The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[teachercd]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It boggles my mind that there are people who believe that someone who starts a business, invests and risks their life savings is then going to be forced to give 20% away. 

I had a friend that started a business...the amount of time, money, resources ect that went into it was AMAZING.  And...he paid the people that worked for him 25% more than what other businesses in his field were paying.  He bent over backwards for that business and his workers and in the end it lasted about 1.5 years.  The idea of having to give even more away, unreal.

[BigRedBuster]

Thanks everyone for reminding me why I’ve never been able to be 100% on board with some of the Democrat platform. 

[teachercd]

Just now, Undone said:

Bernie's policies are so anti-liberty that it's hard to know where to even begin dissecting the catastrophe of it all.

 

Forcing a company to do things like this is morally wrong; government has no place in making a mandate like this. This is the pitfall of democracy: Believing that as long as greater than 50% of the population believes a thing should be done that it's ok.

 

We should fight crony capitalism in Washington, but going down this road with the aim of expanding and giving better funding to government programs misses the mark of what a balanced budget should itself fix. 

 

If I understand Bernie's plan correctly - and anyone can correct this if it's off - I believe his 10 year plan costs $97 trillion, of which only $7 trillion will be funded by "government revenue stream." How will my children and their children shoulder the ridiculous weight of this debt expansion?

Come on...your kids and their kids will all have great jobs after they go to Pretend University where the tuition is free...then they can get a sweet job where they pay outrageous taxes to help pay for their "free" college and for the "free" college that this girl is going to get...  

 

[FrankWheeler]

4 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I had a friend that started a business...the amount of time, money, resources ect that went into it was AMAZING.  And...he paid the people that worked for him 25% more than what other businesses in his field were paying.  He bent over backwards for that business and his workers and in the end it lasted about 1.5 years.  The idea of having to give even more away, unreal.

 

I don't think he would have been impacted by Sanders' plan but he would have been by minimum wage laws.

[deedsker]

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I had a friend that started a business...the amount of time, money, resources ect that went into it was AMAZING.  And...he paid the people that worked for him 25% more than what other businesses in his field were paying.  He bent over backwards for that business and his workers and in the end it lasted about 1.5 years.  The idea of having to give even more away, unreal.

Only if:

1) He publicly wants to raise more capital for his business.

2) Has built a significantly large business.

3) Hasn't already rewarded employees with investment in the company they are working for.

[teachercd]

Just now, FrankWheeler said:

 

I don't think he would have been impacted by Sanders' plan but he would have been by minimum wage laws.

Correct, he would not have, not at that point of his business.  

 

I was just giving an example of the work/time/effort that goes into it and then to have to give more...it seems wrong.

[BigRedBuster]

8 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I had a friend that started a business...the amount of time, money, resources ect that went into it was AMAZING.  And...he paid the people that worked for him 25% more than what other businesses in his field were paying.  He bent over backwards for that business and his workers and in the end it lasted about 1.5 years.  The idea of having to give even more away, unreal.

So, if I build my company up to 100 million and the government forces me to give 20% away, are those new shareholders going to personally guarantee the loans?  If the economy goes down and the bank forces a capital injection from the stock holders, are they going to participate in that?

 

This idea sounds great to people who have no f’ing clue the pit falls of such a thing. 
 

 

[Landlord]

11 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It boggles my mind that there are people who believe that someone who starts a business, invests and risks their life savings is then going to be forced to give 20% away. 

 

 

....if the business is successful enough to the tune of $100 million in revenue per year. 

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, deedsker said:

Only if:

1) He publicly wants to raise more capital for his business.

2) Has built a significantly large business.

3) Hasn't already rewarded employees with investment in the company they are working for.

Oh I get it, if you build a big successful business...you should be forced to give more of it away.

[JJ Husker]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It boggles my mind that there are people who believe that someone who starts a business, invests and risks their life savings is then going to be forced to give 20% away. 

Yeah. The fact this one doesn’t scare the living sh#t out of some people is scary in itself. They like to throw out all these false equivalencies like minimum wage, a living wage, clean water, a stake in the company, etc. That is NOT what this is. I don’t care how a person tries to spin it, it is wrong and it is pure socialism or communism in it’s worst form. There is a huge difference between ownership choosing to give employees a stake in the company (which is not a bad thing) and forcing them to do it. But I can live with this idiosyncrasy of Bernie’s because there is no chance in hell it will ever happen.....in his lifetime anyway. If he’d back off just a couple of these zanier ideas, I think he could win handily. But things like this just give the naysayers ammo to keep crying socialism and not look stupid doing it.

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, if I build my com  ok any up to 100 million and the government forces me to give 20% away, are those new shareholders going to personally guarantee the loans?  If the economy goes down and the bank forces a capital injection from the stock holders, are they going to participate in that?

 

This idea sounds great to people who have no f’ing clue the pit falls of such a thing. 
 

 

Amen!

[deedsker]

Just now, teachercd said:

Oh I get it, if you build a big successful business...you should be forced to give more of it away.

If you never publicly offer ownership, you won't have a problem. Nobody is forcing anything.

[FrankWheeler]

Here's something for you guys to consider. Under the current economic system you probably aren't going to start a $100 million company or know anybody that will.

[Landlord]

I don't know how I feel about that plan of Bernie's, but it should be obvious that what he's putting forth is in response to runaway greedy anti-human capitalism with little to no compassion or integrity. We're yelling at a proposed action designed to help people currently being grossly taken advantage of, when nobody else is offering ANY solution to help those people,  and many are fine to keep pushing in a direction that only makes it worse.

 

If business owners and CEOs of major companies weren't hoarding so much wealth while demanding the impossible out of their expendable employees for garbage compensation, Bernie wouldn't be putting this forward because there wouldn't be a problem.

 

We'll spend a lot of time yelling "BUT MY FREEDOM!" in response to Bernie's plan, but aren't spending nearly the energy caring about how inhumane these huge companies are.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

But I can live with this idiosyncrasy of Bernie’s because there is no chance in hell it will ever happen.....in his lifetime anyway. If he’d back off just a couple of these zanier ideas, I think he could win handily.

That’s what I thought of a lot of the things Trump was saying. The populist movement on either side has me rethinking that attitude.