The US is already spending way too much, Sanders is going to aggravate the problem much more. He will probably go bombing against someone saying they're doing bad stuff. Socialism wrecks the economy too, and gives the government more power.

Oh sure these are bad things to come... Build a fairer, more secure world for everyone, this is something we should blame!

Go ahead, build it, and devalue university teaching even more (while it still being heck expensive), bankrupt more. I am for free federal higher schools, but they will have to really accept the best of the best, maybe the top 0.1%, and also an organised federal scholarship programme.

Frankly, in my opinion, higher schools need to go back to the status they were at in the 1200s and before - you only went to them if you really-really wanted to learn stuff, was just obsessed with learning and finding things about the world, research, but now some think of it as a must...learning should never be a must, if you are being forced to learn, you won't learn as well and wasting money (under free higher schools for anyone).

If some worked many of them also inherited from their family, annuitants do not deserve this sympathy at all.

It's 100% their family's choice to whom they give their money to, unlike socialists, who want to force to take away money and give it to jobless folk, who don't want to work but do like free food. You really think it's a good way to spend money, by giving it all to the kid? No, of course not, but it's what they want to do. And when the kid grows up and is still a jobless lazybones, the money is going to be automatically respread, as he will buy whatever he wants, and eventually he'll start running low and will have to get a job. So it works out either way.

It does. Incompetent people affect economy.

Competence comes with experience, amongst other things. And elections and referenda - these cost loads of money to hold, along with admitting new members, so if anything, stopping gerrymandering poorly affects economy.

What about other candidates, did they say anything about cutting wages for politicians?

They haven't either (to my knowledge), but you can't assume Sanders will.

No, your economy will grow greatly worse with all the public spending that's going to come if he gets what he wants - much cheaper universities, basically a one-payer full free healthcare system, raising the tax rates on the wealthier even more.

If you actually did some research, you'd find out that if all of Bernie's plans were to pass, the average american would be saved several thousand dollars a year. Raising the taxes on the wealthy is exactly what is needed, many corporations and extremely wealthy people pay NO taxes, which just isn't right.

1% worked hard to get their money, and they are working - otherwise they'd lose it before long.

Oh really, so several billion dollars just "disappear" if you dont work? Go talk to Bill Gates, who's retired and is putting much of his money into charity. And a lot of these fuckers don't work very hard for their money, they just inherit it or dodge taxes.

But you just want to greedily steal other folks' rewards since you're not doing as much work or businesship, and be lazy.

Then how come in the past few decades, both parents have started working, earning the same amount of money as costs for everything continue to rise. The middle class doesn't "work less" or "be lazy" they work just as hard or harder than the 1%, but the world isn't made for everybody who works hard to reach the top. Most people get to the top through connections, not hard work. There are exceptions to every rule, but calling everyone in the 99% "lazy" and "hungry for things they didn't earn" is bullshit. We've goddamn earned the right to not having to pay 10,000 just to get a fucking cut stitched up.

And recall: debt is 100% by choice, if you get yourself in debt, you have noone else but yourself to blame.

Oh so if i get genetic cancer and lose all my money to medical bills, that's my fault? Fuck off man.

Sanders, to my knowledge, has not said a word about cutting wages for politicians. He has talked about shortening a few time limits, but not about cutting wages.

Alright, i wasn't clear about this one. These politicians keep getting re-elected because they control the advertising and political machine to allow them to do so. Sanders proposes limits on campaign spending and donations to allow nearly anyone to run if they've got the qualifications that actually matter, not just a fat wallet.

Also, you have no right to take anyone's money away. You are not owed anything a man has gotten from his father. His father and his fathers before him have worked for their money, and they may do as they wish with their money. Besides, almost no one in the US is really poor. Oh no, I went to a college that I can't afford because they're trying to self adjust , have only a IPhone 5, have a car from 2008, and have a apartment air conditioning, heating, electricity and running water, I'm so poor! Give me your money! All that you should be getting from the government is some infrastructure and emergency services, not effing money for college.

Education is a right, everybody shall have the opportunity and the chance to go to college, and it should not be a question of money.

So we turn all the people who ARE poor away from college? The middle class is a big range bud. How about the people who are barely maintaining the level above poverty? Why shouldn't they go to college.

If you actually did some research, you'd find out that if all of Bernie's plans were to pass, the average american would be saved several thousand dollars a year. Raising the taxes on the wealthy is exactly what is needed, many corporations and extremely wealthy people pay NO taxes, which just isn't right.

It sure as hell doesn't seem to, source me.

http://fee.org/media/13527/rates.png?width:%20100%;%20height:auto

Extremely wealth folk pay the most taxes, you should thank your local rich person.

Oh really, so several billion dollars just "disappear" if you dont work? Go talk to Bill Gates, who's retired and is putting much of his money into charity.

I get what you are saying, but there are 536 billionaires in America, it's obviously not a significant problem, and if they were as "greedy" as you accuse them to be, they're working to make more and more. A great deal of these billionaires' money goes to charities and foreign help funds, by the way (like B. Gates). Furthermore, they don't disappear, they get reintegrated, sure, it's not immediate, but it happens anyway.

Then how come in the past few decades, both parents have started working, earning the same amount of money as costs for everything continue to rise.

Stop being melodramatic, in America, it's still one of the best median incomes, best in the OECD I think, actually (which is loaded with socialist countries). This isn't a problem at all.

The middle class doesn't "work less" or "be lazy" they work just as hard or harder than the 1%, but the world isn't made for everybody who works hard to reach the top.

Anyone can "reach the top", as you say, but it requires risk, economic strategy, and businesship. Wealth doesn't come to you magically, even if you are a daemonic rich person.

Most people get to the top through connections, not hard work.

They get there since they've got wealthy jobs. That's all. Noone is going to pay them if they do nothing.

There are exceptions to every rule, but calling everyone in the 99% "lazy" and "hungry for things they didn't earn" is bullshit.

And calling rich folk lazybones who don't work is bullshit, too, but obviously there's going to be far more lazy in the 99% than in the 1%, and that number will only grow (along with nonworking folk generally) with socialism.

Oh so if i get genetic cancer and lose all my money to medical bills, that's my fault? Fuck off man.

I'm not against free life-threatening healthcare, but I'm definitely against bigger healthcare. Cancer is in great deal preventable through, well, y'know, not eating carcinogens.

Sanders proposes limits on campaign spending and donations to allow nearly anyone to run if they've got the qualifications that actually matter, not just a fat wallet.

Theoretically, I'd be for, but this isn't going to stop anybody, they'll just divide up the money between hordes of folk and donate through that way, and as for campaign spending, they'll just loophole that, too, by giving money to "a foundation that supports X's presidency", that will advertise for them. Limits won't solve anything, so might as well take the choice that doesn't take away freedom of choice: no limits

Can someone tell me something? How come leftists think that since education is a right, everyone should get one, but that even though guns are a right, people don't get free guns? We already give people a K-12 education, and the right to go to college, if not the means. That's enough for me. Go to trade school, join the army; college is not the only way. It is for learning specific professions and skills to be used in employment. Not for getting a general education. That is K-12.

o we turn all the people who ARE poor away from college? The middle class is a big range bud. How about the people who are barely maintaining the level above poverty? Why shouldn't they go to college.

Well, first, don't go somewhere you can't afford, if you take debts, that's 100% your fault. And higher school admittance rates are just too high, it's deflating the value of higher school teaching, but the costs for higher school teaching are staying the same or highering as that's what they can do since it's becoming more mandatory. Much less folk should be going to higher schools than is right now (44% in America have a 4-year higher school diploma or better), higher school should be only for those who really want to learn, are bookish, or just want to help research and find out things about the world.

Edited 3/31/2016 21:19:22

t sure as hell doesn't seem to, source me.

http://fee.org/media/13527/rates.png?width:%20100%;%20height:auto

Extremely wealth folk pay the most taxes, you should thank your local rich person.

Just because the rates are there don't mean that those corporations and people actually pay. Offshore accounts are great for hiding money

I'm not against free life-threatening healthcare, but I'm definitely against bigger healthcare. Cancer is in great deal preventable through, well, y'know, not eating carcinogens.

Ah, the wonderful life of mixed nuts and chicken and fish. Sounds rad. I know too many healthy people who got cancer to believe its JUST eating carcinogens, so don't be an arrogant prick.



I'm not going to bother arguing this anymore, no matter what I say, you'll disagree, I can't convince you, so bye.

Just because the rates are there don't mean that those corporations and people actually pay. Offshore accounts are great for hiding money

Why are they hiding in the first site? Since they're being madly and multiformly taxed. If you really want, just take tax from those in other countries, too, though. That's another hassle-free way to solve the problem.

And furthermore, you said the average (50,000$) American. Sanders is taxing all these income groups more.

Ah, the wonderful life of mixed nuts and chicken and fish. Sounds rad. I know too many healthy people who got cancer to believe its JUST eating carcinogens, so don't be an arrogant prick.

It's not just eating carcinogens, but medic knowledge and not being about carcinogens will lower your risk of getting a dangerous cancer. Metastic cancers are only hazardous if they're not spotted soon enough, spotted too late, that is. Furthermore, I even said I am for healthcare in life-threatening settings, but not what Sanders wants to get (free healthcare for clipping toenails or something).

Edited 3/31/2016 21:27:32

It sure as hell doesn't seem to, source me.

http://fee.org/media/13527/rates.png?width:%20100%;%20height:auto

Extremely wealth folk pay the most taxes, you should thank your local rich person.

Thank them? Extremely wealth persons pay more taxes according to their revenues, and in America, dont worry about them, they still keep most of their fortune.

but there are 536 billionaires in America, it's obviously not a significant problem,

these 536 billionaires own 12.5% of the whole American wealth. If you do not see yet the problem then I am wondering if your critical mind is not affected.

if they were as "greedy" as you accuse them to be, they're working to make more and more.

They are not working to make more and more, their employees are making them wealthier, actually these billionaires nowadays are not working at all, unless you prove this is wrong.

A great deal of these billionaires' money goes to charities and foreign help funds, by the way (like B. Gates)

Well the truth is few of them are true Philanthropists, sadly, Bill Gates is an exception.

Stop being melodramatic, in America, it's still one of the best median incomes, best in the OECD I think, actually (which is loaded with socialist countries). This isn't a problem at all.

"I think", pigs will fly before the time you will provide solid sources supporting your statement...

And calling rich folk lazybones who don't work is bullshit, too,

Well it is part true anyway, particularly for those inheriting fortunes without doing anything at all.

I'm not against free life-threatening healthcare, but I'm definitely against bigger healthcare. Cancer is in great deal preventable through, well, y'know, not eating carcinogens.

Some cancer are genetic, and avoiding these "carcinogens" you are talking about is impossible, we are surrounded with carcinogens. Life is becoming impossible for low-paid workers, self-employed workers and the unemployed to support themselves properly and have a decent treatment since medical care is expensive and sometimes causes significant financial worries for the sick people themselves and/or their families.

No source is valid, unless it confirms to Panda's beliefs.

No source is valid, unless it confirms to Panda's beliefs.

It is more like "Unless it confirms yours and Juq beliefs" right?

Thank them? Extremely wealth persons pay more taxes according to their revenues, and in America, dont worry about them, they still keep most of their fortune.

Not if Sanders has something to do with it (who wants to bring income/payroll taxes on 250,000 USD+ to 62%, not counting all the other taxes like land taxes, sales taxes, so on...). And it's not really worrying about them, it hurts everyone if you take business's money away. Big businesses will fail, that means less jobs, and then folk will blame that on capitalism and so more socialism will come, it's a nefaste cycle.

these 536 billionaires own 12.5% of the whole American wealth. If you do not see yet the problem then I am wondering if your critical mind is not affected.

Socialists try to bring up income disparity as something axiomatically bad. It's a good thing, especially if it's spread in a non-linear way, it gives an addicting path to do better, since you're income level will exponentially grow contrasted to a linear progression. In short, a good income disparity is a sign of meritocracy and good economy.

They are not working to make more and more, their employees are making them wealthier, actually these billionaires nowadays are not working at all, unless you prove this is wrong.

Who's paying the employers? Now, I'm not going to go through a list of 536 folk, but just the top 3:

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft. Self-made.
Warren Buffet, founder of Berkshire Hathaway (umbrella business). Self-made.
Jeff Bezos, founder of amazon.com. Self-made.

Hmm.

Well the truth is few of them are true Philanthropists, sadly, Bill Gates is an exception.

Warren Buffet: plans to donate 5/6 wealth to charity by 2026 (5% each year).
Jeff Bezos: though not as philantrophic, he likes more to donate money to research and cosmology (Clock of the Long Now: 42 million $, Bezos Center for Innovation at the Seattle Museum of History and Industry, 10 million $)
Mark Zuckerberg (founder of Facebook): plans to donate 1/2 wealth to charity, has donated 1,000 million $+ to charity.

"I think", pigs will fly before the time you will provide solid sources supporting your statement...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx

Some cancer are genetic, and avoiding these "carcinogens" you are talking about is impossible, we are surrounded with carcinogens. Life is becoming impossible for low-paid workers, self-employed workers and the unemployed to support themselves properly and have a decent treatment since medical care is expensive and sometimes causes significant financial worries for the sick people themselves and/or their families.

True, some are genetic, and some carcinogens are impossible, but the point is, it's partially avoidable, but I am for taxpaid healthcare in life-threatening settings.

If you really want to "help the poor working families", then implementing choking tax in America is not the way to do it, rather, grow foreign help spending. Folk on welfare with 12,000 $ income (lowest median income of any state in America, Mississipi) need your help much less than than folk in Burundi, where there is huge crime rates right now, and the median income is 128 $, and there is no welfare system to speak of.

. Big businesses will fail, that means less jobs, and then folk will blame that on capitalism and so more socialism will come, it's a nefaste cycle.

Not necessarily, when businesses "fail" people usually do not blame capitalist policies but socialist ones. But anyway I do not see how this is linked with taxing more the rich. Again you are exaggerating it, it's not like Sanders is against business and want to take business's money away.

Socialists try to bring up income disparity as something axiomatically bad. It's a good thing,

It is a good thing when this disparity is not important. It is not only about "socialism" as you often seem to refer to this notion, but "common sense".

a good income disparity is a sign of meritocracy and good economy.

Indeed it is unless it is in a disproportionate manner, and again you skip the problem with "annuitants" and people inheriting fortune without doing anything, recently I read on Quora a 26 years old dude having trouble because he could not decide what he could do with his 200.000k per year revenues, something he inherited from his grandfather then father's investments in real estate. This is what I was talking about: Annuitants are a plague to our societies, and reducing taxations to these people will not solve at all the troubles our economies are currently facing.

Warren Buffet: plans to donate 5/6 wealth to charity by 2026 (5% each year).
Jeff Bezos: though not as philantrophic, he likes more to donate money to research and cosmology (Clock of the Long Now: 42 million $, Bezos Center for Innovation at the Seattle Museum of History and Industry, 10 million $)
Mark Zuckerberg (founder of Facebook): plans to donate 1/2 wealth to charity, has donated 1,000 million $+ to charity.

"Plans" does not mean he will do it, so again lets see if they will do it would you before saying they are true philanthropists.
You can also talk about those billionaires keeping their money, not redistributing it, or giving it randomly to people taking the opportunity of their weakness to take their fortunes, see Bettencourt's story (the senile Magnate of L'Oreal).

Not necessarily, when businesses "fail" people usually do not blame capitalist policies but socialist ones. But anyway I do not see how this is linked with taxing more the rich. Again you are exaggerating it, it's not like Sanders is against business and want to take business's money away.

They blame it on the economic system "as is", which most see as capitalism. And, no, I'm not exaggerating, Sanders may not be against business as policy, but he does literally want to raise the corporate tax (something that should be taken out altogether, taxes should never been put on something that is to be encouraged) and for making the disproportionately high tax rates to the wealthy even higher (over 50%!).

It is a good thing when this disparity is not important. It is not only about "socialism" as you often seem to refer to this notion, but "common sense".

Don't be smug. common sense. So tell me then, a someone who has rare sense, what is so good about equal income spread?

Indeed it is unless it is in a disproportionate manner

Especially if it is in a disproportionate matter, I said this earlier about exponential growth for linear ranking. It can be overdone, I agree, but that's definitely not a problem in America (where the median income is one of the highest).

recently I read on Quora a 26 years old dude having trouble because he could not decide what he could do with his 200.000k per year revenues, something he inherited from his grandfather then father's investments in real estate.

You're miffed he's rich and you're not. If you really wanted to advance income equality, you would have told him something expensive he can buy so that the money gets re-integrated, or maybe even better, tell him to start a business.

This is what I was talking about: Annuitants are a plague to our societies, and reducing taxations to these people will not solve at all the troubles our economies are currently facing.

If money isn't spent, if it's just hoarded, than it's as good as being burned, and that means less money flowing, deflation. Everyone is richer. And if it is spent, then it gets re-integrated, and richness gets passed down through meritocracy. Either way, it's win-win under capitalism, while socialism wants to force down the one choice of basically making everyone richer, and when everyone is given money, noone is given value.

"Plans" does not mean he will do it, so again lets see if they will do it would you before saying they are true philanthropists.

You can't deny that these are philantrophers, even if they haven't yet given all the money that they pledge to. And I was just basing it off the richest billionaires in America, which to your grounding, are the biggest problem. If you want, a little further down the list.

Larry Ellison, founded Oracle (computer business), self-made. Gave 490 million $ to charity.
Charles Koch, investor, first one on the list not really self-made. First one on the list who isn't really a philantropher, though he gave 18 million $ to Wichita State University.

Education is a right, everybody shall have the opportunity and the chance to go to college, and it should not be a question of money.

Just wanted to point out that this isn't true. Its not a constitutionally protected right and it shouldn't be. Not everyone is capable of doing well in College and the government (aka public taxpayer money) shouldn't be financing stupid college kids getting drunk every night and trying to score hookups with anything that moves, breathes, or looks at them.

Its not a constitutionally protected right

You and your constitution...

At any minute now, Russia and Switzerland will collapse into total riots, anarchy, and disorder since they dared rewrite their constitutions in the 1990s.