Jump to content


The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

 Unfortunately I’m used to it. This is why it blows me away when people say they are even remotely happy with their current deal.  Unbelievably my premiums actually went down about $200 per month this year. First time I can ever remember them going down. Colorado adopted something to help the Obamacare premiums. Last year it was about $27,000 total premium. And it’s not what many (or any) would consider a good plan. It’s bronze level with a deductible that is about $5500 per person (2 person max) so basically the first $11,000 in care comes out of my pocket. And we’ve maxed it out 2 of the last 3 years. We’d be super screwed without it though. My wife was in the hospital last year for 3 procedures, 5 days. I lost count on all the bills when they hit about $200k total. And it wasn’t anything exotic; hiatal hernia, gall bladder removal and then a GI scope to get some gall stones they couldn’t access during surgery. It’s just f#&king insane.

 

Id happily pay more in taxes for universal healthcare and use it when I need it if it means people don't have to go through this s#!t that you just described.

Link to comment

1 hour ago, Frott Scost said:

He needs to stick to healthcare, education and climate change and stop trying to be a beauty pageant winner and trying to solve every world issue.

 

He's a politician trying to win the presidency. He won't "just stick to _____." He'll try to buy votes wherever he can get them and this is just another avenue.

 

Imagine being so naive as to believe that a company making over 'X' amount of money is "bad," whereas ones earning less than 'X' are not bad. Quite scary if this thinking is something that winds up taking over in the majority of minds of Americans. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

The Democratic party has a bit of a communist problem, they agree and like a number of policies they implemented. The issue is that a fair number of people that live in this country had a number of their family members killed by communists, me included, although a ways back in my families history. So it ends up being inconsiderate and insensitive to those who have suffered because in their eyes Obama or Sanders Complimenting Castro is one in the same as those two idiots complimenting Hitler for anyone of his policy successes. 

 

Our modern politicians are increasingly history deaf, and it's becoming very alarming.

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, husker98 said:

The Democratic party has a bit of a communist problem, they agree and like a number of policies they implemented. The issue is that a fair number of people that live in this country had a number of their family members killed by communists, me included, although a ways back in my families history. So it ends up being inconsiderate and insensitive to those who have suffered because in their eyes Obama or Sanders Complimenting Castro is one in the same as those two idiots complimenting Hitler for anyone of his policy successes. 

 

Our modern politicians are increasingly history deaf, and it's becoming very alarming.

 

 

OTOH, I know multiple people, alive and well, who grew up in communist countries and they all want the Democrats to beat Trump.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

Where are you getting that they are giving it away?  People have to buy the shares that the company offers...the company gets ACTUAL MONEY for the shares.  They don't have to give up control...they just have to have some divesting of who has ownership of the company through stock options.  And 20% is NOTHING to a company...most that exist today would ALREADY HIT THAT MARK and then some.  Most wouldn't have to change at all.

 

Disclaimer:  I worked 5 years for an investment bank.  I'm basing this above on my experience.

 

Where are you getting that employees would be buying the shares? And what makes anyone think the average worker will be able to magically buy more stock than they currently are able to? Many of these large companies are already publicly traded. If his plan is just that the company has to offer stock options, isn’t that basically available to them now?
 

Look, I’m not saying I know what his plan is in this regard. In fact it is one of the things I’ve heard about that does not seem to be addressed on his website (maybe I’m missing it?). I simply heard him briefly mention it in the last debate and am responding to people who maybe are making assumptions. I’d be really interested if you could point me in the direction of more specifics. It’s one of the few Bernie things I currently don’t like or agree with, based on my understanding of how it would work.

Link to comment

1 hour ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

Where are you getting that they are giving it away?  People have to buy the shares that the company offers...the company gets ACTUAL MONEY for the shares.  They don't have to give up control...they just have to have some divesting of who has ownership of the company through stock options.  And 20% is NOTHING to a company...most that exist today would ALREADY HIT THAT MARK and then some.  Most wouldn't have to change at all.

 

Disclaimer:  I worked 5 years for an investment bank.  I'm basing this above on my experience.

 

Where are you getting that they are paying for them?

 

Quote

Share Corporate Wealth with Workers. Under this plan, corporations with at least $100 million in annual revenue, corporations with at least $100 million in balance sheet total, and all publicly tradedcompanies will be required to provide at least 2 percent of stock to their workers every year until the company is at least 20 percent owned by employees. This will be done through the issuing of new shares and the establishment of DemocraticEmployee Ownership Funds.

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

It's common knowledge that employees are given stock options to buy shares at a reduced price.

 

 

Many companies hoard the stock options for controlling the directions of a company by maintaining 51% or higher portions of the stock.  Each time you get a controlling interest in the company, you get board seats which allow you to vote on the direction that a company will take (CEO ousters, major initiatives, offering more stocks, etc).

 

So, that's why I'm so confused...these people would have to buy into the company...they're not giving things away.

 

If the plan was to offer employees stock options at the same sweet deal the muckety mucks get them, I might be okay with that. But I’m not taking your word for it and that is not at all what the link you posted claims is the plan. All it says is “give” and “give” and again “give”. So I guess my question is, what makes you think the vehicle is stock options and that the employees will be purchasing anything and not have it mandated that it is given to them?

 

I hate to be “that” guy demanding links but I think in this case it is warranted to back up the claims you are making. I want to believe that’s the case but I need to see it officially and not just rely on your word and have you continue talking down to people like you know what’s going on.

Link to comment

 

5 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

What on Gods green earth makes forcing a business owner to give away their company stock if it gets a certain size make sense?

This isn't about giving random people a piece of the company but rather giving a piece to the people who built the company. I mean, unless you're going to argue that the owner built the business alone or in spite of their employees.

 

I'm not sure if Bernie's plan is the best one, but something to workers back some of the fruits their labor has built isn't radical. And does asking for a 2% annual return to workers after a company goes public or gets over $100 million in value not make sense? I'm open to alternatives.

Link to comment

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

 

This isn't about giving random people a piece of the company but rather giving a piece to the people who built the company.

 

I'm not sure if Bernie's plan is the best one, but something to workers back some of the fruits their labor has built isn't radical. And does asking for a 2% annual return to workers after a company goes public or gets over $100 million in value not make sense? I'm open to alternatives.

Good friggen Lord. 
 

The government should not be forcing any company “especially a private one” to give its shares away. 
 

Absolutely mind blowing. 
 

That is ABSOLUTLY radical. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Where does he mention stock options and why should a private company be forced to do that?

I’m on your side here (maybe) but I think there is a world of difference between having to offer up to 2% of the company in stock options, until it is 20% employee owned, if said company is already offering sweet stock option deals only to the higher ups. I guess imo, if they want to offer them to the top brass then they can be forced to also offer them to the worker bees. But no company should be forced to offer any discounted stock options and they definitely shouldn’t be forced to simply give away chunks of the company. They would always have the option to not offer any stock options. Not sure what the actual plan is but there are some definite non-starters possible here.

Link to comment
Just now, BigRedBuster said:

Good friggen Lord. 
 

The government should not be forcing any company “especially a private one” to give its shares away. 
 

Absolutely mind blowing. 
 

That is ABSOLUTLY radical. 

Not even sharing a portion of what people have helped to build is ABSOLUTELY radical. It's hoarding on a level that is absolutely mind blowing. (And the good friggin Lord would tell you the same.)

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

This isn't about giving random people a piece of the company but rather giving a piece to the people who built the company. I mean, unless you're going to argue that the owner built the business alone or in spite of their employees.

 

I'm not sure if Bernie's plan is the best one, but something to workers back some of the fruits their labor has built isn't radical. And does asking for a 2% annual return to workers after a company goes public or gets over $100 million in value not make sense? I'm open to alternatives.

Here’s an alternative. If employees don’t like how the company is treating or paying them, they can take their vital company building skills to another employer or, better yet, they can start their own company and show everyone how it’s done. The size or revenue of the company doesn’t have a thing to do with this discussion.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Here’s an alternative. If employees don’t like how the company is treating or paying them, they can take their vital company building skills to another employer or, better yet, they can start their own company and show everyone how it’s done. The size or revenue of the company doesn’t have a thing to do with this discussion.

You know that's not a real alternative. I can also turn it around and say if the owners don't like having to given a small portion to their employees, then they should take their skills and build the business without any employees - it's just as silly.

 

I simply don't understand the thinking that an owner who's business has not just made it, but has $100+ million is somehow so put upon to only keep 80%. And even more crazy is that the 20% isn't just evaporating or going to competitors but going to the people who helped the owner make the business survive and thrive.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...