The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[teachercd 10,211]

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 886]

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 854]

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 12,420]

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 23,924]

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. 

[BigRedBuster 23,924]

4 minutes ago, deedsker said:

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

That’s not what the quoted part of the proposal said. 

[BigRedBuster 23,924]

5 minutes ago, FrankWheeler said:

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.

Why?  There are companies started all the time that end up that large. 

[JJ Husker 12,621]

26 minutes ago, 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?

You should checkout his feelthebern website and become informed of how he plans to pay for these things. Pretty sure going $90 trillion in additional debt is not the plan.

 

As an example with healthcare. I currently pay about $25,000 per year in premiums plus another min $3000 to max $13,500 for my share of actual care/drugs I use. If those expenses go away, how much can I then afford to pay in additional taxes? I’m wagering my money and my vote that it certainly can’t get worse than it is now.

[BigRedBuster 23,924]

9 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

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

What the F*** difference does that make?

 

I know some aren’t going to grasp this. But, a $100 million company is not a HUGE mega corporation. 

[JJ Husker 12,621]

9 minutes ago, Landlord said:

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.

IDK....I’m perfectly fine with taxing the ever loving hell out of these hoarding, greedy, capitalism abusing types but I gotta draw the line at having a policy that simply gives away a share of their company....because things. This one is so ripe with unintended consequences I wouldn’t even know where to begin.

[FrankWheeler 854]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

What the F*** difference does that make?

 

I know some aren’t going to grasp this. But, a $100 million company is not a HUGE mega corporation. 

 

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Why?  There are companies started all the time that end up that large. 

 

Not sure the stats on this but it does seem pretty rare.  I found this quoted in a book with references but haven't seen the actual reference so it could be wrong:  

 

The percentage of firms to achieve sales of $100 million or more has remained pretty much the same since 1980, at 0.04% (that's 4 hundredths of one percent).  

[JJ Husker 12,621]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

What the F*** difference does that make?

 

I know some aren’t going to grasp this. But, a $100 million company is not a HUGE mega corporation. 

And revenue is not remotely the same thing as profit.....

[BigRedBuster 23,924]

1 minute ago, JJ Husker said:

And revenue is not remotely the same thing as profit.....

Correct. 
 

profit isn’t mentioned in the proposal. 
 

it’s based on 100 million in revenue or 100 million in total balance sheet. 

[Huskerzoo 978]

19 minutes ago, teachercd said:

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...  

 

 

Or it would help people like me who got their PhD, are ~200,000 in debt, did so under the understanding that there was public loan forgiveness, have had that loan forgiveness potentially taken away from me, work hard at a job but still have to pay an extra mortgage for my education. 

 

Yes, there are people who do dumb things, but some of those pretend universities are run by the POTUS. And no, the money is not free money. It's coming out of a tax levied on Wall street that is projected to make .2 trillion dollars more than forgiveness of loans would cost. 

 

This is without a doubt wealth redistribution of sorts. And there are a chunk of people who would be hit hardest by it who support it: https://www.businessinsider.com/billionaires-asking-for-wealth-tax-americans-disney-soros-buffett-dalio

 

This isn't pretend free college. 

[BigRedBuster 23,924]

3 minutes ago, FrankWheeler said:

 

 

Not sure the stats on this but it does seem pretty rare.  I found this quoted in a book with references but haven't seen the actual reference so it could be wrong:  

 

The percentage of firms to achieve sales of $100 million or more has remained pretty much the same since 1980, at 0.04% (that's 4 hundredths of one percent).  

The only way that stat is true is if they are including every single business that is ever started. 
 

But, again...what difference does that make?