply 29||08/16/2018|
Btw, in this context, “Communism “ is just a word. It’s a label, intended to scare people. I don’t care what it’s called, it sounds great!
|by Anonymous||reply 30||08/16/2018|
|by Anonymous||reply 31||08/16/2018|
[QUOTE]You mean the bit where Muslims are attacking innocent people in the street? That Germany?
Yeah, that one, in which case “Muslims attacking innocent people in the street” has absolutely nothing to do with the German economic model. Nor would Americans have reason to fear a similar side effect when we have over 300 million people with guns and Muslim refugees would be more afraid of us than the other way around.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||08/16/2018|
Neither Democrats nor Republicans nor the Department of Justice went after all the white collar criminals that created the last crash. There is no public push for Warren's warmed over socialism which will shift responsibility away from the individual to the corporation. I think we need to have ways to accuse and prosecute individual capitalists for their excesses. I think Zuckerberg should be personally responsible for the Facebook and Russian troll election catastrophe. PERSONALLY liable. It was a Dillinger Capitalist move.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||08/16/2018|
Warren for President! 2020!
|by Anonymous||reply 34||08/16/2018|
Zuckerberg should be made to listen to this 24/7.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||08/16/2018|
Warren for President! 2020!
|by Anonymous||reply 36||08/16/2018|
Every time a Walmart employee loses a tooth for lack of dental care, Alice L. Walton can be personally fined 100K and made to do community service.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||08/16/2018|
[quote]Alice L. Walton can be personally fined 100K and made to do community service.
And then what is done with the money? I might get on board if the entire 100K was given to the employee. But you know nothing will change for the employee. The government will suck up the money and spend it foolishly like they do with our taxes.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||08/16/2018|
Good question. Perhaps a fund. Controlled by a Union. Clearly most service workers need to be unionized, just like manufacturing workers had to be in the 20th century to get a living wage.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||08/16/2018|
She's definitely running. This is exactly the kind of thing one puts out when they intend to run.
I think it's a smart plan that will appeal to every working person in America.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||08/16/2018|
I don't like this idea of a charter. Just give workers many more rights to unionize and set higher minimum wages. Also more controls on "work on demand" so that workers in the shittiest jobs can at least plan their weeks and months.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||08/16/2018|
I think it's a smart plan that will appeal to every working person in America...
...to vote for Trump.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||08/16/2018|
R40 I will appeal to workers until the chaos seeding Right explains that its PINKO FAGGOTY COMMUNISM and anti-christian, and a way for lazy minorities to get something for nothing. Then the white deplorables will hate it with the heat of 1000 suns.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||08/16/2018|
[quote]Also more controls on "work on demand" so that workers in the shittiest jobs can at least plan their weeks and months.
You're not getting the plan, are you? Millions of illegals are streaming across the border every year. Why give the shitty jobs to a whiny American when they can slap "Dreamer" status on these people and put them to work and they won't complain or unionize.
The replacement of the working poor is well under way.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||08/16/2018|
R44 I said I was against the plan.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||08/16/2018|
SHE SHOULD BE RUNNING.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||08/16/2018|
Another Warren fan. She certainly is more forward-thinking and accessible than most politicians. I would like for her to remain in Senate where I think she could do more good as leader of the younger set, but I would gladly vote for her for President.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||08/16/2018|
Yes, we need more people taking responsibility for their actions and that includes their way to do business (and get rich). Nobody should be expected to get rich on the backs of others and get away with screwing / exploiting them over for profit. Same with destroying the eviroment or using infrastructure for commercial use and yet not pay taxes thanks to various loopholes.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||08/16/2018|
The enemies of the environment are, ultimately, corporations, so no surprise there. Still fighting the same enemy.
And, yes, corporations are soulless. But voters and citizens aren't.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||08/16/2018|
This is a pretty good idea that would cool off the market (perfect time for a gentle correction) and set the country on a path for long-term, stable growth.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||08/16/2018|
She’s full of shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||08/16/2018|
[quote] This is a pretty good idea that would cool off the market
|by Anonymous||reply 52||08/16/2018|
The 1%'s wealth needs to be shared or rather spend on better jobs and salaries and local investments. Of course they will cry bloody murder and not let go of their precious money willingly. I think that's where guillotines should be used as incentive to make the 1% more cooperative (because you sure can bet that the 1% will use every dirty trick there is to prevent that from ever happening - them having to open their wallets).
|by Anonymous||reply 53||08/16/2018|
Some and their minions have started right here on this thread, of all places. Trouble is, people are not that stupid.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||08/16/2018|
$700,000 salary from Harvard over a 2 year period plus a couple hundred thousand from Uncle Sam at the same time and now she hates capitalism. Hahaha! You suckers will fall for anything.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||08/16/2018|
What's that got to do with anything? You can earn large amounts and still want to pay your taxes.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||08/16/2018|
If she hated capitalism, she wouldn’t be trying to save it.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||08/16/2018|
r7 We can always start building guillotines, that seemed to work.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||08/16/2018|
[quote] R33: PERSONALLY liable.
As I recall, the first quality of a “corporation” is that stock holders cannot be held personally responsible for the corporation’s actions. I guess, board members and/or executives can be, though. So now my post has no point. Sorry.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||08/16/2018|
[quote] R44: Millions of illegals are streaming across the border every year.
Except millions are not streaming across the border. Not even close.
[quote] R44: Why give the shitty jobs to a whiny American when they can slap "Dreamer" status on these people and put them to work and they won't complain or unionize.
You can only “slap Dreamer status” on someone who’s born elsewhere, then grew up here. It would have to be a very patient, slow-motion slap, taking years.
I wish you read-up in the subject matter, and stayed off Fox.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||08/16/2018|
R55 assumes Warren hates Capitalism. Not as much as R55 hates logic, reason, evidence, and facts.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||08/16/2018|
My personal bugaboos are all the mergers that have happened over the last -20 years, resulting in a lack of competition. We need Big Government (and Big Labor) to combat Big Business. A trust-busting President is what we need right now. It seems easier to get, than somehow reviving Big Labor.
Here are some conglomerates:
The Hospitals in my town are all linked now
Media Empires, including cable and internet providers
Whatever Amazon is
Yogurt companies. Yoplait bought Colombo, then closed it, some years ago
Other food conglomerates
And so on.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||08/16/2018|
[quote] This plan is also known as Communism. Hint: It never works.
Well R7 has shown us that they are a complete idiot and have no idea of the meaning of communism. I suspect they know what communism but know that labeling anything communism will tarnish it.
BTW, not sure I would support this plan, I would need to hear more about it and studies done on its effects, but at least EW is trying. I am not sure this is a good time just before the mid-terms to announce something like this. Just enough time for people like R7 to demonize it.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||08/16/2018|
I actually had a first level manager for a unionized Fortune 500 company tell me that the profits of the company belonged to the shareholders and management, not for the benefit of the hourly employees.
What he failed to realize is that shareholders don't consider the bottom level managers any different than the hourly employees, they are all just the hired help, there to maximize their profits.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||08/16/2018|
|by Anonymous||reply 65||08/16/2018|
How is this different from corporate charters granted to companies after examination in Britain for centuries? It's a good idea.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||08/16/2018|
r66 You're exactly right. Corporate charters can be revoked at any time by a government. That's the stick. Our government never wields it, however. Partly because corporate charters are granted by states, not by the federal government, and the corporation will just say, "fine, I'll go incorporate in another state that's more business friendly". That's why some sort of federal incorporation would be better.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||08/16/2018|
I like her.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||08/17/2018|
There hasn't been anything close to "capitalism" in America for decades.
We have a corporate welfare system. If it was capitalism, all the big banks would have gone out of business 10 years ago. Instead, taxpayers money was used to bail out these failing institutions. Most corporations in America couldn't exist without public assistance.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||08/17/2018|
How soon we forget the biggest market crash in history in 2008 when we taxpayers had to bail out "Too Big To Fail" banks and investment firms. All Chairs of aboards should be PERSONALLY held liable for every tax payer dollar....and that amount should follow them personally through their entire careers. When individuals file for bankruptcy, that debt haunts us for years.
I would add to Warren's bill and get rid of wages vs dividends separate tax and just make it one income tax period so that corporations can't create tax shelters.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||08/17/2018|
R52 doesn’t know about market economies.
r70, I think we still need strong indemnification laws for officers and directors. Otherwise only the super rich will be able to afford the insurance needed to perform in those functions. We want boards to represent the people with a long-term interest in the company, so we have to make sure that’s possible.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||08/17/2018|
Among a million other possible negative side effects, her idiotic Marxist ideas will just encourage large corporations to pick up & domicile themselves outside the US. Jobs, production & tax revenue to follow.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||08/17/2018|
It's amazing how fucking relentlessly brainwashed the retards are here who shout "communism" every time any intelligent proposal comes along.
Their bootlicking spineless worship of psychopathic rich CEOs -- really, their delusion that they will someday be one of them -- is both disgusting and delusional.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||08/17/2018|
R49 - Many corporations are enemies of the environment However so are individual people. It's a mistake to allow people to blame corporations and absolve themselves of personal responsibility. .
As for Warren's accountability act it has no other sponsors and has been referred to committee - a Republican controlled committee. Good talking points for a campaign. Important issues that need to be discussed.
The Great Recession showed us one of the flaws of capitalism and free markets. The idea that employees will act in the best interests of the firm as a rule. We saw that employees were acting in their own best interests over that of the firm. Pretty big flaw for a free market.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||08/17/2018|
[QUOTE]her idiotic Marxist ideas
You've never actually read Marx, have you? That comment was about as stupid as Michelle Bachmann calling Obamacare "the crown jewel of socialism".
|by Anonymous||reply 75||08/17/2018|
R72 slobbers over idiotic FOXist ideas.
None too bright over there.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||08/17/2018|
[QUOTE]As for Warren's accountability act it has no other sponsors and has been referred to committee - a Republican controlled committee. Good talking points for a campaign. Important issues that need to be discussed.
The point is to put ideas out there that will inspire Democrats to vote and change the fact that said committee is controlled by Republicans. You can’t just wait for the Dems to control the senate again before you start crafting proposals on how you’ll fix the American economic system.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||08/17/2018|
First of all, businesses need "permission" from the government NOW to run. I'm sure you resentful Breitbart assholes don't know that. Most businesses need a charter from the government. Except now, its from states and guess where most of the biggest companies in America are based (at least on paper)? Delaware. Because that tiny little shithole state lets them do whatever the fuck they want. She's just saying that maybe the biggest companies with the most power should have to register with the federal government and be forced to take a bigger view of how they operate, rather than just quarterly returns to shareholders.
This is how things work in such Communist hell holes as Germany and Denmark and Switzerland. Many companies are required by law to have representation on the board of workers. And the voice of the employees is reflected in corporate governance. This can be viewed as a good or bad thing but it is not fucking communism and only an idiot or a transparent shit-stirrer would say so.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||08/17/2018|
There's no question that capitalism is out of control in the US and that serious reforms are in order. I am not particularly fond of Warren, but at least she seems reasonable here and doesn't jump of the socialist bandwagon, unlike all the BernieBro loonies.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||08/17/2018|
Her "idiotic Marxist idea" of granting charters to corporations was standard practice in the U.S. up until the middle of the 19th century. There's nothing "socialist" about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||08/17/2018|
Trolls who accuse Warren and her ideas of being communist go right into my ignore tab. That shit's not even worth correcting.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||08/17/2018|
Pocahontas makes good.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||08/17/2018|
Her ideas are Marxist indeed.
Workers Councils were part & parcel of the Soviet & Eastern Bloc regimes.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||08/17/2018|
Keep posting about “marxism” while Nazis march in the streets.
I’ll take a full-blown socialist over another crony capitalist rubberstamping fascism any fucking day.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||08/17/2018|
^^ Since you have neither a job, nor money, obviously, no one really cares what you do or think.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||08/17/2018|
That’s a pretty sad attempt at a comeback, Vlad.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||08/17/2018|
R47 You can't do shit in the Senate anymore. Warren needs to run for President. She was my choice in 2016 and she's still my choice.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||08/17/2018|
Fascist attacking poor people at R85.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||08/17/2018|
Had R85 on Ignore anyway. Those things happen.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||08/17/2018|
r71, who said anything about insurance? r70 said nothing about insurance.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||08/17/2018|
Warren stands no chance. Her polls is incredibly low and that Pocahontas thing will haunt her the rest of her life. Americans don't like the idea of anyone faking something to get a hand-out whether or not the accusation is true or false and that's the perception with her. She's also seen as a harpy and schoolmarm.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||08/17/2018|
R91 is a Trumper, let's not waste our time here.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||08/17/2018|
A lot of 1 percenters on this thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||08/17/2018|
Love the idea.
Get it done, Liz.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||08/17/2018|
If I remember correctly, it was under Bill Clinton's presidency that a lot of these bank mega mergers occurred. This is why I'm NOT a neoliberal Dem. This was bad policy then and we're paying for that now and into the far future. Don't forget the Clintons are both progressive neoliberals which equates to Rebublican-lite. They aren't classic Dems which I believe Warren leans more to. And we wonder why the top 1% own an obscene amount of wealth in the US. Stupid!
|by Anonymous||reply 95||08/17/2018|
Bless Elizabeth Warren! And then vote for her in 2020!
|by Anonymous||reply 96||08/17/2018|
Very good point, R95. We can see it from Europe where basically the US always a choice between the right (or far-right) and the centre(right). The left hardly exists in the political spectrum for the US, except in this bill! Go for it!
|by Anonymous||reply 97||08/18/2018|
I think her proposal was called national Socialism back in the 1930s.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||08/18/2018|
Another ignore for R98.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||08/18/2018|
I think your mama was called national velvet back in the 30s
|by Anonymous||reply 100||08/18/2018|
[quote] How soon we forget the biggest market crash in history in 2008 when we taxpayers had to bail out "Too Big To Fail" banks and investment firms.
Good point r70. Yes, the US government had to step in otherwise the world economy would have tanked, and yes, the banks paid all that $$ back to the US Treasury, but your point still stands. Unlike the S&L debacle in the —90s, was it?—nobody has ever been held to account for the fraudulent financial practices that wrecked us all in the Great Recession.
You go, Warren. Put some real fear into the bastards.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||08/18/2018|
Has everyone forgotten that she was hired by the Obama administration and then fired?
|by Anonymous||reply 102||08/18/2018|
R70 probably 1929 was the “biggest market crash in history”, plus, there was no government welfare back then. But that's just quibbling,
|by Anonymous||reply 103||08/18/2018|
Elizabeth Warren denied the Senate the hotness of Scott Brown.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||08/18/2018|
Capitalism is by far one of the most destructive social forces ever created right along with religion. And I don’t think communism or socialism is the answer either. What we’re doing now ISN’T WORKING for literally 99% of the planet.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||08/18/2018|
No, Obama removed her nomination from the CFPB after she had been his chief advisor. He did this because Republicans were scared of her and wouldn’t vote to confirm her. She was his first choice. She wasn’t fired, you know something beyond the official story, r102.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||08/18/2018|
[QUOTE]Elizabeth Warren denied the Senate the hotness of Scott Brown.
You can still see him on Fox News.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||08/18/2018|
What would work in your opinion, R105?
|by Anonymous||reply 108||08/18/2018|
Technically, a true communist society has never really existed. The Soviet Union was a socialist country, not communist.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||08/18/2018|
The Soviet Union was an autocratic, violetn, very corrupted state. In many of its forms, a dictatorship revolving around one personality.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||08/18/2018|
Shit - a big idea from Warren! That made me look twice, cause I hate her (if I HAD to, of course I'd vote for her, but I think she's full of shit half the time).
|by Anonymous||reply 111||08/18/2018|
I like it but we have to quickly figure out how the idea can be corrupted and make things even worse, because most well-intentioned plans are exploited like that.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||08/18/2018|
Good point, R112. Still no reason NOT to do it.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||08/18/2018|
Warren is one of the few truly genuinely, unabashedly good people on the national political stage. We would be unbelievably blessed to have her as President.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||08/18/2018|
Ironic seeing the wagons circled FOR Warren.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||08/18/2018|
If she wins the nomination, four more years of Trump.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||08/18/2018|
R116, lol. Trump could run against the anti-christ at this point in 2020 and lose.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||08/18/2018|
Warren is a crazed socialist technocratic cunt. She could never even beat the reanimated corpse of Nixon.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||08/18/2018|
R110 - do you realize you've just described the Trump Administration.?
|by Anonymous||reply 119||08/18/2018|
Now isn't that a coincidence R119!
|by Anonymous||reply 120||08/18/2018|
R109, the Soviet Union wasn't "truly communist" because "true communism" is fundamentally unable to scale. It can work to some extent among a small, socially-cohesive group of like-minded individuals who share common values (like an Israeli kibbutz, or a 60s hippie commune), but that's about as big as you can get before "true communism" collapses under its own weight.
Capitalism generally works better than most other systems, because it's mostly the natural order of how economies evolve on their own without interference. People need things, they trade goods & services. However, left completely unchecked, capitalism has its own metaphorical cancer that causes it to turn into a juggernaut that just consumes everything in its path & spits out the husk. Hence, the role of government in a social market economy... generally staying out of the way for small (individual-scale) business transactions, but applying more and more regulations as a business entity grows in order to keep it FROM turning into a soulless, sociopathic cancer whose only goal is to consume everything in sight and try to acquire ownership of everything.
Reasonable, sane people don't disagree that the government's proper role is to be the referee, fairly enforce a level playing field, and provide infrastructure that allows smaller business entities to effectively compete with large, vertically-integrated conglomerates. Where reasonable people DO disagree (sometimes vehemently) is the DEGREE to which the government should be doing it. Warren's argument is that we've gone totally off the tracks & allowed large corporations to become detrimental to our collective well-being. Fox/Breitbart views aside, she isn't calling for the abolition of capitalism, she's trying to get us back on track so mass affluence (like America enjoyed in the 50s and 60s) can become the new normal again.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||08/18/2018|
There are many small towns that are communist and that usually works out during decades.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||08/18/2018|
R121 should teach in every school in America.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||08/18/2018|
The system privatizes profit and socializes loss. That must end.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||08/18/2018|
[quote] Trump could run against the anti-christ at this point in 2020 and lose
|by Anonymous||reply 125||08/18/2018|
Warren was one of the most full of shit "good guys" in the senate. Her "Yes!" it was rigged, that she had to walk back (she knew it wasn't rigged for Hillary, she was just exploiting the issue. She used to be shady about her own finances, just like Bernie was, and she misrepresented the cause of the financial crisis because she thought it was easier to explain. So she's patronizing and will shade the truth in order to advance her larger points.
HOWEVER, I like this bold new plan, and it's the first thing she's ever done to make me give her a second look.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||08/18/2018|
|by Anonymous||reply 127||08/18/2018|
A system in which losses are private and the people not directly involved are not forced to pay for it is called a free market.
The United States hasn’t had anything remotely resembling a Free Market since 1913, and government spending lost tether with reality in 1971 when Nixon ended the gold standard. Over half of jobs require some kind of licensing today, up from less than 20% only 50 years ago. Although taxes have remained relatively stable, the stealth taxation of Federal Reserve policies has destroyed their ability to safely save for their retirement. If inflation is running at JUST 2% per year it cuts purchasing power in half in just over 35 years.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||08/18/2018|
I love it
|by Anonymous||reply 129||08/18/2018|
Love her but I can't see how she'd win against Trump.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||08/18/2018|
I'd be curious to know how many people in this thread invest in the stock market.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||08/18/2018|
The majority, I suspect.
Stock markets are good at gauging the mental state of the top 2%.
I own a few hundred stocks, all personally researched, and almost all of them -except a biologics company using cells from young participants to regrow and reprogram failing human systems- is based on hard assets, cash, and overall exposure to rising inflation.
|by Anonymous||reply 132||08/18/2018|
Philosophies like Capitalism or Communism never work, because there are jerks who look for ways to corrupt and abuse them to favor their own agenda (to get rich and powerful). Flawed humans bring anything good down in order to make it work for their devious agenda.
What Warren suggest is nice and all, but unless you get rid of the bad people who put their own inflated ego and self interest above the good of all people it will not work.
The only way this will work is in some crazy sy-fy scenario where a new generation is raised far away from society as we know it and raised to become a benevolent society where knowledge, love, and compassion are considered the highest virtues one should strive for (and not money, power, winning and victory over others).
|by Anonymous||reply 133||08/18/2018|
Capitalism has reduced the poverty rate worldwide from nearly 50% to less than 10% in 40 years.
Socialism murdered nearly 200,000,000 people in the 20th century.
Anyone who thinks that the latter is superior to the former is Retarded.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||08/18/2018|
Why would I invest in the stock market, R131? I don't gamble with my health, either.
|by Anonymous||reply 135||08/19/2018|
[quote] Reasonable, sane people don't disagree that the government's proper role is to be the referee, fairly enforce a level playing field, and provide infrastructure that allows smaller business entities to effectively compete with large, vertically-integrated conglomerates. Where reasonable people DO disagree (sometimes vehemently) is the DEGREE to which the government should be doing it. Warren's argument is that we've gone totally off the tracks & allowed large corporations to become detrimental to our collective well-being. Fox/Breitbart views aside, she isn't calling for the abolition of capitalism, she's trying to get us back on track so mass affluence (like America enjoyed in the 50s and 60s) can become the new normal again.
Good summary r121. If Warren's campaign includes this proposal AND address some issues that seemed to attract people to Trump (unchecked immigration, divisive identity politics), she could beat Trump. She can overcome the Pocahontas thing. She could win.
Starting in the 1980s, the middle class has been hollowed out, and poor regulation of corporate policies is one cause (also globalization, tech advances, housing crises etc.). Everyone has been struggling. Warren's proposal addresses a core problem, that our economy as currently structured, just is not serving the majority of the country, while profit takers at the very top take all. It is not sustainable.
|by Anonymous||reply 136||08/19/2018|
The cash you need handy to buy basic goods under Venezuela's "reshaped capitalism".
|by Anonymous||reply 137||08/19/2018|
R137: Thank you for wasting this forum's time with completely unrelated pablum. Die troll.
R134: Socialism has killed nobody. Communism did, and Communism is not the same as Socialism. Learn the difference, and don't come back here until you do.
R136: There is no unchecked immigration so there is no problem there. And divisive identity politics well only stop when white racists stop their nonsense, so never.
|by Anonymous||reply 138||08/19/2018|
R137 on Ignore and there we are.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||08/19/2018|
The question is not whether this plan is "good" or "bad" so much as what is it good or bad for accomplishing? Good and bad are qualitative judgments that require a comparative point.
This plan may accomplish some of the goals articulated, but there will also very likely be lower or slower growth, lower investment, lower investment returns, capital flight. There is always going to be a tradeoff. For example:
- will such a plan hamper competitiveness of US-based companies, like Apple, vis-a-vis companies like Samsung?
- Would such a plan drive companies like Sears completely out of business - it's 2017 revenue was $16.7 billion, but it has lost over $11 billion over the past few years.
-Will companies seek accounting and financial treatments that reduce revenues. Who benefits with lack of financial transparency.
- How will other countries respond. What impact will this have on FDI and trade flows.
What people need to decide is whether this price is worth what it accomplishes.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||08/19/2018|
I heard something interesting a few years ago, about the global world.
What should Bill Gates and his like do? Create 10 jobs in the US that pay 10 people insanely well in the San Francisco or Seattle area; or create 100 jobs in India that lift 100 people out of poverty into a kind-of middle class? It’s a global world now, with leaders from every country.
How do you justify creating the jobs in the US if, and that’s a big “if”, you can find qualified people elsewhere that will work at half the cost? At what point is it no longer a US company?
|by Anonymous||reply 141||08/19/2018|
[quote] R69: If it was capitalism, all the big banks would have gone out of business 10 years ago.
Also remember the savings & loan crisis of 1986-1995. Probably lots more events. There was a Latin America crisis in the early 90s, I think; and an Asian crisis in the 90s, too, IIRC. If it wasn’t for the Fed and Socialism, we’d have felt many severe financial panics that aren’t even remembered now.
|by Anonymous||reply 142||08/19/2018|
[quote] Socialism murdered nearly 200,000,000 people in the 20th century.
This sort of stupidity is why Trump was elected. One of the dumbest things I’ve read here in almost two decades. And that’s saying something.
|by Anonymous||reply 143||08/19/2018|
If you have a 401k, doesn't that count? I don't invest, but my company does - or causes the 401k to be invested.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||08/19/2018|
Margaret Thatcher once said "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money."
This country grew and prospered under the financial principles of capitalism. It has gone off the rails when these principles were ignored. In 2008 the crux of the housing implosion was due to the fact bankers decided to forego their normal requirements and hand out mortgages to unemployed/unqualified people who were buying homes with zero down and paying interest-only payments each month. When the shit hit the fan all of these unqualified homeowners were foreclosed upon, returned to their rightful status as tenants, the banks tightened their reins and they returned to screening and qualifying prospective borrowers.
I'll add that in a true capitalist society the government should not have intervened as these financial institutions failed because that is a basic principle of capitalism. The strong survive and the weak go under. New companies with better leadership should have sprung up from that time to replace the those that were saved with our tax dollars.
|by Anonymous||reply 145||08/19/2018|
It wasn’t just bad mortgages, r145 but the entire wobbling financial structure of traded instruments based on the bad mortgages.
|by Anonymous||reply 146||08/19/2018|
R145, as usual, the libertarian view of history is delusional.
The country grew under a HEALTHY COMBINATION of government and free enterprise. The Internet and other products of basic research, pharmaceuticals, a secondary and higher education system that built a skilled labor force, good infrastructure that allows for businesses to thrive, a social safety net that permitted for social stability... and YES... regulations on capital markets, the environment, food and drug safety... on and on it goes: these are the products of government that ENABLE free enterprise to thrive, that enable consumer and investor trust, that enable the higher products of civilization.
Jesus fucking Christ.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||08/19/2018|
Why is American thinking so fucking black and white? "Either rampant, unregulated greed or Stalinism, those are your choices."
Warrens plan is a good one. If you , as a nation, can't show enough maturity to change the system in a way that benefits the people then you deserve the mess you've made.
|by Anonymous||reply 148||08/19/2018|
R145, the problem was less a case of "banks gave mortgages to unqualified homeowners", and more a case of "banks allowed people who could barely afford THEIR OWN homes to go out and buy investment properties they LITERALLY couldn't afford, intending (in fact, NEEDING) to flip them quickly".
Even people in dire financial shape rarely default on the mortgage of their residence unless their monthly payments skyrocket, because one way or another you need a place to live. This is where predatory loans become an issue... when banks actively seek out unqualified borrowers & make loans they're almost *guaranteed* to default on (balloon payments, "teaser" interest rates, etc).
|by Anonymous||reply 149||08/19/2018|
R148, don't attribute that thinking to "Americans." It is the conservatives and "libertarians" (aka fascists who don't realize that's what they are) who are this spiteful, ill-informed, and brainwashed.
|by Anonymous||reply 150||08/19/2018|
I stopped reading at "Thatcher".
|by Anonymous||reply 151||08/19/2018|
Exactly r149. Banks' business became the SELLING of loans along to third parties. Their crappy products then became the ingredients for, as Warren Buffett called it, “financial weapons of mass destruction.” That should not have been allowed to happen.
Unclear if Warren's proposal would have prevented the destruction, but it's a start. As someone upthread said, this is a discussion that needs to happen on a national level. Perhaps we can all divert a modicum of attention away from the idiot in the WH, and focus on what is really going badly wrong here.
And it didn’t start with Trump, this has been decades in the making.
|by Anonymous||reply 152||08/19/2018|
Office of United States Corporations within the Department of Commerce
You mean another government agency?! Oh, boy! We love, love, love government control over everything. Now everything will be alllllright.
|by Anonymous||reply 153||08/19/2018|
How's the weather in Leningrad R153??
|by Anonymous||reply 154||08/19/2018|
Any idiot who doesn’t believe that socialism and communism are virtually identical is too stupid to read the black book of communism, which documents that 200 million people murdered under socialist systems. Fucking retard.
|by Anonymous||reply 155||08/19/2018|
USSR- Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. The word socialism is in their fucking name you moron..
|by Anonymous||reply 156||08/19/2018|
Judging by many of these comments I think most Americans have been brainwashed by capitalism. To such a degree it's become a no can do country.
|by Anonymous||reply 157||08/19/2018|
She's awesome. Her interview on Fresh Air a decade ago is a classic.
|by Anonymous||reply 158||08/19/2018|
She's the only one who doesn't talk voodoo economics.
|by Anonymous||reply 159||08/19/2018|
Hey, Idiot Liberation Troll, it’s all a matter of how you define “socialist’. You can define it to match the USSR, or match Sweden. You have free will, so use it, idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 160||08/19/2018|
Or, you can also define “Socialism” to match the current USA. We call it “Social Security”, after all, and it’s worked well for 83 years and will continue to do so as long as we want it to. The USA, today, is really a socialist country, though not as much as many European countries. And we’ve thrived for 83 years. Thrived.
|by Anonymous||reply 161||08/19/2018|
I like the idea but here's what's going to happen....
1. It's too policy wonkish to be an effective campaign tool. We'll end up with "MAGA MAGA MAGA" vs. "We need to reshape American Capitalism to save it from its own greed by holding the largest corporations to standards that make them take factors other than sheer profit for their shareholders into account in order to make them better corporate citizens and help reapportion the money in our society to rebuild the strong American middle class." We need a short, sweet message to get through to the dolts which make up about 70% of Americans.
2. All of a sudden, there will be no more $1BN corporations but there will suddenly be a whole lot of $999,999,999 corporations.
|by Anonymous||reply 162||08/19/2018|
Truly astonishing that people think it perfectly acceptable to take money from a stockholder in order to enrich someone who hasn't invested a dime.
|by Anonymous||reply 163||08/19/2018|
[quote]What should Bill Gates and his like do? Create 10 jobs in the US that pay 10 people insanely well in the San Francisco or Seattle area; or create 100 jobs in India that lift 100 people out of poverty into a kind-of middle class? It’s a global world now, with leaders from every country.
It's really not that simple. There are structural reasons that resources are not and cannot be that fungible globally.
Setting aside the very dubious question of "qualified" people, supply chains to create products and distribution chains to move them to market have an enormous impact on profitability - both from direct costs and indirect costs, as well as critical elements like speed to market.
Second, target markets of consumers matter. The logical flaws and reasons that supply-side economics fail is exactly why this matters.
In isolation, the idea makes some sense, but in broad economic terms, it's too simplified to provide anything more than an interesting theoretic question akin to is it moral to kill ten people to kill 100 - though obviously, we're not talking about killing people. However, the underlying moral question is structurally comparable.
|by Anonymous||reply 164||08/19/2018|
R163, is it also truly astonishing that it's perfectly acceptable to take money from people without children in order to enrich the education of someone else's children through property taxes? Or, as with the proposal to make corporations, who decided they wanted to be considered people in order to buy government through large donations, more responsible for the common good the exact same thing?
|by Anonymous||reply 165||08/19/2018|
I don't drive. Why should I pay for roads?
|by Anonymous||reply 166||08/19/2018|
R166 poses as a troll living in a bubble (or his father's basement, alternatively).
|by Anonymous||reply 167||08/19/2018|
Watching THE TAKE from 2004. Great movie.
|by Anonymous||reply 168||08/19/2018|
R167, I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic to the idiot who thinks the only thing that matters is profit in shareholders' pockets, no matter the cost to the country.
|by Anonymous||reply 169||08/19/2018|
Building on R152, one HUGE problem with the shift from "Banks making loans, and servicing them thereafter" to "Banks make loans, then package & sell them to others" is the fact that restructuring the loans later on to avoid default not only becomes logistically difficult, it goes against the entire BUSINESS MODEL under which the loans were sold. If you buy a tranche of mortgages calculated to have a 42% likelihood of default within 60 months, then somebody allows a homeowner who loses his job to suspend payments for a year, add the interest to the principal, and extend the loan's term to maintain the original monthly payment, you've just wrecked the profitability of the company who bought that loan, because they only bought it BECAUSE it was 42% likely to default.
The thing is, it doesn't HAVE to be either-or. There's nothing that says we can't have one set of standards & rules governing mortgages for the purchase of private residences by homeowners, and a different set of standards & rules governing mortgages for the purchase of investment properties. That way, you can force banks (or whomever ends up owning the mortgage) to renegotiate repayment terms (say, making it VERY hard to foreclose on a property unless the homeowner is LITERALLY engaged in fraud or has absolutely no hope whatsoever of ever getting back on his feet), but still give them free rein to foreclose on INVESTMENT properties (since in effect, allowing easy foreclosures on investment properties is just redistributing risk and profit from one group of investors to another).
The thing that went wildly wrong in the early 2000s was that banks took lending standards intended to encourage home ownership among poor minority applicants and made them carte-blanche available to anyone and everyone, INCLUDING people who were openly speculating and engaged in arbitrage (buying properties sight-unseen the moment they were listed, with the expectation that they could then turn around and either make a few thousand dollars turning around and selling it to someone else the same way a few days later, or holding off a little and selling it for a LOT more to someone who REALLY wanted to buy the property to live in). One reason why banks went along with it was because they figured that EVEN IF someone with a zero-down loan defaulted, the property would have doubled in value by the time the bank repossessed it, so the bank would still come out ahead (and itself effectively profit from a hot housing market in ways it would have been officially prohibited from participating in directly by purchasing investment properties of its own).
|by Anonymous||reply 170||08/19/2018|
R145, US society is designed to enrich the richest here. Everything about it. So, it isn’t some kind of scam to expect those people to pitch in and contribute to the support of society in the form of taxes and regulation. This isn’t “taking other people’s money”, though Thatcher certainly had a catchy phrase about Socialism.
|by Anonymous||reply 171||08/19/2018|
R170, I also think it was sloppy management. Banks must have known that the rise in housing prices couldn’t last forever and should have had some internal controls, but they didn’t have sufficient controls in place.
|by Anonymous||reply 172||08/19/2018|
[quote] R171: US society is designed to enrich the richest here.
What I mean by this, is that business people may perhaps feel that the money in their hands is theirs by virtue of their hard work alone, but that’s just not true. The game is rigged. US society is designed to direct money to the rich from the poor. It’s not a level playing field. It’s playing poker with marked cards.
We have ranchers who can graze their cows on government land at low rates, or no rates, as that millionaire out west has proven. Then, there are farm subsidies. The oil industry is subsidized. Corporate welfare. And so forth.
|by Anonymous||reply 173||08/19/2018|
Problem with banks R149 et al is that investment and consumer banking should not have been merged.
|by Anonymous||reply 174||08/19/2018|
The Big Short. Good on her for attacking that very stupid way of running a society.
|by Anonymous||reply 175||08/19/2018|
R165 and R167, I posted at R145 and R163. I paid $28,400.00 in property taxes for tax year 2017and I don't have children. My state and federal taxes totaled $192,000.00 for tax year 2017.
I'll ask again why a shareholder is supposed to lose a percetage of gains because someone in DC decided a publically traded company should share the wealth with non-investors. You can see by my tax bill I have paid a large percentage of my capital gains and dividend income to Uncle Sam to use as he pleases so how much more exactly do you feel I should contribute to what you deem the greater good?
|by Anonymous||reply 176||08/19/2018|
The amount of your taxes is irrelevant here. From R166: "I don't drive. Why should I pay for roads?" Because the ambulance that might take you one day to the hospital or clinic for your massive stroke will need those roads. That's why. Very strange that this needs explaining. It's called infrastructure, it's for everyone and everybody needs it at some point or other. Do you really not know this?
|by Anonymous||reply 177||08/19/2018|
R177, agree, and it’s even more complicated than that. As for roads, they are undoubtedly necessary for the businesses that R176 has invested in. So, even if he’s a shut-in and doesn’t use roads himself, they are necessary for the businesses in which he’s invested, that earn him so much money.
Likewise schools. Even if he doesn’t have children, he does benefit from his city’s children having an education so that they can be productive members of society. R176 benefits from these educated people working at the businesses around him. In addition and alternately, they aren’t uneducated hoodlums breaking into his house to steal his property.
Tax money invests in people and infrastructure for the long term. R176 benefits from the tax money assessed from those who came before. Imagine if we were all assessed a fee to pay for a share of infrastructure that was built long before our generation, like the subway system or the interstate!
Taxes also aren’t tailored to suit every individual. Don’t expect them to be.
Finally, taxes today are at historical lows. If you pay a lot in taxes, that means you’ve made a lot of profit. Be grateful for your income!
|by Anonymous||reply 178||08/19/2018|
R156: OH OH OH! I can play this retarded game! The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea has Democracy and People in its name so it's a popular democracy, right? Sit down junior.
R155: Except they are different, oh uneducated one. The UK and the USSR had nothing in common. That this has to be explained to you is an utter and complete damnation of your level of education. Now what did I say to do last time, junior? I said learn the difference and don't come back here until you do. Apparently, you need some motivation to learn your lessons and do as instructed.
|by Anonymous||reply 179||08/19/2018|
R178 said it so much better
|by Anonymous||reply 180||08/19/2018|
R177 here. R178, that's not true about education and taxes. I reside in NJ and my local taxes are redirected to what is referred to as Abbott school districts. Even though I pay much more in taxes than someone in a low-income area of NJ, their school district benefits from my taxes to the point they will be allocated $22,000/student and my upscale town will be given an allocation of $17,000/student. Tracking over the past decade shows there has been absolutely no improvement in low-income students grades. So there is another fine example of redistribution of wealth.
You said: "Finally, taxes today are at historical lows. If you pay a lot in taxes, that means you’ve made a lot of profit. Be grateful for your income!" Yes, I'm grateful to have been born in a country which allows me to better myself through hard work and investments. You won't be given the opportunity to better yourself in a Socialist society.
|by Anonymous||reply 181||08/19/2018|
I'M R177. So I'd really like to know who R181 is, since I haven't bothered to read his post. This is an anonymous board, but have some decency.
|by Anonymous||reply 182||08/19/2018|
R181 here. I apologize. I posted at R176 and replied to R178 at R181.
|by Anonymous||reply 183||08/19/2018|
Yep, the one who pays a lot of taxes. Recognised you.
|by Anonymous||reply 184||08/19/2018|
Just how unfamiliar are you with sarcasm, r154?
|by Anonymous||reply 185||08/19/2018|
Excuse me, r160. The US pays for virtually all of Sweden's defense. That's big bucks they aren't responsible for.
And r161 hasn't gotten the memo that SS money is going bye-bye. That's what happens when the government steals your money to"take care of you".
|by Anonymous||reply 186||08/19/2018|
[quote]My state and federal taxes totaled $192,000.00 for tax year 2017.
No one person in a society filled with poor people and children who die every day because they can't afford proper medical care should ever be allowed to make enough money to pay $192,000 in taxes. You're a glutton who feeds on money. How much more do you fucking need? I'd love to hear what useful, humanitarian field you work in. Investment banker? Hedge fund manager? Do you really think other people just haven't worked as hard as you and that's why they aren't rich like you as your above statement about how grateful you are to live in a country that rewarded your hard work and investment implies?
|by Anonymous||reply 187||08/19/2018|
"No one person in a society filled with poor people and children who die every day because they can't afford proper medical care should ever be allowed to make enough money to pay $192,000 in taxes. "
Who the fuck are you to decide what should be done with other people's money and how much they should be allowed to earn.
|by Anonymous||reply 188||08/19/2018|
R188, I'm not an greedy piece of shit and I realize that I'm part of a society, not the fucking king of it. Your ilk and Trump have a lot in common. Hope that makes you proud.
|by Anonymous||reply 189||08/19/2018|
That dynamic allocation is called a free market, or capitalism.
Crony Capitalofascism, where the government exerts control (Raytheon, Citi, WF, GE, GM, ADM, etc.) via contracts and regulatory oversight, has concentrated wealth in the upper 0.01%.
Socialism is evil.
|by Anonymous||reply 190||08/19/2018|
The greed and envy on this board is astonishing.
Even though history has repeatedly shown that socialist policies always bring misery these whining bitches keep attacking capitalism...from their iPhones!
When you point out that socialist countries have never produced a unique or useful product, they call you a racist.
|by Anonymous||reply 191||08/19/2018|
R191 Celsius' temperature scale. ... The phone handset. ... The modern zipper. ... The implantable pacemaker. ... The Tetra Pak. ... The three-point seat belt. ... The adjustable wrench. ... Dynamite.
That's just Sweden
|by Anonymous||reply 192||08/19/2018|
Lego. Kinder Eggs. Urban rapid transit. The Theremin. Anti-ballistic missiles. The AK47. Organ transplants.Satellites...
|by Anonymous||reply 193||08/19/2018|
Blood transfusions and blood banks.
|by Anonymous||reply 194||08/19/2018|
> When you point out that socialist countries have never produced a unique or useful product
Does CDMA count? (Google: Leonid Kupriyanovich, the Soviet engineer who invented it in the 1960s.)
How about the Ilizarov Apparatus? (the steel frames that now enable doctors to repair limbs with pulverized bones that would have been amputated 20 years ago, invented by a Soviet doctor)
Tetris? (Alexy Pajitnov, Soviet Union)
Rubik's Cube? (Erno Rubik, Hungary)
Molniya orbits? (used by Sirius/XM, first used by the Soviet Union because equatorial geostationary orbits are less than ideal for reception in northern Russia)
Passive radar? Invented in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s. (Basically, using reflections of signals transmitted for some other purpose [like TV] for radar).
|by Anonymous||reply 195||08/19/2018|
Chemotherapy . E- cigarettes. Passenger drones. Stem cell therapy.
|by Anonymous||reply 196||08/19/2018|
The 6 cylinder engine, 4 wheel drives, CDs, Cassettes, the zigzag chair. Traffic cameras. Fairtrade certification. Eye charts.
|by Anonymous||reply 197||08/19/2018|
....and this all leads to class warfare.
|by Anonymous||reply 198||08/19/2018|
Impressive info, people, but conservative/libertarians of this ilk are immune to evidence.
|by Anonymous||reply 199||08/20/2018|
Which is why everyone else needs to get out there and VOTE.
|by Anonymous||reply 200||08/20/2018|
Is the guy who claims to have paid so much in taxes the ILT?
He’s an ungrateful mess, in any event.
|by Anonymous||reply 201||08/20/2018|
Elizabeth Warren inspires so much cross the aisle respectful fellowship.
|by Anonymous||reply 202||08/20/2018|
[quote]I'd be curious to know how many people in this thread invest in the stock market.
If you have a 401k or a pension plan, most likely you're invested in the stock market. Unless you're specifically directing all your money into bond funds, which are low performing.
|by Anonymous||reply 203||08/20/2018|
The problem with focusing on taxes and where the funds are being spent is that it neglects other factors which contribute to the broader question of quality of life or standard of living.
I'd rather pay property taxes and have the money used to pay for schools (even if I don't have kids or send my own kids to private school) since the correlation between education and opportunity has been proven. When people lack opportunity, you get crime of all types. I'd rather pay taxes than pay for measures to combat crimes as quality of life is better.
I'd rather pay for roads and highways, than pay increased prices for products later due to higher transportation costs.
And if you want to be purely pragmatic, I'd rather pay taxes for social services, SSI, and medicare, than deal with the consequences of sick and starving people , as well as the economic contraction that would result from loss of those payments within the GDP, setting aside any moral considerations. Do you think that such a dramatic decline in across the board revenues won't affect prices when scale declines or investment in R&D when free cash from profits go down?
|by Anonymous||reply 204||08/20/2018|
The problem, r204, is that people know you're willing to pay taxes. And so they continue to take and take and take. If you agree to pay 28% in taxes, they'll jump it to 35%. When you're good at 35%, they'll jump it to 48%. Margaret Thatcher's quote about sooner or later you're going to run out of other people's money rings very true.
At what point does taxation stop and at what point should people be pissed that their money isn't being properly spent? When a politician can answer those two questions, that person will then be on the road to getting votes.
|by Anonymous||reply 205||08/20/2018|
So Liz has some modest goals for being president.
This is why ultra-lib progressives poll so poorly, why Bernie lost to Hills (sorry bernbots but he lost fair and square). They sound like they don't understand how the world works. If they want to bring us closer to a mixed economy, that's great. But America is not Norway, for fucks sake. It's not even close. We can walk in that direction but the country is too big and too wedded to concepts of individualism to make it there in one huge jump. And what Liz is proposing sounds like a huge bound in that direction.
|by Anonymous||reply 206||08/20/2018|
Good point r205. But Warren's proposal is not about taxes, exactly. It seems to be more about ensuring that a company's profits be equitably shared by the company's employees, and that compensation for top managers be tied to employee salaries.
It’s like a minimum wage, but targeted to mega large corporations. I don’t think the Warren proposal is the same thing as a tax increase.
However, Tax Troll also has a good point, and it needs to be answered. How much tax $$ for ineffective special projects designed to ensure re-election of particular legislators?
|by Anonymous||reply 207||08/20/2018|
[quote]But Warren's proposal is not about taxes, exactly. It seems to be more about ensuring that a company's profits be equitably shared by the company's employees, and that compensation for top managers be tied to employee salaries.
Then we get the Atlas Shrugged problem. Why should high performers continue to perform if someone else gets to decide the outcome? Elizabeth Warren can't answer this question satisfactorily. And neither could Obama. And neither could Bernie Sanders who got thrown out of his hippie commune in the 1960s because he was too lazy and refused to work.
The big question is who decides what is "equitable"?
|by Anonymous||reply 208||08/20/2018|
[quote]Then we get the Atlas Shrugged problem. Why should high performers continue to perform if someone else gets to decide the outcome?
In the 1950s the highest tax bracket was almost 90%. Let that sink in. It certainly didn't inhibit Americans from trying to become multimillionaires.
|by Anonymous||reply 209||08/20/2018|
[quote]In the 1950s the highest tax bracket was almost 90%. Let that sink in. It certainly didn't inhibit Americans from trying to become multimillionaires.
That's because they couldn't. Most wealth in the 1950s was from family wealth. Plus the tax code was extremely different back then. People really didn't try to become millionaires until the 1980s when Reagan restructured everything.
|by Anonymous||reply 210||08/20/2018|
R208, oh brother -- no one is fucking saying high performers shouldn't be paid more.
In the 60s, CEOs were paid on average 40x what line workers were paid. Now it's like 360x.
Speculative finance has gobbled up massive portions of the economy and contributed to insane increases in inequality.
These are NOT necessary trends and have harmed society. They are abuses of the system that need to be democratically corrected.
And by the way, people DO work for reasons other than more money. High performers will work for status and influence -- and -- gasp -- because they enjoy creating something excellent and feeling useful. Money can be a highly counterproductive motivation, in fact.
And if a would-be entrepreneur has government-guaranteed healthcare and is not going to starve, that is going to motivate a LOT more entrepreneurship than the assurance that if they make a billion dollars, they'll get to keep 95% of it instead of 80% of it.
|by Anonymous||reply 211||08/20/2018|
It is called GREED. Pure, unadulterated corporate greed.
|by Anonymous||reply 212||08/20/2018|
[quote]High performers will work for status and influence
Money = status and influence. But since you don't have any, you don't understand how that works.
|by Anonymous||reply 213||08/20/2018|
R213, actually, status and influence can also come from creativity and intelligence. But since you don't have any, you don't understand how that works
|by Anonymous||reply 214||08/20/2018|
W & W for r214
|by Anonymous||reply 215||08/20/2018|
[quote]actually, status and influence can also come from creativity and intelligence.
Creativity and intelligence are driven by money.
|by Anonymous||reply 216||08/20/2018|
R213 Oh dear, someone's been reading Jordan Peterson.
|by Anonymous||reply 217||08/20/2018|
...and you can't take it with you.
|by Anonymous||reply 218||08/20/2018|
You’re a moron R155. Just shut the fuck up. Blocked.
|by Anonymous||reply 219||08/20/2018|
And raise the corporate tax rate back to what it was before Trump.
|by Anonymous||reply 220||08/20/2018|
[quote]And raise the corporate tax rate back to what it was before Trump.
Why? The economy is doing great. People respond to lower taxes.
|by Anonymous||reply 221||08/20/2018|
[quote]That's because they couldn't. Most wealth in the 1950s was from family wealth.
Actually, the opposite is true.
[quote]Millionaires in the 1950s were increasingly made versus born, with wealth spread out more evenly than between the wars as very high tax rates (as much as 91 percent) flattened out the nation's socioeconomic curve.
--"Rich: The Rise and Fall of American Wealth Culture," by Lawrence R. Samuel
|by Anonymous||reply 222||08/20/2018|
At least she is doing something for the working class, unlike anybody anymore. It’s like nobody cares about those people.
The right wing just uses them as pawns and takes their healthcare and jobs away to boot.
|by Anonymous||reply 223||08/20/2018|
Because corporations need to pay their fair share.
And "the economy is doing great" because Obama pulled it up out of the Great Recession, not because of cutting taxes or anything Trump has done. He has only hurt.
Stop listening to right-wing bullshit.
|by Anonymous||reply 224||08/20/2018|
r205 - the points you raise require are sufficiently vague and general that no meaningful conclusions should be drawn from them.
1) The tax rate jump argument you raise is the classic boiling frog problem. However, we are not frogs and will jump out of the water when it becomes uncomfortable. Tax rates have historically risen and fallen. There is no reason to believe that they would continue to rise and rise without end until the entire economy crashes. The underlying assumption that leads to the Thatcher conclusion is false. Long before you "run out" of other people's money, the economy would have slowed and other mechanisms would come into play. History proves that.
2) who are these "people" who know the "you're" (me in particular or some more generalization notion of the public) willing to pay taxes.
3) the tax rate is the marginal tax rate on the nth dollar, not the total income.
4) Accountability for spending is always an issue whether the tax rate is 1%, 5%, or 50%. That doesn't change. However, people will always be pissed unless the money is spent on them. When you look at states that traditionally vote republican with majority republican state governments, the majority of those states are also net recipients of federal tax revenues (federal income taxes paid by state residents vs. federal funds distributed in those states). Why do you suppose the people most affected and complaining by trump and current republican policy are primarily in those states? Cuts in social services, SSI, medicare/medicaid hit states that receive more of those funds. Be careful of what you wish for.
|by Anonymous||reply 225||08/20/2018|
I agree corps need to pay their fair share, r224. But how likely is it that we are going to jump six boxes ahead in one jump? Liz has to rein that shit in.
Many of us have active bullshit detectors. Black folks are a bedrock of Democratic voters, and they can smell a bullshitter a mile away. This is why they turned their backs on Bernie in record numbers.
|by Anonymous||reply 226||08/20/2018|
[quote]Margaret Thatcher once said "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money."
When has this ever happened? Also, Thatcher was a fucking cunt.
|by Anonymous||reply 227||08/20/2018|
"I'm not an greedy piece of shit ..... not the fucking king of it."
And yet you think you have the right to take money from others that they have earned.
|by Anonymous||reply 228||08/20/2018|
"I'm not an greedy piece of shit and I realize that I'm part of a society, not the fucking king of it. Your ilk and Trump have a lot in common. Hope that makes you proud."
|by Anonymous||reply 229||08/20/2018|
R228, you refer to a sum of money as having been “earned” by someone, then taken from then. Instead, consider that society is structured so that money is taken from the 99% and directed to the 1%. It’s important to recognize that we create the rules by which the financial world plays.
|by Anonymous||reply 230||08/20/2018|
These “rules” also include taxation. It’s not reasonable to claim the all the rules that filter wealth in your direction are fair and just; but the rules about taxation that filter wealth away from you are somehow unjust. I know people try to make that argument, but they’re just blinded by self-interest.
|by Anonymous||reply 231||08/20/2018|
We do have an accountability problem. In 2016 55.7% Of those who voted it's becoming clear how susceptible they are to manipulation. Honestly this susceptibility goes back further than the Russians.
We're all painfully aware of the disaster that is the Trump Administration. It's clear that between Trump and the Republicans in Congress the ACA may end up dismantled. Right now parts of it are so underfunded it can't function as intended.
ON the other side of the aisle do you know who was just as effective at preventing healthcare reform? During the Nixon Administration it was Ted Kennedy and major unions. During the Carter Administration it was Ted Kennedy again.
Given I can't trust either side of thee aisle how do you motivate people to support tax increases? Or more government regulation?
|by Anonymous||reply 232||08/20/2018|
"Given I can't trust either side of thee aisle how do you motivate people to support tax increases? Or more government regulation?"
Stop the false equivalency. republican scum. (and you know you are republican scum).
Kennedy tried to do, and did, far more than ANY of the scummy republicans on the subject of healthcare. I don't feel like you're worth my time listing it all, but you can click on the link below to "learn yourself." Not that you will. Because you are republican scum - albeit republican scum trying to be clever with your whole Trump is a disaster routine.
And for god's sake - you're really invoking Kennedy? Who has been dead for years? If that is truly the case, then I guess you're in luck. Cuz - as mentioned - he is dead! Problem solved!
As for taxes - it's simple. We kick your scum party out of office via voting then start from there.
|by Anonymous||reply 233||08/20/2018|
𝑻𝒓𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒎𝒆, 𝑰 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒂 𝒃𝒐𝒍𝒅 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒏 𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒆 𝑽𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒛𝒖𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒏 𝑪𝒂𝒑𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒎
In a radical attempt to end a prolonged period of economic turmoil in the oil-rich, but cash-poor nation, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro announced Friday that his socialist administration would issue new banknotes after lopping five zeroes off the beleaguered bolivar.
"I want the country to recover and I have the formula. Trust me, " Maduro said in a speech broadcast on state television Friday evening.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has predicted inflation in the country will exceed 1 million percent this year.
Lopping five zeroes off the beleaguered bolivar effectively devalues Venezuela's currency by around 96 percent, with the bolivar set to go from about 285,000 per dollar to 6 million. Other measures announced in Maduro's speech to the nation last week included highly-subsidized gas prices, a higher corporate tax rate and a massive minimum wage increase.
Economists say that by introducing the proposed measures, Maduro's administration is only likely to make matters worse. Caracas' cash-strapped government has recently defaulted on its bondholders and is currently facing the prospect of further U.S. sanctions.
Given the scale of the mounting problems in Venezuela, many citizens are opting to flee the country. According to data from the United Nations, published last May, over 1.5 million people have left since 2014.
The high number of people leaving Venezuela brings further economic problems. Not only does the country become a victim of so-called brain drain, but it also begins to a lack a labor force.
|by Anonymous||reply 234||08/20/2018|
"...Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro announced Friday that his socialist administration would issue new banknotes after lopping five zeroes off the beleaguered Bolivar."
What does this have to do with anything? Warren clearly isn't suggesting anything like this. And Venezuela is not the United States. Never will be.
This false equivalency bullshit is clearly all you, and your scummy party, have in terms of an argument.
But then again, you're slightly retarded so I guess we shouldn't expect much.
|by Anonymous||reply 235||08/20/2018|
Americans are too numbed to reality to grasp the fact that Turkey and Venezuela aren’t outliers.
|by Anonymous||reply 236||08/20/2018|
R233 - what exactly is Republican scum? How is it part of an effective argument for or against anything?
|by Anonymous||reply 237||08/21/2018|
"A lot of 1 percenters on this thread."
Oh, my sides.
|by Anonymous||reply 238||08/21/2018|
Venezuela, socialism, and it's economy are currently one of the most frequent topics on rotation for those Prager U videos that launch at the beginning of many youtube videos.
I find it troubling that the points being raised herein parrot those videos, as they are propaganda masking as academic research or thought.
|by Anonymous||reply 239||08/21/2018|
Like gender studies?
Propaganda in higher education is far more toxic and evil. PragerU is inoculating young people to the bullshit of socialism.
|by Anonymous||reply 240||08/21/2018|
Said like a good cult member, R240.
|by Anonymous||reply 241||08/21/2018|
PragerU is a great example of how conservatives/libertarians think they're "rational" and "smarter," when in fact they're the most eye-rollingly ignorant little sophists on the planet.
|by Anonymous||reply 242||08/21/2018|
Poke Me Hontas.
|by Anonymous||reply 243||08/21/2018|
R187, if people like me stopped making money and paying taxes exactly how would the poor survive? I'm not a hedge fund mgr nor am I gainfully employed. I have been retired for quite some time although I'm still years away from legal retirement age. I invest in the market and I own rental properties.
Your impression of me as some rapacious soulless investor couldn't be further from the truth. When you build a portfolio over time your profit margin tends to increase exponentially. The old saying: You should not work for your money. Your money should work for you.
As for humanitarian efforts I am in the process of forming a nonprofit (of which I will take no salary) in honor of my late brother's memory. He donated much of his salary to children's causes. It was his wish I continue his efforts and so I shall. I have assigned one of my properties to be donated to this nonprofit wherein all rental proceeds will benefit the charity.
I also donate a tidy sum each year to a few animal rescues of which I have firsthand knowledge and they do great work. I would like to form a nonprofit for animal rescue but my brother's wishes must come first. In the meantime, I will continue to donate to animal causes throughout 2018 even though Trump has made it that much harder on the average taxpayer to take a deduction. I fear many charities will suffer because of this change.
Lastly, you may want to read a book titled The Millionaire Next Door as there are many people like me in this country who have done well because we were given the opportunity which brings us back to the original argument in this thread - Socialism vs Capitalism. I think you know where I stand.
|by Anonymous||reply 244||08/22/2018|
Reshape America's angry, violent, arrogant mentality/culture and the rest will fall into place.
|by Anonymous||reply 245||08/22/2018|
What is to stop a company from incorporating in a more favorable jurisdiction like Ireland or Dubai?
|by Anonymous||reply 246||08/22/2018|
Oh, I'm so glad our benevolent lord came back at R244 so show the serfs of DL how we, too, can be rich!
[quote]...if people like me stopped making money and paying taxes exactly how would the poor survive?
If all the money wasn't concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, there wouldn't be people forced to live in poverty, especially those forced to live in poverty while they work full-time. The rich, including you, have sucked this country dry and left the bottom 80% of Americans to suffer in the wake of your greed. You can pretend benevolence all you want. You can claim your self-made status all you want. You can keep repeating that you earned your money, implying everyone who isn't rich just hasn't worked hard enough to earn money. You can make your promises of sharing your money all you want.
The truth remains that you have taken more than your fair share and you should feel guilty about it. You should feel bad about it. You shouldn't be able to look at the poverty in this nation without puking. But, you feel none of that. You just bask in your luxuries and defend your greed like every lord in every fiefdom ever in existence.
|by Anonymous||reply 247||08/22/2018|
R247, how much did you pay in taxes for 2017?
|by Anonymous||reply 248||08/22/2018|
R247 is unhinged and his post shows him incapable of talking about realistic solutions.
|by Anonymous||reply 249||08/22/2018|
The realistic solution, R249, is to put a stop to the policies that have allowed the horrible economic stratification in the US to magnify ever since that piece of shit Reagan was president.
1. Go back to the tax brackets as they were when there actually was a thriving middle class which would mean our benevolent lord up there would be paying 90% on some of his income with some 70% and 50% tiers thrown in there as well.
2. We'd stop treating income from investment, including the real estate income our lord collects, as a special class of income that is taxed at a lower rate than the money the rest of us actually work for every day.
3. We'd take the cap off of the Social Security contribution income limit so the rich don't pay 0% on tons of their money while the rest of us pay either 6.2% or 12.4%, depending on our employee status.
4. We'd means test Social Security.
5. We'd prosecute white collar crime because they're stealing all the wealth without consequence while they blame the brown people and the poor people using SNAP.
Anything else you want, asshole at R249?
R248, I paid a couple thousand in income taxes last year. And? What's your point?
|by Anonymous||reply 250||08/22/2018|
R250, how much did you donate to charity and did you donate your time to a specific cause?
|by Anonymous||reply 251||08/22/2018|
R251, I'm not R250, but this question is typical, smarmy republican bullshit. Stop with your pathetic attempt to change the topic.
|by Anonymous||reply 252||08/22/2018|
Am I being interviewed to join your fiefdom, R251? People that donate and volunteer don't usually advertise it like you did above unless they are egotistical narcissists. But, since you asked so nicely...while I don't have much, I donated a couple hundred dollars and some items to a resale shop that runs domestic violence shelters but didn't have a lot of time to volunteer this year due to family illness. Am I deemed worthy of you now, you smug asshole?
Now, do you have any answer to the ideas I put up there? I bet you don't like them, right? Too much redistribution of YOUR money to those lazy browns and poors, right? I wonder how much of YOUR money came from someone else as is usually the case with the self-proclaimed self-made men? Let me guess, you started out in rags, right?
|by Anonymous||reply 253||08/22/2018|
R252, R250 asked me at R187 and I quote: "I'd love to hear what useful, humanitarian field you work in." I told him/her of my philanthropic interests and charitable contributions so why is it wrong for me to ask R187/R250 the same question?
|by Anonymous||reply 254||08/22/2018|
R253 most of what you assert as fact in your post at R250 is incorrect.
I'm not rude enought to post the profile I've formed of you from your various accusatory posts. I'll add there was no need to bring race into the conversation by saying: "Too much redistribution of YOUR money to those lazy browns and poors, right? I wonder how much of YOUR money came from someone else as is usually the case with the self-proclaimed self-made men?"
Lastly, I'm not a man. I'm a female and *ohmygosh* a lesbian.
|by Anonymous||reply 255||08/22/2018|
That's funny, R254, I asked you a bunch of other questions, too, but you only chose to answer the ones that allow you to crow about how great and charitable you are to those poor people who you also stated you are supporting with all that tax money you pay on the huge amounts of money you make every year. You are avarice personified.
And, at R255, you just prove yourself a desperate liar too scared to actually reply to facts. Go ahead and point out the errors in R250.
|by Anonymous||reply 256||08/22/2018|
R256, with all due respect, even if I agreed with you on every single point at R250 you would still spew your bile because you're a bigot. You don't even know me yet you have an irrational hatred for me because I belong to a group you deem evil.
1. First of all, the middle class is suffering because of NAFTA (Clinton) which allowed factories to relocate to Mexico and Canada for cheaper labor and manufacturing. China is a no-brainer and of course, non-manufacturing customer service jobs have been factored out (outsourced) to India and the Philippines for decades. You may want to do some research on tax brackets in relation to capital gains and the effect it has on the overall economy before you jump on the 90% bandwagon.
2. Is incorrect.
3. So you want me to contribute to SS above and beyond the $128,000. income cap but you want only the poor to benefit from my contributions? Well then, that cancels out your request at number 4.
4. Uh, no. Means testing SS is a polite way of saying those who have paid in for their entire working lives will not collect a dime of their money as it will all be allocated under a welfare system for those considered low income. Yeah, that'll fly.
5. This is just you making ridiculous assertions as usual.
Well, this has been fun but I must get my beauty sleep.
|by Anonymous||reply 257||08/22/2018|
I'd also add to put members of Congress on Social Security like everyone else and put them on Medicare as well. Then they won't fuck around with these programs. Like poster r250' let's lift the the limits of Medicare caps and keep the 1% paying in. Of course they'll qualify for more SS payments, but this way we wii keep SS solvent into the future.
|by Anonymous||reply 258||08/22/2018|
Yeah, make Congress live by its own laws. The rich, however, would not get more out of social security. There is a cap on what one person can get, no matter how much they've contributed and that should remain in place. In fact, with means testing, if they are rich enough when they retire, they won't get any social security. It's the price of living in a free society where they were allowed to accumulate enough wealth to not need social security. If they don't like it, they can go live somewhere else...but none of them will. It goes along the same line of everyone paying for schools, and roads, and libraries, and infrastructure, and police, and fire even if they don't need or use them. It's part of being a citizen. Just like those, you pay into social security even if you don't end up needing or using it due to your wealth. As it stands now, Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Oprah, etc., can all collect social security checks every month. That's insane.
|by Anonymous||reply 259||08/22/2018|
I'll address your bullshit lies tomorrow, R257, when I have some time but if anyone else wants to call the asshole on his (because if you actually aren't a white male you should be ashamed of yourself holding these Repug positions) crap before I can get to it, go for it. It's pretty easy pickings.
As far as your profile is concerned, are you a Republican or a libertarian? Because there's no way you're a Democrat with the beliefs you hold. Not even a conservative Democrat would so defend someone's right to keep all that money at the expense of everyone else in the country. Fixing wealth disparity is a Democratic issue. Letting rich people keep all the money is, basically, the entire Repug platform. I bet you loved those Trump tax cuts you're getting, huh?
|by Anonymous||reply 260||08/23/2018|
R250 makes some interesting points, but who the hell would want to work with her?
|by Anonymous||reply 261||08/23/2018|
Make America Mexico Again
The USA Was Never That Great To Begin With
You didn't want a tax cut anyway
Illegal aliens get to kill your children. Its the children of illegal aliens you should be crying over.
|by Anonymous||reply 262||08/23/2018|
This administration gave $2 trillion in tax cuts to its ultra-rich donors, destroyed the regulations that protect clean air and water, and are the most corrupt, lying administration in the history of this country.
And yet people like you forgive all that because you enjoy the stories of brown kids being tortured.
If the Dems don't win the midterms, it won't because of the "issues" you mention. It will be because America is too busy taking its next Instagram post to care about whether it lives or dies anymore.
|by Anonymous||reply 263||08/23/2018|
R263, the Blue Wave is a fiction. Trump will be re-elected in 2020 by a nation of voters grateful for a robust economy and a government that puts the American people first.
|by Anonymous||reply 264||08/23/2018|
R264, what are you going to do when that doesn't happen? Blame it on Hillary, I bet. You are mentally ill. Please get help.
|by Anonymous||reply 265||08/23/2018|
[quote]And yet people like you forgive all that because you enjoy the stories of brown kids being tortured.
Au contraire. We Trump supporters firmly believe Clinton and the Podestas were trafficking brown children for Luciferian rituals involving torture and cannibalism. Adrenochrome is a helluva drug. If Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea went to Haiti, they would face a lynch mob wondering where the billions in earthquake relief went.
|by Anonymous||reply 266||08/23/2018|
[quote]2. We'd stop treating income from investment, including the real estate income our lord collects, as a special class of income that is taxed at a lower rate than the money the rest of us actually work for every day.
There are lower taxes and tax exemptions on certain things to reward certain types of behavior. The government wants people using their money for investments, so they tax it at a lower rate. Put a high tax on investments and people will stop investing.
|by Anonymous||reply 267||08/23/2018|
If you've ever seen the movie "Airplane!" there's this quick little joke they slipped in where there's a "point/counterpoint" on the local news about the crashing plane. A fat Republican businessman with a mustache opines "they bought their ticket. They knew the risks. I say, let them die."
In 1980, that was an absurd joke. Today, that's the whole philosophy of a political party and a lot of its adherents, some of whom are on this thread. They're dumb, sheltered, amoral assholes who haven't experienced a fig of what life can dish out.
|by Anonymous||reply 268||08/23/2018|
I'll ask again. Is there anything in Warren's proposal that would prevent a company from re incorporating in a favorable jurisdiction outside the United States?
|by Anonymous||reply 269||08/23/2018|
R269, she's worked on that and related topics in other bills, like the Stop Corporate Inversions Act she introduced a few years ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 270||08/23/2018|
[quote]she's worked on that and related topics in other bills, like the Stop Corporate Inversions Act
This is how idiots like Warren operate. They try to get harmful legislation passed, then when companies try to get around it, they pass more legislation to stop them.
|by Anonymous||reply 271||08/23/2018|
[quote] R250: 4. We'd means test Social Security.
R250, I like your points, except this one, above. The reason is, I once read, that SS is successful because everybody gets money back. If it were only poorer people who got payments, it would be thought of as another “welfare” program for slackers, and the rich would agitate for its destruction.
I think it is enough to raise the cap on taxable income, without raising the amount on payouts. That will make it solvent in perpetuity, so let’s see how that goes. I don’t know why Congress won’t implement this. It’s like, they are waiting for it to reach the brink of destruction before acting, making it harder to remedy.
|by Anonymous||reply 272||08/23/2018|
R270, so if I'm reading your post correctly then the answer is no. You are saying that she tried a few years ago and it didn't pass. If there is nothing in this bill to stop corporations from incorporating elsewhere then this bill is nothing more than a dog whistle to the berniebro types.
I'd much rather see her work on legislation that will bring my GENERIC psoriasis cream down from $950 a tube to where it was a few years ago which was $15 dollars. I'm so tired of politicians creating boogeyman to avoid tackling the real damage that is being done to the public..
|by Anonymous||reply 273||08/23/2018|
|by Anonymous||reply 274||08/23/2018|
[quote] the Blue Wave is a fiction
The polling chief for CBS agrees.
“The horse-race analogy is compelling but it’s wrong,” Salvanto said. In racing, he pointed out, the distance already run gets your horse closer to the finish line, but “in a campaign, everything can change tomorrow.”
That’s why Salvanto is relying more on CBS’s ongoing tracking poll and less on random-sample telephone polling, ahead of this year’s midterm elections.
“That decision is very much informed by 2016,” Salvanto said.
A tracking poll sets up a panel of thousands of voters and returns to them repeatedly over months. That lets pollsters discern the factors driving voter decisions — and gauge how attitudes change as the campaign wears on. In 2016, only two major surveys’ final predictions foresaw a Trump victory. Both of them — from the LA Times/USC and IBD/TIPP — were tracking polls.
“It gives us a great advantage in trying to explain the meaning of the poll results,” Salvanto said.
This year, the CBS Battleground Tracker “is concentrating on the districts that we think will make a difference,” he said. “Remember, in a midterm, you have to watch each congressional seat — don’t pay attention to national numbers.”
Just as a presidential race is not a national contest but a collection of 51 separate elections (one for each state and for the District of Columbia), November’s midterm involves elections for 435 House districts and 35 Senate seats. The collective result will determine which party gains enough seats to control each congressional chamber.
“For pollsters, midterms are the most interesting and difficult challenge we face,” Salvanto said.
Not only must they consider 470 unique races, “there’s never more than a third or at best 40 percent turnout in midterm elections,” he noted. “So we’re looking for a subsample of a subsample” of voters.
For 2018, the CBS News Battleground Tracker has gathered a panel of nearly 5,700 registered voters. Almost all of them live in the 50 to 60 districts that might switch from Republican to Democrat, or vice versa, in November — the only races that matter, when it comes to control of Congress.
Salvanto’s polling currently indicates that few House seats will change hands in November — and that the GOP could very well hold its majority in the House. “In this era, a district’s voting patterns from the past tend to stay that way,” Salvanto said. “Not as many partisans today are willing to cross party lines.” Of the nation’s 435 House districts, fully 85 percent will almost certainly stick with its current party affiliation come November, Salvanto projects.
“Even though Republicans have not fared well in special elections so far this cycle, it does look like they will be turning out for the midterms,” Salvanto said. “So far we do not see a large number of Republicans saying they will flip and vote for a Democrat.”
|by Anonymous||reply 275||08/23/2018|
R274, Socialism is Norway, UK, France, etc. also, the US.
|by Anonymous||reply 276||08/23/2018|
R271, whereas idiots like Republicans just fucking tear down society without even the most minor clue as to how it operates, right?
|by Anonymous||reply 277||08/23/2018|
R273, the one has nothing to do with the other. Of course nothing intelligent or good for people is going to pass with a Republican congress (which was the case in 2015 too!). All these bills might have a chance of passing when Dems are in control again.
If you want your psoriasis medication, why not call your GOP reps and senators and tell them to get their heads out of their asses? They hurt Obamacare -- that's all they did.
|by Anonymous||reply 278||08/23/2018|
R274, if you ever get tired of the comic book view of the world propagated by Fox and Rush Limbaugh, you might want to pick up a book and read some history.
|by Anonymous||reply 279||08/23/2018|
R279, that report was filed by the BBC. You may want to take a gander at the news to see what is happening in Venezuela today.
|by Anonymous||reply 280||08/23/2018|
R280, you might want to take a look at Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Canada, and Germany. You might want to take a look at America before and after the New Deal. You might want to take a look at other developed countries' health outcomes versus American health outcomes, their degree of poverty verses ours. You might want to take a look at what created the Internet and fueled the tech boom (hint: it was the government). You might want to take a look at what prevented the US from falling into communism (it was progressive economic policy).
|by Anonymous||reply 281||08/23/2018|
R287, I have. I just find politicians (Democrat and Republican) like Warren to be very disingenuous. Instead of proposing legislation that will never pass regardless of who is in office -- and I do believe she knows it won't pass -- why not focus on legislation that will have a direct impact on people's lives. Why not focus on infrastructure? Pharmaceutucal reform? Those are bipartisan issues. But, no, instead she focuses on dog whistle items so when she runs in 2020 she has something to point to so that she can say, "see, I tried" and people like you lap it up.
|by Anonymous||reply 282||08/23/2018|
Does she really talk that way when she isn't on TV... I saw her on CNN the other morning and she's gosh shucks darnin' almost like she was from big corn country, golly. And she felt especially bad about this prezdent, rippin' apart mamas and babies.
She actually said mamas and babies twice. I know she's sincere and passionate in her heart but fuck she sounded like a ham on CNN. Is she always like that?
|by Anonymous||reply 283||08/23/2018|
R283, I know someone who had her as a professor. She is apparently WAY, WAY smart and to the point in person; she dumbs herself down and aw-shucks-erizes herself for public consumption.
|by Anonymous||reply 284||08/23/2018|
Well, she should stop it, if you ask me, because a) she can't carry it off and b) it then seems terribly condescending.
She's got more to contribute than bad acting.
|by Anonymous||reply 285||08/23/2018|
Give me HRC over her any day.
|by Anonymous||reply 286||08/23/2018|
|by Anonymous||reply 287||08/23/2018|
If a corporation leaves the US for Ireland or elsewhere, they will lose the protection of the US justice system and will be exposed to the laws of their adopted nations. If you ask me that's a huge risk. Besides, we can declare war on said country, defeat them and take all companies as spoils (just kidding, of course--but then again, there's Trump).
|by Anonymous||reply 288||08/24/2018|
You are referring to current conditions, r288, although there have been a few companies that have left already. However, if the business environment becomes such that American companies are at a disadvantage to global competition then whatever risk may be worth the reward and you will see more leave.
|by Anonymous||reply 289||08/24/2018|
[quote]I saw her on CNN the other morning and she's gosh shucks darnin' almost like she was from big corn country, golly. And she felt especially bad about this prezdent, rippin' apart mamas and babies. She actually said mamas and babies twice. I know she's sincere and passionate in her heart but fuck she sounded like a ham on CNN. Is she always like that?
Well, that worked for Hillary Clinton. Her "I'm no wayz tired" fooled all the blacks into voting for her.
And the Democrats have done everything they possibly could to pretend they're poor. Their constant script "Families sit around the kitchen table wondering how they're going to pay their bills."
|by Anonymous||reply 290||08/24/2018|
Wow, right on cue, another, “Let me take this opportunity to bash Hillary” troll.
|by Anonymous||reply 291||08/24/2018|
[quote] the Blue Wave is a fiction. Trump will be re-elected in 2020 by a nation of voters grateful for a robust economy and a government that puts the American people first.
Whether or not a blue wave happens, Trump has a very high chance of being re-elected at the end of the day and that is just sickening. However, nothing shocks me after the 2004 election.
|by Anonymous||reply 292||08/24/2018|
r264 - the fiction is that Trump is putting the American people first.
|by Anonymous||reply 293||08/24/2018|
[quote]Whether or not a blue wave happens, Trump has a very high chance of being re-elected at the end of the day and that is just sickening.
I don't believe that. First, he didn't win the popular vote in the first go round. He's bleeding independents. So long as the Democrats don't do something g really stupid in terms of another dud nominee he will not win. He won on a technicality the first time and then not by much.
Second, everything else.
|by Anonymous||reply 294||08/24/2018|
If a corporation "leaves" the US, it barely matters anymore. They STILL pay American taxes on US revenue, their American shareholders still pay American taxes on dividends & capital gains, and unless they're planning to go out of business in the US, they still have workers here. In most corporations, the employees working at "headquarters" are a drop in the bucket, especially if you don't count the CEO & his/her salary.
Seriously. "Inverting" a US company into an Irish one matters about as much as "inverting" a California company into a Delaware or Nevada one. Financially, large corporations ALREADY act like they're incorporated elsewhere, EVEN IF they're still technically incorporated in the US.
If corporations get TOO bitchy about moving abroad, the US *can* punish them via their remaining US operations. We generally don't, but we could... and historically, HAVE (prior to Republicans making it a holy taboo in the 80s).
|by Anonymous||reply 295||08/24/2018|
R295, great points!
|by Anonymous||reply 296||08/26/2018|
R295 - Are you talking before or after Trump's 2017 tax bill? The intent of the bill was to lower US rates so inversion would not be profitable. Obviously meaning it was profitable before the bill was passed.
My understanding is there is disagreement on whether the bill will make a difference.
|by Anonymous||reply 297||08/27/2018|
Whether the bill passes or doesn’t, or what it (may) ultimately contain (doubtful, as it will never get out of Senate committee), it has at least got the conversation restarted.
What's an economy good for, if it does not serve the interests of the vast majority of its participants?
Unfortunately, this proposal, and Sen Warren's tone deafness will preclude her ever being elected. But she's good in the Senate, too.
|by Anonymous||reply 298||08/28/2018|
r19 you're talking about those pathetic 401k contributions while Warren is talking about real investment in employees which could men more than a sad 3% raise, increased vacation time, additional job training, education refunds, or increased employee ownership. This might rock the boat in the beginning but the market will correct itself.
I don't understand how this works for foreign companies that operate in the US or how it won't prevent a company from relocating their headquarter's, but I'm not a tax expert.
|by Anonymous||reply 299||08/28/2018|
[QUOTE]Seventy-eight percent of U.S. workers think that CEOs make too much compared to employees, according to a new survey by beqom, a compensation software company.
[QUOTE]A majority of beqom’s respondents — 60 percent — wants to know their CEO’s salary.
|by Anonymous||reply 300||10/10/2018|
[quote]Put a high tax on investments and people will stop investing.
There's just one teensy problem with this assertion: it's not true. We've taxed investments as regular income in the past and there was still no shortage of investment funds.
|by Anonymous||reply 301||10/10/2018|
[quote] Employees at large corporations would be able to elect at least 40% of the board of directors. An estimated 3,500 public US companies and hundreds of other private companies would be covered by the mandates.
AKA a 𝙎𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙚𝙩.
According to the official historiography of the Soviet Union, the first workers' council (soviet) formed in May 1905 in Ivanovo (north-east of Moscow) during the 1905 Russian Revolution (Ivanovsky Soviet). However, in his memoirs, the Russian Anarchist Volin claims that he witnessed the beginnings of the St Petersburg Soviet in January 1905. The Russian workers were largely organized at the turn of the 20th century, leading to a government-sponsored trade-union leadership.
And that worked out so well.
Looking up Warren's bio I see no reference to her ever earning a living outside government or academia. That explains much about her.
|by Anonymous||reply 302||10/10/2018|
R301, I believe you're quoting an old post of mine. I'm curious as to how much you invest in the market because your reply to my quote has absolutely no bearing on what I said.
|by Anonymous||reply 303||10/10/2018|
$1.4 million, R303, and I'm afraid that you are incorrect, as my response was absolutely the correct response to your silly assertion in R267.
|by Anonymous||reply 304||10/10/2018|
Actually, R303, if that was you at R267, you might want to think twice about claiming it, as the author of that post wrote a lot of stupid shit on this thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 305||10/10/2018|
Yes R305, I'm always open to hearing advice from someone who uses the phrase " a lot of stupid shit." I stand by what I said. I also held series licensing in the state of NJ but I'm sure with your own special form of expertise your 1.4M did was doing just swell by the end of today's close.
|by Anonymous||reply 306||10/10/2018|
Well, see, here's the thing, r306: I believe in calling a spade a spade and not mincing words. The author of R267 did, in fact, write a lot of stupid shit, including, for example, that very post. You have not claimed credit for that post yet. Are you doing so now?
As for the rest of your rather pathetic ad hominem remarks, I have made no claim to any "special form of expertise." You asked me how much I have invested in the market and I told you, even though that was not relevant to this discussion. I have ridden out downturns before and I will be doing so again. As many do, I buy during the downturn rather than panicking and selling.
|by Anonymous||reply 307||10/11/2018|
As for your own brand of stupid shit, I'd start with your post at R257. While, admittedly, the post you were responding to was not very well thought out, the points he made were worthy of more than your dismissive response. Moreover, you were flatly incorrect about points #1 (NAFTA) and #2 (taxes on investment income).
I also find it interesting that in this entire thread, you've been engaging in random attacks without actually addressing the substance of Senator Warren's proposals, preferring instead to engage in mindless platitudes like, "This country grew and prospered under the financial principles of capitalism."
You have engaged in these same tactics with respect to my post at R301, which happens to be true. You cannot attack that point, so you have instead engaged in rather lame ad hominem attacks rather than acknowledge that what I wrote was true.
|by Anonymous||reply 308||10/11/2018|
Conservatives only do ad hominem attacks. They are all mentally second graders.
|by Anonymous||reply 309||10/11/2018|
R306 and R308, if you've been tracking me in this thread it means you're perfectly capable of figuring out if I wrote the post at R306. As for my tone, you introduced yourself in this thread by attacking my posts with the finesse of a drunk wielding a sledgehammer. Go read R250's other posts where the anon loves to refer to me as an asshole and attacks me for not paying more in taxes even though it would take this anon 100 taxable income years to pay what I paid in 2017.
As for why I don't care for Senator Warren's proposed plan I believe I made that clear if more than one post. Again, if you've been tracking me you can go back and read for yourself. It's rather obvious when I said there was no way in hell non-shareholders (employees who don't own shares in the company) should have a vote in a publically held company. Warren is overstepping.
I stand by what I said about NAFTA. As for my reply at R257 for R250 in relation to #2, I was referring to her (because I think the dedicated Socialist is female) assertion real estate income is taxed at a lower rate. That is false. As for investment income, you should well know as an investor that short-term gains are taxed at the regular rate and long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate depending on your tax bracket.
|by Anonymous||reply 310||10/11/2018|
[quote]if you've been tracking me in this thread it means you're perfectly capable of figuring out if I wrote the post at R306.
I think you mean the post at R267. And since you may well use more than one device to post on DL, I'm afraid that I cannot determine whether you wrote that post. Are you admitting that you did? And are you prepared to defend it?
[quote]As for my tone
I don't give a shit about your tone. I was referring to your rather pathetic logical fallacies, including engaging in ad hominem attacks rather than engaging the substance.
[quote]you introduced yourself in this thread by attacking my posts with the finesse of a drunk wielding a sledgehammer.
LOL.... And there's that ad hominem attack again. My first post on this thread was R301, which was not even remotely an "attack." Nor was it an attack on your posts unless you did, in fact, write R267. You chose to take offense at a rather mild response, a response that happens to be the truth. And if you didn't write r267, that so-called "attack" wasn't even directed at you. Now what was that you were saying about "attacking my posts with the finesse of a drunk wielding a sledgehammer?"
[quote]Go read R250's other posts where the anon loves to refer to me as an asshole and attacks me for not paying more in taxes even though it would take this anon 100 taxable income years to pay what I paid in 2017.
*Shrug* So? That has nothing at all to do with his post at R250, which you blithely dismissed without any thought.
[quote]As for why I don't care for Senator Warren's proposed plan I believe I made that clear if more than one post.
Nope, because all you did was engage in mindless platitudes, refusing to engage in the substance of the plan. That, in fact, has been your behavior throughout this thread. Personal attacks and meaningless buzzwords and phrases.
[quote]I stand by what I said about NAFTA.
Alas that you cannot back it up. Given that the problems with the middle class began in the 1970s, years before NAFTA was passed, your post was clearly wrong. And that's not even counting the various analyses that show that NAFTA has had a minimal impact on the middle class.
[quote]As for investment income, you should well know as an investor that short-term gains are taxed at the regular rate and long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate depending on your tax bracket.
I'm well aware of that. That still has nothing at all to do with my response at R301. Nor does it make your response any more accurate, given that the poster you were responding to was, in fact, correct, that investment income is taxed at a different rate.
|by Anonymous||reply 311||10/12/2018|
One more point: the problem that Warren's problem is intended to address, is very real. The long-growing imbalance between the 1% and the 90% is not sustainable. We are in third-world territory now, akin to the late 1800s "robber baron" days, with unaccountable oligarchs amassing ever greater wealth and power. If you don't like Warren's plan, what, then is your solution?
|by Anonymous||reply 312||10/12/2018|
*sigh* I do dislike typos. The second instance of the word "problem" above should be "proposal."
One more point: the problem that Warren's proposal is intended to address, is very real. etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 313||10/12/2018|