Income Inequality - Dem Candidates

[atavistic]

Most the candidates are all for redistributing our wealth - why don't they redistribute their wealth (campaign funds) among each other so that they each have a 'fair' chance? Hillary has $33M on hand. I'm sure she's paying her pollsters and handlers far more than Chaffee is paying his people. ITS NOT FAIR! She should immediately send O'Malley, Webb & Chaffee $8M a piece to level the playing field.

Mr. equality himself, Bernie, is also being greedy - he needs to do his fair share to help the working class candidates and their employees. The top 2 candidates control 90% of the money - THIS MUST END!

They should commit to collectively pooling all future contributions, including PACs, going forward. This is almost as good as public campaign financing, which they are all for. That way, no one has an unfair advantage and game the system, and be help hostage to special interest demands.

If you're going to cook, you should be willing to eat it.

Hillary and Bernie are feeding inequality. Let's insist they put an end to it now, just as they say they are fighting to do. They can set the example for us all to follow!

 

[ginwilly]

 

[Rrog]

Or we could always let the rapid consolidation of wealth continue

 

[abandonconflict]

So you're suggesting that Donald Trump give his money to Hillary and Bernie to level the playing field?

 

[ginwilly]

So you're suggesting that Donald Trump give his money to Hillary and Bernie to level the playing field?

If Trump is campaigning against income equality and preaching share the wealth, then by all means, he'd be a hypocrite otherwise.

 

[abandonconflict]

Trump is already a fucking hypocrite.

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[abandonconflict]

All that endless drivel about dealing with immigrants and yet he has been married to two foreign women who became citizens as a result.

I fucking love Oreos.

 

[ginwilly]

All that endless drivel about dealing with immigrants and yet he has been married to two foreign women who became citizens as a result.

I fucking love Oreos.

So in a thread about Dems, half of the posts in the thread are you making posts about Donald Trump.

Have you gone ahead and just stop pretending you are a hack? Because if you are still trying to keep up that charade you are failing.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Most the candidates are all for redistributing our wealth - why don't they redistribute their wealth (campaign funds) among each other so that they each have a 'fair' chance? Hillary has $33M on hand. I'm sure she's paying her pollsters and handlers far more than Chaffee is paying his people. ITS NOT FAIR! She should immediately send O'Malley, Webb & Chaffee $8M a piece to level the playing field.

Mr. equality himself, Bernie, is also being greedy - he needs to do his fair share to help the working class candidates and their employees. The top 2 candidates control 90% of the money - THIS MUST END!

They should commit to collectively pooling all future contributions, including PACs, going forward. This is almost as good as public campaign financing, which they are all for. That way, no one has an unfair advantage and game the system, and be help hostage to special interest demands.

If you're going to cook, you should be willing to eat it.

Hillary and Bernie are feeding inequality. Let's insist they put an end to it now, just as they say they are fighting to do. They can set the example for us all to follow!

Do you oppose the idea of income inequality or do you support the idea of publicly funded elections?

 

[abandonconflict]

So in a thread about Dems, half of the posts in the thread are you making posts about Donald Trump.

Have you gone ahead and just stop pretending you are a hack? Because if you are still trying to keep up that charade you are failing.

Deciphering...

"It vexes my butt when you badmouth my toupee wearing hero Donny Trump and I have a tiny penis."

 

[ginwilly]

Deciphering...

"It vexes my butt when you badmouth my toupee wearing hero Donny Trump and I have a tiny penis."

I think Trump is an insignificant idiot that won't be around after the primaries to obsess over.

I admire the fact you've stop pretending to be anything other than a liberal statist hack though, you've made progress from your days of claiming to be an anarchist.

 

[atavistic]

Do you oppose the idea of income inequality or do you support the idea of publicly funded elections?

Oppose. vehemently.

Redistribution is done by police power, and is therefore involuntary. The market, ideally, is voluntary. Sure there are inconsistencies, many created by politicians favoring a group of contributors over others.

Results (income, wealth) at least have a casual relationship with input/effort/work.

I don't believe in it. But the Democrat candidates do. There is no downside to them, collectively, to practice what they preach. Whoever the nominee will be will supported by the others. If they want equal outcomes, there is no Republican, no Constitution, no nothing standing in their way. Utopia is within their grasp. Based on his rhetoric, I can't believe Sanders isn't already demanding it.

Unless, of course, they realize how unworkable, how un'fair' it is. But I haven't heard that in their stump speeches.

 

[abandonconflict]

I think Trump is an insignificant idiot that won't be around after the primaries to obsess over.

I admire the fact you've stop pretending to be anything other than a liberal statist hack though, you've made progress from your days of claiming to be an anarchist.

You're just mad because this is now a Donny thread.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Oppose. vehemently.

Redistribution is done by police power, and is therefore involuntary. The market, ideally, is voluntary. Sure there are inconsistencies, many created by politicians favoring a group of contributors over others.

Results (income, wealth) at least have a casual relationship with input/effort/work.

I don't believe in it. But the Democrat candidates do. There is no downside to them, collectively, to practice what they preach. Whoever the nominee will be will supported by the others. If they want equal outcomes, there is no Republican, no Constitution, no nothing standing in their way. Utopia is within their grasp. Based on his rhetoric, I can't believe Sanders isn't already demanding it.

Unless, of course, they realize how unworkable, how un'fair' it is. But I haven't heard that in their stump speeches.

Do you believe the distribution of wealth/income in America is ideal, and is a result of an objectively fair system with equal opportunity?

 

[atavistic]

No, and I don't believe everyone works equally hard, has equal talents, does exactly the same job or had equal luck, or invested as much is skills and education as the next guy.

The guy on special teams makes less than the star quarterback. He doesn't get the equally hot head cheerleader. He doesn't get the same endorsement deal, because the fans don't give a damn about him. Again, Jim Webb's campaign director isn't getting paid what Hillary's CD is. I say that's life. The Dems say that's unfair, and voters should empower them to correct it.

In their own micro-universe, they have the power to correct (in their world). Have at it.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You're talking about equality of outcome, they're talking about equality of opportunity

 

[atavistic]

They want to redistribute based on outcome. Are you saying Webb's campaign has the same opportunity as Hillary? A poor campaign vs. a rich campaign? I say they do have the same opportunity. So everyone should keep their resources. But the candidates say no, based on the fact they want to rebalance the outcomes after the outcomes are achieved of taxpayers.

Its like Buffett lobbying for higher individual tax rates because his secretary paid a higher rate than him. The net result was his secretary's tax rate went up, since she pays income tax, and his didn't, since his income is overwhelmingly not taxed at individual income tax rates. You have to watch what all politicians to say very carefully. Bernie is for socialism with other people's resources. Hillary will damn sure be sheltering the $100M in CGI, and only a tiny portion of that will get doled out well after it pays the Clinton's salaries and expenses.

I wasn't born with Dan Marino's arm. I never had an equal opportunity to be a star QB. Do we really want government figuring out how to equalize that? You want 'free' college education? OK, then it isn't fair that some idiot isn't smart enough be a doctor - you want to set up him up operating on people in the interests of continuing to assure him an equal opportunity. At some point, you make your opportunity.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Are you saying Webb's campaign has the same opportunity as Hillary? A poor campaign vs. a rich campaign? I say they do have the same opportunity. So everyone should keep their resources. But the candidates say no, based on the fact they want to rebalance the outcomes after the outcomes are achieved of taxpayers.

Of course not:

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens homepage materials/Gilens and Page/Gilens and Page 2014-Testing Theories 3-7-14.pdf

Its like Buffett lobbying for higher individual tax rates because his secretary paid a higher rate than him. The net result was his secretary's tax rate went up, since she pays income tax, and his didn't, since his income is overwhelmingly not taxed at individual income tax rates. You have to watch what all politicians to say very carefully. Bernie is for socialism with other people's resources. Hillary will damn sure be sheltering the $100M in CGI, and only a tiny portion of that will get doled out well after it pays the Clinton's salaries and expenses.

I wasn't born with Dan Marino's arm. I never had an equal opportunity to be a star QB. Do we really want government figuring out how to equalize that? You want 'free' college education? OK, then it isn't fair that some idiot isn't smart enough be a doctor - you want to set up him up operating on people in the interests of continuing to assure him an equal opportunity. At some point, you make your opportunity.

You're still talking about equality of outcome, nobody is proposing some Harrison Bergeron type mandatory equality enforcement.. They're proposing that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, every kid should have equal access to education and healthcare. Nobody should go hungry or homeless because their full-time job doesn't pay them enough. That implementing a progressive tax policy like we had throughout the 1950's and 1960's is common sense economics that results in economic prosperity for all, not just an elite few.

If you're not smart enough to be a doctor, you won't become a doctor. Just like if you're not athletically talented enough, you probably won't be a star athlete. Equality of opportunity means you give people the same opportunity to achieve their goals, not at the end of the day, add up all the money and hand it out equally regardless of effort or talent. Democratic socialism isn't the same as communism.