2020 Democratic Nominees - Page 12

On May 16 2019 01:59 opisska wrote:


Yeah man, you really hit the nail on its head here. The question is, what do you think about it? Do you see it as wrong? Do you see it as wrong, while being an inevitable consequence of capitalism and do you see it as wrong enough so that it's worth rethinking whether capitalism is the best choice? I still, influenced by first-hand experience of centrally-run society, want to believe that there is a way to stop going in this way while leaving a significant amount of liberties in the hands of individuals, but I am not really sure that it's not just wishful thinking.

Because what you describe here shows the most important flaw of capitalism, or any societal organization which is overwhelmingly based on the wishes of individuals: it has the ability to become insanely inefficient once resources aren't sufficiently limited.

On May 16 2019 08:20 Meta wrote:


Gabbard has recently announced being open to a UBI plan, just throwing that out there. Plus I completely agree with her foreign policy. Ever dollar spent on bombs could be spent on us instead.

On May 16 2019 08:58 explosivekangaroo wrote:


From a practical perspective I don't see that jobs are always going to be made. The type of jobs that can be automated is the vast majority of repetitive labor from fast food workers to law clerks and radiologists.

This does not increase the demand, and thus job openings, in the remaining fields such as technology/education/management/social services/creative.

You still sell stuff, just more to the rich than the poor and, increasingly, the middle class.

And while you can argue that in order to have freedom and meritocracy, 'survival of the fittest' is necessary, the problem is that this is a democracy. If the unemployment rate rose to 25% it's not hard to see that people will vote for a different economic system such as socialism, and I don't think socialism works.

On May 16 2019 09:30 JimmiC wrote:
I think the work force will just transition to entertainment/service and arts related jobs. Or hell maybe even space travel or whatever, it is hard to know what will be available I'm sure pre 1970 or even 1990 nobody thought programmer and so so would be a viable job.

I think UBI is cool and would be a great addition but I don't think it fixes all or even most of the social problems, many of which are bad choices, often because of bad situation, bad parenting, whatever. For example if someone has a drug addiction or to be less dramatic shopping issue a check every month really isn't going to change much for them and almost nothing for their children.

I do think it would raise the floor of society which is a very good thing, and now we also need to lower the ceiling. It would be a pretty cool world where people could choose to be a struggling artist or musician or whatever and struggling meant they could comfortably raise a family of four with their kids having all the options of post secondary or whatever it was that they wanted.

On May 16 2019 08:47 explosivekangaroo wrote:


The problem is that we don't seem to be a point yet where automation is enough to make most human labor unnecessary. And even if we are there, that would mean redistribution of wealth, which is a toxic concept to most people.

On May 17 2019 05:35 JimmiC wrote:


IMO the best way to get a bunch of money into the economy is stop prohibition of things. It is coming, gambling is getting legalized, pot. Other things will too. Prohibiting has not made it go away just made it untaxable and unsafe.

On May 17 2019 04:45 ShambhalaWar wrote:


Open to, and pushing for, are two different things.

I just can't see (at all) why even push for someone like Gabbard when you have a Sanders or Warren. Both have much broader support and have been speaking the same message foreverrrrrrrrrrr. They are trustworthy.

My recollection of Gabbard is that she has flip flopped more than a couple times, but the biggest one is in relationship to LGBTQ rights. Good for her for shifting support, but they fact that she had to make that shift at all really hurt in viability in my eyes. On many of her stances, I'm in agreement. I think she's a great person, but there are better candidates out there.

On May 17 2019 07:13 Slydie wrote:


There are tonnes of ways, but I doubt legalisation is the most effective. The most common is probably low interrest rates to stop people from hoarding money in bank accounts. Investments, public or private work very well too, even things like gearing up for war.

As for the top 1%, does anyone have a functioning way of denying them from getting richer? Higher income taxes rather strike the upper middle-class, and remove incentives for highly specialized in-demand professionals to work. The top 1% does not earn their wealth through salaries! Maybe asset taxes, but through complicated ownership structres and accountant magic the top 1% is very elusive there too...

The most effective is probably making it hard for super-companies to buy up competition and grow, but should you deny a businessowner their right to get a fantastic price for what they worked hard to build up?

On May 17 2019 15:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
No mention of NY mayor DeBlasio entering the race? Says a lot.

Anyway the main main problem with UBI is without a strong immigration policy and a good border wall the illegal immigration problem gets 10x worse as poor Mexican go for the $1000 month bonanza, sending half back home.

Any word on the Dems UBI proponents immigration policies? If they’re weak don’t even bother the scheme will collapse on itself.

On May 17 2019 08:40 ZeaL. wrote:



It's just not a good look for a candidate running against Trump to have been previously considered for Trump's cabinet. It's also problematic that she has praised Putin and called out Obama for their roles in the Syrian war. It seems her only real base lies in the far right.

On May 18 2019 04:37 ShambhalaWar wrote:


I believe... The government has the power to break up monopolies (big corporations) and turn them into smaller separate entities (I'm not exactly sure how it works).

That is the only check. And the current administration is doing the exact opposite of that by bolstering corporate power.

The crazy thing is that so many people demonize the government, when a large reason the government exists is to keep the power of wealthy and corporations in check. The government is literally the only check between the wealtyh gaining unlimited power... yet people seem to see the government as the devil.

Here is the difference between government and corporations:

Corporations: only care about making money, and their ability to make money is only limited by how much they are willing to bend/break their moral compass and abuse power. They also have a power motive.

Government: doesn't have a profit motive. for example the government supplies health care for the health of the population, not making government employees rich. There may be a power motive in government (which is no different than corporations), but in a representative government people also have other motives, such as the well being of constituents mixed in with other people's desire for power. There are also caps to what government employees can earn in the highest office, therefore you can't become rich being president unless you abuse your office and power (like the current administration).

There is something of balance in our government, yet when money is introduced through lobbying... the system becomes so obviously corrupted.

The moral of the story is that money corrupts most systems, so we shouldn't be making profit a motive in matters of well being, such as health care.

On May 18 2019 19:46 Slydie wrote:


It belongs to the picture that the government also has the right to collect taxes, use force and write laws, something coorporations can only do indirectly and rarely.

On May 17 2019 05:35 JimmiC wrote:


IMO the best way to get a bunch of money into the economy is stop prohibition of things. It is coming, gambling is getting legalized, pot. Other things will too. Prohibiting has not made it go away just made it untaxable and unsafe.

On May 19 2019 11:16 ShambhalaWar wrote:


I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but I don't agree with your assessment of corporations.

Even small companies with menial amounts of money can pay lobbyists to cause the text of new law to be written in a financially advantageous way to that company. I know in small companies for very small amounts of money text of new law is adjusted for profit, even if that rewrite has nothing to do with public well being.

That's a po-dunk, drop in the bucket, company rewriting law. Imagine what pfizer does.

Look what corporations did with the Dakota access pipeline. I would make the argument they used force and even broke the law in regard to native land, hired mercenaries who harmed people (along with police), and they did so out in the open. Who do you think is lobbying the laws to make protesting pipelines punishable by decades in jail?

Maybe I'm missing your point, but when you say, "something corporations can only do indirectly and rarely." I would strongly disagree. *Companies large and small do these things all the time.

Politicians care about getting reelected, and for that believe more than anything they need money. Corporations provide that money for reelection to politicians for favor. Which is why many of our laws are written for the benefit of some industry.

The government doesn't have "rights" to things like taxes. Taxes are an agreement that we have all collectively made so that we can have things that are run (not for profit) but for the benefit they provide, such as roads that are maintained, or clean water.

Just so I'm clear in my words, government provides a check on corporate power, maybe the only real check that we have as people. I am definitely a believer in the idea of a representative government, muccchhhhh more so than any free market libertarian idea, that money will magically regulate itself.

Our history (current and past) has shown countless examples of corporate greed corrupting most everything it runs through (wells fargo, pfizer, the entire pharmaceutical industry are a couple examples, there are countless more).

If you are in agreement with me and I'm just preaching to the choir, my apologies (I couldn't tell what your exact point was).