The Republican Utopia

[Moiraine]

48 minutes ago, TheSker said:

The question was rhetorical.

 

He needs it.

 

 

He was telling you part of the reason it's harder for Bernie to win the nomination.

[RedDenver]

10 hours ago, TheSker said:

I don't think an income inequality platform will get Sanders elected.

This post doesn't have anything to do with my post that you're quoting. I was showing you that the economy isn't good for everyone.

 

Sanders wouldn't win if income inequality was all he was talking about, but he's got other platforms like healthcare and a whole bunch of policy proposals as well.

[TheSker]

16 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

This post doesn't have anything to do with my post that you're quoting. I was showing you that the economy isn't good for everyone.

 

Sanders wouldn't win if income inequality was all he was talking about, but he's got other platforms like healthcare and a whole bunch of policy proposals as well.

The video was absolutely about income inequality.

[Moiraine]

I just can’t for the life of me understand why someone could think government involvement in anything destroys it, but they’re perfectly fine with a business forbidding an individual from profiting off of themselves.

 

Why is it okay for a business to have ground rules for the individual but not for the government to have ground rules for a business?

 

There are negatives about both but it seems like a lot of conservatives think it’s fine for businesses to be able to do anything at all to make more $, with no government involvement/regulations. I come to this conclusion based on how often they complain about the government in general as if everything to do with the government is bad for us. And they spend little to no time complaining when there are examples of people being hurt by companies that are trying to cut corners/increase profits regardless of whether it hurts people. 

 

 

There absolutely has to be a balance between the 2. That’s where the argument is but people who complain about regulations in general like any regulation is bad are just plain wrong. Without regulations and rules governing how business are allowed to conduct themselves, we would be screwed.

 

 

And in case someone chimes in about college football, because that’s what this post stems from, I don’t like the argument that the players who don’t like it can just do something else. Try to empathize. Imagine you find out you’re really good at something and you love it. Let’s say computer programming. But the only possible way for you to get a good job is to join the NCPA, and if you don’t work for them for 2-3 years you will never get paid to be a computer programmer. If these players want to be in the NFL they have 1 road to get there except in extremely rare circumstances.

[RedDenver]

15 hours ago, TheSker said:

The video was absolutely about income inequality.

Does your opinion about the strength of the economy change knowing how many Americans are struggling?

[TheSker]

20 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Does your opinion about the strength of the economy change knowing how many Americans are struggling?

A strong economy at least provides opportunity.

[commando]

10 minutes ago, TheSker said:

A strong economy at least provides opportunity.

the reason the economy is so strong is that we are spending our kids money now to fuel it.   and leaving them the bills to pay somewhere down the road.

[TheSker]

6 minutes ago, commando said:

the reason the economy is so strong is that we are spending our kids money now to fuel it.   and leaving them the bills to pay somewhere down the road.

I don't disagree.

[RedDenver]

41 minutes ago, TheSker said:

A strong economy at least provides opportunity.

That's not what I asked. Does your opinion about the strength of the economy change knowing how many Americans are struggling?

[TheSker]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

That's not what I asked. Does your opinion about the strength of the economy change knowing how many Americans are struggling?

No

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, TheSker said:

No

Interesting. So you don't think people will vote based on their own experience of the economy?

[TheSker]

10 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Interesting. So you don't think people will vote based on their own experience of the economy?

Of course I think they will vote based on their own economic situation.

 

Sanders would be highly likely to get the vote of those with student loans.  Why wouldn't they vote for Sanders?

 

But I think there's also a high number of the population that recognizes it as forced income redistribution and know it will adversely affect their economic situation.  And they will also vote according to their situation.

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, TheSker said:

Of course I think they will vote based on their own economic situation.

 

Sanders would be highly likely to get the vote of those with student loans.  Why wouldn't they vote for Sanders?

 

But I think there's also a high number of the population that recognizes it as forced income redistribution and know it will adversely affect their economic situation.  And they will also vote according to their situation.

I agree that's very likely. It'll be interesting to see which people think they are in which group. Various estimates I've seen put the annual income for starting to pay more for Bernie's policies around $80k-$120k, but how people think they'll be affected doesn't always align with the data.

 

And then there are people who will vote against their own personal economic interest for one reason or another. For example, I'm supporting Bernie even though it won't directly help me monetarily.

[knapplc]

 

[BigRedBuster]