2020 Presidential election

[gandalfe]

Your posts are approaching ignore-worthy territory. They are opposites. His position is clearly pro-choice. Saying that he is anti-abortion is the opposite of his actual position.

I'm surprised that your own words are so triggering to you.

I guess I just don't get how you can't understand that anti-abortion and pro-choice are not, actually, opposites. I'm talking about the viewpoints, not the political positions. How someone could say, "I don't like abortion, but if you want one, you should be able to have that choice." I would personally rather nobody ever had an abortion, but that means I would rather people only get pregnant when they want to and that the pregnancies always go well. But because we don't live in that world, I want abortion to be a safe, legal option.

 

[fishonjazz]

Depends on what you call partisan Democrat. If you consider a partisan Democrat to be part of a socially conscious platform where there is an acknowledgement of the current unbalance between classes then yes, as a Bernie supporter you could say that he’s a partisan Democrat. I’d be surprised if Fish votes blue no matter who though. But I’ll let him speak for himself of course.

Hell, last time I voted was for mitt Romney for senator. He is a republican iirc.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Making the rich pay taxes. Take from the rich and give to the poor (in the form of taxing the rich and using those taxes for thing like education and healthcare taking some of the burden off the poor)

40 years ago the richest people in the country paid over 50% in taxes and the income inequality was much less. The rich have been taxed less and less over the years and the gap has grown.

Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

The wealthiest people in the U.S. have their money tied up in assets, including real estate, stocks, trusts, precious metals, etc. You aren't going to be able to tax more than their income, which is a small fraction of their wealth. If you want to raise their income tax by some percentage, go ahead, but it's not going to transform the economy anything like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are saying--e.g., pay for everyone's healthcare, pay for everyone's education, etc. It would have to be middle-class incomes that are taxed to provide those things, which is why it will probably never happen.

Healthcare for all inevitably means that people who work and earn a certain income are leaned on to buy healthcare for people who do not. There's no way around this, regardless of how you present the costs as premiums, deductibles or taxes. This already happens with medicare and programs for people on welfare. Obamacare, which is still in place, expanded this and it pissed a lot of people off when their monthly premiums doubled for the same quality of service. It's one of the issues that got Trump elected and will probably get him re-elected. If you can get pharmaceutical companies to lower their drug costs, go do it, but it's more likely to be a free market economy that achieves this through fair competition.

The U.S. population has expanded dramatically and the economy has transformed dramatically over the past 40+ years. The companies that earn the big money are largely technology and information-based businesses with extreme scalability and efficiency. Andrew Yang is correct when he says that improvements in business efficiency, including the ability to use automation, are displacing workers and adding to income inequality.

Criticize people like Jeff Bezos if you want, but he has also created more jobs for people, including high-paying jobs, than 99.99% of people. His businesses operate with greater precision and efficiency than anything the U.S. government could plan and execute. And if his employees don't want to work there, they can work somewhere else that treats them better and pays more. That's how a free-market economy works. Even Democrats understand this.

 

[fishonjazz]

The wealthiest people in the U.S. have their money tied up in assets, including real estate, stocks, trusts, precious metals, etc. You aren't going to be able to tax more than their income, which is a small fraction of their wealth. If you want to raise their income tax by some percentage, go ahead, but it's not going to transform the economy anything like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are saying--e.g., pay for everyone's healthcare, pay for everyone's education, etc. It would have to be middle-class incomes that are taxed to provide those things, which is why it will probably never happen.

Healthcare for all inevitably means that people who work and earn a certain income are leaned on to buy healthcare for people who do not. There's no way around this, regardless of how you present the costs as premiums, deductibles or taxes. This already happens with medicare and programs for people on welfare. Obamacare, which is still in place, expanded this and it pissed a lot of people off when their monthly premiums doubled for the same quality of service. It's one of the issues that got Trump elected and will probably get him re-elected. If you can get pharmaceutical companies to lower their drug costs, go do it, but it's more likely to be a free market economy that achieves this through fair competition.

The U.S. population has expanded dramatically and the economy has transformed dramatically over the past 40+ years. The companies that earn the big money are largely technology and information-based businesses with extreme scalability and efficiency. Andrew Yang is correct when he says that improvements in business efficiency, including the ability to use automation, are displacing workers and adding to income inequality.

Criticize people like Jeff Bezos if you want, but he has also created more jobs for people, including high-paying jobs, than 99.99% of people. His businesses operate with greater precision and efficiency than anything the U.S. government could plan and execute. And if his employees don't want to work there, they can work somewhere else that treats them better and pays more. That's how a free-market economy works. Even Democrats understand this.

Cool. Some raise in taxes on em is better than none.
Also I think assets can be taxed too. I consider my truck and house to be assets and I get taxed on both. Raise the taxes on the assets of the rich.

The rich provided jobs back in the 70's as well even though they were taxed much more.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I'm surprised that your own words are so triggering to you.

I guess I just don't get how you can't understand that anti-abortion and pro-choice are not, actually, opposites. I'm talking about the viewpoints, not the political positions. How someone could say, "I don't like abortion, but if you want one, you should be able to have that choice." I would personally rather nobody ever had an abortion, but that means I would rather people only get pregnant when they want to and that the pregnancies always go well. But because we don't live in that world, I want abortion to be a safe, legal option.

It was a discussion about political positions, not about viewpoints. You cannot claim that your political position is both anti-abortion and pro-choice because they are opposites, but that is what Fish did. The reason I'm going to put you on ignore is that you apparently cannot grasp that and want to instead reiterate your irrelevant point over and over.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

The wealthiest people in the U.S. have their money tied up in assets, including real estate, stocks, trusts, precious metals, etc. You aren't going to be able to tax more than their income, which is a small fraction of their wealth. If you want to raise their income tax by some percentage, go ahead, but it's not going to transform the economy anything like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are saying--e.g., pay for everyone's healthcare, pay for everyone's education, etc. It would have to be middle-class incomes that are taxed to provide those things, which is why it will probably never happen.

Healthcare for all inevitably means that people who work and earn a certain income are leaned on to buy healthcare for people who do not. There's no way around this, regardless of how you present the costs as premiums, deductibles or taxes. This already happens with medicare and programs for people on welfare. Obamacare, which is still in place, expanded this and it pissed a lot of people off when their monthly premiums doubled for the same quality of service. It's one of the issues that got Trump elected and will probably get him re-elected. If you can get pharmaceutical companies to lower their drug costs, go do it, but it's more likely to be a free market economy that achieves this through fair competition.

The U.S. population has expanded dramatically and the economy has transformed dramatically over the past 40+ years. The companies that earn the big money are largely technology and information-based businesses with extreme scalability and efficiency. Andrew Yang is correct when he says that improvements in business efficiency, including the ability to use automation, are displacing workers and adding to income inequality.

Criticize people like Jeff Bezos if you want, but he has also created more jobs for people, including high-paying jobs, than 99.99% of people. His businesses operate with greater precision and efficiency than anything the U.S. government could plan and execute. And if his employees don't want to work there, they can work somewhere else that treats them better and pays more. That's how a free-market economy works. Even Democrats understand this.

Both Warren and Sanders are proposing a wealth tax. They believe that the government ought to be allowed to receive a portion of these people's wealth which has previously been inaccessible to tax. But the truth is, even if they were able to do that the government still would come nowhere near close to being able to afford the programs they want to implement.

 

[Miggs]

The wealthiest people in the U.S. have their money tied up in assets, including real estate, stocks, trusts, precious metals, etc. You aren't going to be able to tax more than their income, which is a small fraction of their wealth. If you want to raise their income tax by some percentage, go ahead, but it's not going to transform the economy anything like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are saying--e.g., pay for everyone's healthcare, pay for everyone's education, etc. It would have to be middle-class incomes that are taxed to provide those things, which is why it will probably never happen.

Healthcare for all inevitably means that people who work and earn a certain income are leaned on to buy healthcare for people who do not. There's no way around this, regardless of how you present the costs as premiums, deductibles or taxes. This already happens with medicare and programs for people on welfare. Obamacare, which is still in place, expanded this and it pissed a lot of people off when their monthly premiums doubled for the same quality of service. It's one of the issues that got Trump elected and will probably get him re-elected. If you can get pharmaceutical companies to lower their drug costs, go do it, but it's more likely to be a free market economy that achieves this through fair competition.

The U.S. population has expanded dramatically and the economy has transformed dramatically over the past 40+ years. The companies that earn the big money are largely technology and information-based businesses with extreme scalability and efficiency. Andrew Yang is correct when he says that improvements in business efficiency, including the ability to use automation, are displacing workers and adding to income inequality.

Criticize people like Jeff Bezos if you want, but he has also created more jobs for people, including high-paying jobs, than 99.99% of people. His businesses operate with greater precision and efficiency than anything the U.S. government could plan and execute. And if his employees don't want to work there, they can work somewhere else that treats them better and pays more. That's how a free-market economy works. Even Democrats understand this.

Not sure I’d use Amazon as your shining example. The place is known to suck to work at.

 

[gandalfe]

It was a discussion about political positions, not about viewpoints. You cannot claim that your political position is both anti-abortion and pro-choice because they are opposites, but that is what Fish did. The reason I'm going to put you on ignore is that you apparently cannot grasp that and want to instead reiterate your irrelevant point over and over.

My point, which I guess I'm not explaining well, is simply that the labels get in the way. They're emotionally (and logically) loaded terms. They should be called "Pro-legal-abortion" and "anti-legal-abortion." But they're not, because those aren't catchy, like "pro-life" and "pro-choice."

 

[gandalfe]

Mayor Pete out.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/01/pete-buttigieg-drops-out-of-2020-presidential-race.html

 

[JazzGal]

Another one bites the dust. This one stings a little as I voted for Mayor Pete for Tuesday's primary. I guess that's the trouble with early voting.

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Not sure I’d use Amazon as your shining example. The place is known to suck to work at.

Yeah, mostly warehouse workers who are timed on filling packages and put under boiler room pressure. I'm not pointing to Amazon as a shining example. But that may be part of the cost of offering same-day shipping in major cities.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Cool. Some raise in taxes on em is better than none.
Also I think assets can be taxed too. I consider my truck and house to be assets and I get taxed on both. Raise the taxes on the assets of the rich.

The rich provided jobs back in the 70's as well even though they were taxed much more.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

One of the biggest economic inequality issues is housing. People's wages have gone up, but relatively little. Whereas, housing prices in most major metros have gone up quite dramatically, by 2x or 3x. So the people who owned the real estate generated wealth, while the people who don't own real estate did not. Now a significant percentage of Millenials and Gen Z may never be able to own a home. These people are pissed off, but it's a difficult issue to solve. Giving these people big loans that they may never pay off in order to buy a home, or providing more cost-controlled rentals that they'll never own, won't make them happy.

 

[candrew]

Another one bites the dust. This one stings a little as I voted for Mayor Pete for Tuesday's primary. I guess that's the trouble with early voting.

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app

The dem power brokers probably told him be a team player and you'll be taken care of.

If Biden is the nominee you can bet Pete will be on the VP short list.

 

[fishonjazz]

One of the biggest economic inequality issues is housing. People's wages have gone up, but relatively little. Whereas, housing prices in most major metros have gone up quite dramatically, by 2x or 3x. So the people who owned the real estate generated wealth, while the people who don't own real estate did not. Now a significant percentage of Millenials and Gen Z may never be able to own a home. These people are pissed off, but it's a difficult issue to solve. Giving these people big loans that they may never pay off in order to buy a home, or providing more cost-controlled rentals that they'll never own, won't make them happy.

Ok cool
Still think taxing the rich is a good idea.
There have always been people generating wealth whether through real estate or tech or anything else. That wealth used to be taxed though.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Another one bites the dust. This one stings a little as I voted for Mayor Pete for Tuesday's primary. I guess that's the trouble with early voting.

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app

At this point, Amy Klobuchar is just hanging in to see if she can win delegates in her home state of Minnesota. The race really appears to be down to Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg, with Warren seeing how many delegates she can win (if any). The candidates are teaming up to try to keep Bernie Sanders from getting a clear majority of delegates.

 

[Miggs]

Yeah, I think taxing the rich at a greater rate should definitely happen. Not sure why anyone is bringing up their wealth. I couldn’t care less about that. Just tax those making >250K or 300K or 1M or some other arbitrary number a greater amount. fish got me curious so I looked and the rich were taxed at 70% in 1950. Not sure how accurate that link was but it was the WSJ or NYT iirc so probably fairly accurate.

 

[The Thriller]

One of the biggest economic inequality issues is housing. People's wages have gone up, but relatively little. Whereas, housing prices in most major metros have gone up quite dramatically, by 2x or 3x. So the people who owned the real estate generated wealth, while the people who don't own real estate did not. Now a significant percentage of Millenials and Gen Z may never be able to own a home. These people are pissed off, but it's a difficult issue to solve. Giving these people big loans that they may never pay off in order to buy a home, or providing more cost-controlled rentals that they'll never own, won't make them happy.

I don’t disagree with this. However, I think there’s a view that housing prices have skyrocketed in only metro areas. Which isn’t true. They’ve skyrocketed everywhere with the exception of dying small towns. Just look at Utah. You don’t have to live in salt lake to be priced out of a home. Lehi is one hour south and hardly considered metropolitan and yet single family homes of any quality start at $400,000. Even “affordable” housing in Tooele starts at $350,000. If you want a home with any land you’re looking at $400,000 Eagle Mountain where you’re 30 mins from a grocery store and 1.5 hrs from downtown Salt Lake City. Look at housing prices in Kanab, Morgan, Brigham City, and Nephi. You’re still looking at $300,000+. Unless you’re paying cash for those homes, you’re going to have to work. The Jobs that enable you to afford that type of home are 1+ hrs away.

That’s why everywhere you go you’re seeing overpriced crappy high density housing and why the homeless shelters are overflowing.

I once knew someone who bought their home in Sandy in 1986 for about $87,000. They sold it in one day in 2017 for 600,000. And we wonder why people can’t afford homes anymore?

 

[fishonjazz]

I don’t disagree with this. However, I think there’s a view that housing prices have skyrocketed in only metro areas. Which isn’t true. They’ve skyrocketed everywhere with the exception of dying small towns. Just look at Utah. You don’t have to live in salt lake to be priced out of a home. Lehi is one hour south and hardly considered metropolitan and yet single family homes of any quality start at $400,000. Even “affordable” housing in Tooele starts at $350,000. If you want a home with any land you’re looking at $400,000 Eagle Mountain where you’re 30 mins from a grocery store and 1.5 hrs from downtown Salt Lake City. Look at housing prices in Kanab, Morgan, Brigham City, and Nephi. You’re still looking at $300,000+. Unless you’re paying cash for those homes, you’re going to have to work. The Jobs that enable you to afford that type of home are 1+ hrs away.

That’s why everywhere you go you’re seeing overpriced crappy high density housing and why the homeless shelters are overflowing.

I once knew someone who bought their home in Sandy in 1986 for about $87,000. They sold it in one day in 2017 for 600,000. And we wonder why people can’t afford homes anymore?

Luckily I bought my first (and only) home during the last recession. I have a ton of equity in my home but there is no way I would sell my house to get that equity cause I don't want to shop for a home in this market.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Deleted member 848]

No doubt. Since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you must really be buttering up Americans.

remember when I called you out for having a grade 1 level understanding of history involving Latin America & you responded by insults instead of a proper retort? **** was pretty funny.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Hurling nukes from Canada..

Haha.. but still love dala.

Give my lil niece a warm hug for me <3 hope all is well