Bernie "Magic Man" Sanders quickly converts a voter over to Socialism

[Patrick Chewing]

It's like he's a magician. This clip is fascinating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p-HInvodas


This is so obvious a Bernie plant it's pathetic. Look how quickly he converts this guy after his double-talk into paying more taxes. :lol

[UK2K]

It's like he's a magician. This clip is fascinating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p-HInvodas


This is so obvious a Bernie plant it's pathetic. Look how quickly he converts this guy after his double-talk.

Any idea that puts more power in the hands of the government is a stupid idea. And if you're for that sort of thing, you're stupid as well.

We give out hundreds of billions of dollars every year in fraudulent tax returns, in some cases, where hundreds of returns are sent to the same residence. How does the IRS not catch that? 1200 tax returns to the same place, and you don't find that odd? There's not a system that says 'this doesn't look right'? The IRS is no longer accepting e-files on your taxes because they've been hit with so many fraudulent claims. And why not? It's so easy to get a fraudulent tax return from the IRS, people are making millions off it EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

The government has destroyed social security. They couldn't even run the mother ****ing post office correctly.

I see example after example of something in government going horribly wrong and you sit back and say, are you that incompetent? The answer is yes, the government is that incompetent. We don't even know what our tax dollars are spent on because the government won't allow us to.

Yeah, they've ****ed up everything else, let's let them **** up healthcare too. Hint hint: They already have.

[Im Still Ballin]

He's a hit with the young and naive emotionally charged youth of today. Acting like they went 10 rounds with Foreman but they never even stepped in the ring.

[Patrick Chewing]

LOL I just started talking to one of my employees about what he said and she almost quit on me just now.

She's 21 years old and is a fervent Bernie supporter, but of course, she hasn't seen one debate, not one Town Hall, not one single solitary commercial on Bernie.

She literally just said to me, "I will gladly pay more taxes for the better good of society".

:oldlol:

[Long Duck Dong]

This hack would make great infomercials.

"Your health care is normally $300 month but if you elect me you can have it for a price so low I CAN'T EVEN SAY IT ON THE AIR"

http://www.usb-network.com/genelink_usb_network_link_price.gif

[bladefd]

Clearly you guys don't know the premiums and copay people pay annually. Hint: it is big sums of money bigger than the tax increases Sanders has brought up.

The Republicans want things to be the way before obamacare - did you know people were getting denied for preexisting conditions? Think were out of control with greedy insurance companies screwing people over as they wanted to. Why the hell would anyone support what we had before? You realize not everyone has great insurance through high paying jobs? The Republicans don't seem to comprehend that. Obamacare is an upgrade over what we had before.

Bernie/Hillary want to improve on it further. By the way, Bernie has progressive tax system so it is not as if everyone's taxes would rise. Only beyond the first 250k earnings do taxes seriously hike up. Average income tax is the lowest it has been since early 1900s before ww1 so relax.

[Godzuki]

considering he's probably paying next to nothing making $41k with Obamacare now for health insurance for his family he's getting screwed over having to pay $500 under Bernie Panders :coleman:

[UK2K]

Clearly you guys don't know the premiums and copay people pay annually. Hint: it is big sums of money bigger than the tax increases Sanders has brought up.

The Republicans want things to be the way before obamacare - did you know people were getting denied for preexisting conditions? Think were out of control with greedy insurance companies screwing people over as they wanted to. Why the hell would anyone support what we had before? You realize not everyone has great insurance through high paying jobs? The Republicans don't seem to comprehend that. Obamacare is an upgrade over what we had before.

Bernie/Hillary want to improve on it further. By the way, Bernie has progressive tax system so it is not as if everyone's taxes would rise. Only beyond the first 250k earnings do taxes seriously hike up. Average income tax is the lowest it has been since early 1900s before ww1 so relax.

Totally hypothetical question but...

What has the government done to make you think that this initiative will be run smoothly, given their track record of destroying, fumbling, mismanaging, and more or less ****ing up everything they touch?

This time it's going to be different or... what?

Personally I'd rather go back to the old way, and if the poor don't have the funds to cover their hospital bills, I'm sure many compassionate, loving leftists millionaires would be more than happy to cover the cost, right? Cause they're so caring and giving and are one with the people and all. In fact, they give off the vibe they'd be more than happy to cover the cost, so why not take them up on it?

[Norcaliblunt]

The military is proof the government can run things smoothly. I mean come on you guys the internet came from the military. Government is da bess.

[BoutPractice]

Were Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford socialists?

Because the top income tax rate in 1976 was 70%.

The top rate on capital gains tax was 39%.

The top rate on corporate tax was 48%.

They may not have chosen those tax rates if it had been up to them, but they didn't do much to change them either...

Now can you imagine anyone today proposing tax increases that get us to Gerald Ford level without being branded a socialist or worse?

Think about it: Sanders the Red, even if he got into the White House and got most of what he wanted in terms of legislation (which is very unrealistic) wouldn't be able to get taxes to where they were in the era of Gerald Ford, who called himself a fiscal conservative.

In the 70s, "socialist" wasn't just an insult, it was practically an accusation of treason... And yet an actual socialist today is proposing policies that wouldn't have shocked the 1970s establishment.

Realistically, Sanders with a Democratic majority probably gets us close to where we were in the middle of the Reagan era, at best.

Once you have just a tiny bit of historical perspective, you realize that Sanders really isn't as radical as people make him out to be.

Reagan era tax rates + universal health care which is the case in most developed countries (and has been supported by both left and right everywhere outside the US) + a return to something like Glass Steagall, which was still legislation during the Reagan and Clinton Years + getting big money out of political campaigns (or at the very least to pre 2010 levels)... if that's completely outside of the mainstream, then the problem lies with the mainstream, not with Sanders.

[UK2K]

The military is proof the government can run things smoothly. I mean come on you guys the internet came from the military. Government is da bess.

Except our naval dentist filled by cavities with black fillings. Black.

And the best part, they didn't fill them correctly, so when I went back to the dentist about two years ago, they had to pull them out because cavities had formed UNDER the black fillings put in by the navy.

Imagine that, except... open heart surgery.

[Norcaliblunt]

Damn I'm sorry you are not educated on how to remineralize your teeth through nutrition. **** da government it's their fault.

[StephHamann]

It's like he's a magician. This clip is fascinating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p-HInvodas


This is so obvious a Bernie plant it's pathetic. Look how quickly he converts this guy after his double-talk into paying more taxes. :lol

https://media.giphy.com/media/GEUOs9yMw1OpO/giphy.gif

[9erempiree]

He's a socialist.

The week leading to the Iowa caucus somebody stuff my mailbox with a Bernie Sanders flyer. I was quite pretty piss because we've had a string of mail theft in the area.....

Anyways, I read it and one of the things he claim to be is....

Democratic Socialist.

[NumberSix]

Clearly you guys don't know the premiums and copay people pay annually. Hint: it is big sums of money bigger than the tax increases Sanders has brought up.

The Republicans want things to be the way before obamacare - did you know people were getting denied for preexisting conditions? Think were out of control with greedy insurance companies screwing people over as they wanted to. Why the hell would anyone support what we had before? You realize not everyone has great insurance through high paying jobs? The Republicans don't seem to comprehend that. Obamacare is an upgrade over what we had before.

Bernie/Hillary want to improve on it further. By the way, Bernie has progressive tax system so it is not as if everyone's taxes would rise. Only beyond the first 250k earnings do taxes seriously hike up. Average income tax is the lowest it has been since early 1900s before ww1 so relax.
Did you know you can't buy car insurance for a car that you've already totalled?

To be fair though. Cars should be free, along with health care and college.

[kNIOKAS]

It's like he's a magician. This clip is fascinating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p-HInvodas

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/images/smilies/lol.gif
This is so obvious a Bernie plant it's pathetic. Look how quickly he converts this guy after his double-talk into paying more taxes. :lol
Well if he didn't get to you as well, you're quite dim :lol

[UK2K]

Damn I'm sorry you are not educated on how to remineralize your teeth through nutrition. **** da government it's their fault.

Lol good one.

No rebuttal to that argument, huh?

I thought gubmint was sposed to take care of everything though?

[DukeDelonte13]

Clearly you guys don't know the premiums and copay people pay annually. Hint: it is big sums of money bigger than the tax increases Sanders has brought up.

The Republicans want things to be the way before obamacare - did you know people were getting denied for preexisting conditions? Think were out of control with greedy insurance companies screwing people over as they wanted to. Why the hell would anyone support what we had before? You realize not everyone has great insurance through high paying jobs? The Republicans don't seem to comprehend that. Obamacare is an upgrade over what we had before.

Bernie/Hillary want to improve on it further. By the way, Bernie has progressive tax system so it is not as if everyone's taxes would rise. Only beyond the first 250k earnings do taxes seriously hike up. Average income tax is the lowest it has been since early 1900s before ww1 so relax.

A lot of kiddies still on their parents' insurance on this forum.

It infuriates me how ignorant some people are over healthcare and healthcare costs in this country.

I'm paying the equivalent of a second mortgage for health insurance, and it's almost half a much as I would have been paying pre obamacare, and people act like obamacare is this welfare program. It's mind boggling. 90% of people have no clue that obamacare was just health insurance reform that gave way more power to the consumer.

Have people forgotten how bad it was?

[bladefd]

Did you know you can't buy car insurance for a car that you've already totalled?

To be fair though. Cars should be free, along with health care and college.

Lets see an example. If you had a heart issue or back issue you were born with, insurance companies had the power to deny you coverage. They can't do that anymore with Obamacare.

So, how does that compare to a car getting totalled? Lets see your argument.

[NumberSix]

Lets see an example. If you had a heart issue or back issue you were born with, insurance companies had the power to deny you coverage. They can't do that anymore with Obamacare.

So, how does that compare to a car getting totalled? Lets see your argument.
Do you not understand what insurance is? The whole idea is that you pay in a small amount and if you ever need to collect a larger amount, you can, but if you never need to collect then your money is gone. You don't get it back.

No ask yourself... Would you be able to buy fire insurance after your house already burned down? Would you be able to buy car insurance after your car is already smashed? If you could, then why the hell would anybody ever buy insurance? Wouldn't you just wait until your house burns down and THEN buy fire insurance and get the insurance company to pay for your pre-existing fire damage? And if your house never burns down, you just don't ever buy fire insurance.

How would this work if the only time people want insurance is when they need to take out more money than they're going to pay in? Well, the only way it can work is if you force everybody to buy insurance even if they don't want it, which is what they did with Obamacare.

[Patrick Chewing]

If I'm generally a healthy person and rarely visit the Doctor's office or a hospital, then what do I care about higher premiums?


The more money I have in the bank, the more I can afford shit. Simple as that.

[Dresta]

A lot of kiddies still on their parents' insurance on this forum.

It infuriates me how ignorant some people are over healthcare and healthcare costs in this country.

I'm paying the equivalent of a second mortgage for health insurance, and it's almost half a much as I would have been paying pre obamacare, and people act like obamacare is this welfare program. It's mind boggling. 90% of people have no clue that obamacare was just health insurance reform that gave way more power to the consumer.

Have people forgotten how bad it was?
Obamacare has been a complete disaster already, and it's only going to get worse. It was already bad, but now it's even worse. Healthcare costs have shot up since Obamacare, fraud is rampant, and the co-ops are failing at a rate of almost 50%. Check back in five years and see how silly you were for thinking things were bad before and thinking this catastrophic policy was a viable solution (when it only amplified and further institutionalised the problems).

http://www.investors.com/wp-content/uploads/ibd-migrated-images/CapHill02_092415.jpg

Since 2008, average family premiums have climbed a total of $4,865. Lowered those healthcare costs doe :facepalm

How does reality fit with the man's rhetoric?:

How do you square this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o65vMUk5so

With this:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21565


This paper estimates the change in net (of subsidy) financial burden (“the price of responsibility”) and in welfare that would be experienced by a large nationally representative sample of the “non-poor” uninsured if they were to purchase Silver or Bronze plans on the ACA exchanges. The sample is the set of full-year uninsured persons represented in the Current Population Survey for the pre-ACA period with incomes above 138 percent of the federal poverty level. The estimated change in financial burden compares out-of-pocket payments by income stratum in the pre-ACA period with the sum of premiums (net of subsidy) and expected cost sharing (net of subsidy) for benchmark Silver and Bronze plans, under various assumptions about the extent of increased spending associated with obtaining coverage. In addition to changes in the financial burden, our welfare estimates incorporate the value of additional care consumed and the change in risk premiums for changes in exposure to out-of-pocket payments associated with coverage, under various assumptions about risk aversion. We find that the average financial burden will increase for all income levels once insured. Subsidy-eligible persons with incomes below 250 percent of the poverty threshold likely experience welfare improvements that offset the higher financial burden, depending on assumptions about risk aversion and the value of additional consumption of medical care. However, even under the most optimistic assumptions, close to half of the formerly uninsured (especially those with higher incomes) experience both higher financial burden and lower estimated welfare; indicating a positive “price of responsibility” for complying with the individual mandate.

?

[bladefd]

Do you not understand what insurance is? The whole idea is that you pay in a small amount and if you ever need to collect a larger amount, you can, but if you never need to collect then your money is gone. You don't get it back.

No ask yourself... Would you be able to buy fire insurance after your house already burned down? Would you be able to buy car insurance after your car is already smashed? If you could, then why the hell would anybody ever buy insurance? Wouldn't you just wait until your house burns down and THEN buy fire insurance and get the insurance company to pay for your pre-existing fire damage? And if your house never burns down, you just don't ever buy fire insurance.

How would this work if the only time people want insurance is when they need to take out more money than they're going to pay in? Well, the only way it can work is if you force everybody to buy insurance even if they don't want it, which is what they did with Obamacare.

Dude, you are not understanding the issue.

Before Obamacare, if you wanted health coverage and had pre-existing conditions, such as heart issues, you could be denied outright. How can you compare that to buying a smashed car & asking for money?

Here's a scenario (you are patient, I'm the insurance companies)..
Number6 - Hello sir, I would like to purchase your health insurance (or you go through your job).
Me - [I ask 10 questions about who you are, family size, etc]
Me - Do you have pre-existing conditions? If so, please explain.
Number6 - Yes, I have cardiomyopathy I was born with. I take such-and-such med for treatment. I'm at risk of heart-attack due to elevated blood pressure.
Me - I am sorry, but I must deny your application due to pre-existing conditions.

You go to 3 different companies. They turn you down or run you around in circles. You know you cannot afford to buy meds costing a thousand per month right out of pocket just for 1 med so you need insurance to live. Insurance company won't allow you coverage even while you pay for the insurance so what do you do? You are screwed and if you get a heart-attack without your meds, you risk bankruptcy after hospital stay.

How does that compare to buying a totalled car? Everyone needs health coverage or they have to pay out of pocket, which is insane in this country. I take a beta-blocker Coreg CR for tacycardia (heart issue), which costs $260 per month. I also have sleep apnea so I wear this bipap at night-time (I dunno how much it costs to rent as it runs thru their private agreement with insurance but I'm sure it's at least a few thousand every year, if not more). I can't afford all that out of pocket - if my insurance denied me for that on basis of pre-existing condition, I would be fu<ked.

[bladefd]

Maybe Bernie Sanders needs to consider something like this...

He estimates $5,000 average yearly income tax increase and no premiums/copay/etc. Instead, maybe do $10 flat co-pay per doctor visit and average yearly income tax increase of $2,500. I would be on-board with that.

BTW, do note that his plan is simply a single-payer plan. What does that mean? His plan calls for a negotiation between the medical profession and the government to agree to a price for their health service. This is how Medicare works right now where the US Government negotiates with the medical boards. It is NOT the sort of plan they have in UK or Norway where the healthcare system, from hospitals to doctors, is run by the government directly.

With Bernie's plan, the medical industry runs as it has run so far, but now they have to negotiate how much money they get paid. It would no longer be free-for-all.

The biggest issue I have is I don't think Bernie could get his entire plan to pass so he will need to figure out where to fight & where to lay off. Big Pharma will fight tooth-and-nails with their paid-off politicians in Congress. Ultimately, Big Pharma has no plan to lean back on - what nation would they move to get paid more? Even with Bernie's plan, Big Pharma would still be paid more in USA than any other country in the world. So in the end, I think Big Pharma will blink first.

[TheMan]

LOL I just started talking to one of my employees about what he said and she almost quit on me just now.

She's 21 years old and is a fervent Bernie supporter, but of course, she hasn't seen one debate, not one Town Hall, not one single solitary commercial on Bernie.

She literally just said to me, "I will gladly pay more taxes for the better good of society".

:oldlol:
Some of those Nordic countries pay the highest tax rates and consider themselves among the happiest people according to international polls...just saying.

The US doesn't pay a lot of taxes compared to other industrialized nations yet it's full of miserable twats like Chewing and UK2K :confusedshrug:

[Patrick Chewing]

Some of those Nordic countries pay the highest tax rates and consider themselves among the happiest people according to international polls...just saying.

The US doesn't pay a lot of taxes compared to other industrialized nations yet it's full of miserable twats like Chewing and UK2K :confusedshrug:

How can paying more money in taxes make anyone happy??

And who cares about other countries? Europe is a mess and these countries have nowhere near the population of the United States. You ok with paying for some woman to have her 2nd or 3rd abortion??

[Nick Young]

Bernie is done. RIP.

[9erempiree]

http://i.imgur.com/C1E21MG.gif

[DeuceWallaces]

How can paying more money in taxes make anyone happy??

And who cares about other countries? Europe is a mess and these countries have nowhere near the population of the United States. You ok with paying for some woman to have her 2nd or 3rd abortion??

I know you're not too bright so I won't get into the details, but from a societal perspective, it's cheaper for us to pay for 100 abortions than let 1 child survive to adulthood.

[9erempiree]

I know you're not too bright so I won't get into the details, but from a societal perspective, it's cheaper for us to pay for 100 abortions than let 1 child survive to adulthood.

We know bro.

[Patrick Chewing]

I know you're not too bright so I won't get into the details, but from a societal perspective, it's cheaper for us to pay for 100 abortions than let 1 child survive to adulthood.


Clearly our tax dollars haven't made you any the wiser and you're still working your way into adulthood at 36. I'd claim you as an expense on my taxes if I could.

[TheMan]

How can paying more money in taxes make anyone happy??

And who cares about other countries? Europe is a mess and these countries have nowhere near the population of the United States. You ok with paying for some woman to have her 2nd or 3rd abortion??
There are a lot of factors involved and maybe American culture (individuality over everything else) would be a big obstacle in implementing that style of governance but those countries offer complete healthcare and all the higher learning you want free of cost, since you'd already be paying for it with your taxes. Those countries are homogeneous while the US is a mixed bag of cultures so there's that...

I've read articles on their lifestyles and they don't put a premium on materialism and consumerism like America does, they celebrate the smaller things in life like family, friends and going out and enjoying the simplier things in life. Americans are so caught up in trying to acquiere material goods and Corporate America feeds this to Americans, you gotta buy the new iPhone, a new car every year etc etc. It's a rat race and people in the US are miserable because of it because most people feel they haven't achieved the status this culture pushes you to have.

I knew an Italian in Mexico who married my wife's best friend and he told me about all the time off from work they get paid for. Basically a month of vacation time to relax and do whatever you want. Americans OTOH are lucky to get a week per year.

What I'm trying to say is we have our priorities messed up if we aren't as happy as those countries that pay a lot more taxes...

And I'm not saying everyone's taxes should go up but it's time the rich start paying their share, they've been given tax breaks for 30 plus years and they've become richer while the rest of us have become poorer. To begin, how about doing something about our infrastructure? It's rotting and you know something is wrong when China's infrastructure is more modern than the US. People would get good jobs and our infrastructure would be top notch, like the world's most powerful nation should have, don't ya think?

[9erempiree]

There are a lot of factors involved and maybe American culture (individuality over everything else) would be a big obstacle in implementing that style of governance but those countries offer complete healthcare and all the higher learning you want free of cost, since you'd already be paying for it with your taxes. Those countries are homogeneous while the US is a mixed bag of cultures so there's that...

I've read articles on their lifestyles and they don't put a premium on materialism and consumerism like America does, they celebrate the smaller things in life like family, friends and going out and enjoying the simplier things in life. Americans are so caught up in trying to acquiere material goods and Corporate America feeds this to Americans, you gotta buy the new iPhone, a new car every year etc etc. It's a rat race and people in the US are miserable because of it because most people feel they haven't achieved the status this culture pushes you to have.

I knew an Italian in Mexico who married my wife's best friend and he told me about all the time off from work they get paid for. Basically a month of vacation time to relax and do whatever you want. Americans OTOH are lucky to get a week per year.

What I'm trying to say is we have our priorities messed up if we aren't as happy as those countries that pay a lot more taxes...

And I'm not saying everyone's taxes should go up but it's time the rich start paying their share, they've been given tax breaks for 30 plus years and they've become richer while the rest of us have become poorer. To begin, how about doing something about our infrastructure? It's rotting and you know something is wrong when China's infrastructure is more modern than the US. People would get good jobs and our infrastructure would be top notch, like the world's most powerful nation should have, don't ya think?

You should be supporting Trump.

He is the only candidate that has brought up all the things you mentioned. Everyone is just following suit.

[Pushxx]

Anybody who still trusts the government to run programs at a federal level obviously doesn't appreciate how ****ed every federal program is right now.

Who do you think benefits the most when the government collects your hard-earned money? You think you get that money back in equal value? Life isn't free. Look up how lobbying works. The federal government has wildly spent and borrowed money at unsustainable levels that has caused relative catastrophe for the average blue-collar sheep. The Fed...the military industrial complex...how blind can people be? Who do you think runs a government? The same inherently greedy people who have families and spoiled kids. The difference is they get away with other people's money who actually worked for it...

Lemme tell you a good story: Obama worthlessly gave $2 million dollars to my town to build a rotary in the middle of town because there were 30 accidents a year and the town pretended to be concerned. Next thing you know the selectmen pocket $200,000 of missing money from the budget that never gets called out because almost nobody actually understands how ****ing things work except for the people who take advantage of it.

And people act like insurance is a right? Insurance is a third-party social construct that has the same monetary motivation as something as simple as a restaurant or a gift shop...why the **** is it a right to take everyone's personally earned money so everyone can have it? It's a business.

[UK2K]

Some of those Nordic countries pay the highest tax rates and consider themselves among the happiest people according to international polls...just saying.

The US doesn't pay a lot of taxes compared to other industrialized nations yet it's full of miserable twats like Chewing and UK2K :confusedshrug:
I'm not miserable at all. In fact, that's what this is really about.

I have something, and you dont.

Is that fair? No, but life isn't fair. If you need something paid for, there's plenty of liberal actors, entertainers, and athletes who give off the impression they'd be more than willing to help out.

[UK2K]

It's also cheaper to exterminate the ones on welfare so we can eliminate that entire expense.

[NumberSix]

I know you're not too bright so I won't get into the details, but from a societal perspective, it's cheaper for us to pay for 100 abortions than let 1 child survive to adulthood.
And it would be cheaper to exterminate people who have HIV than to pay for drugs. It would probably decrease it's spread too, but it isn't a moral thing to do.

[Blue&Orange]

ha the good old right wing retards, worried about poor people paying less 100 bucks on insurance, but not batting a eye at Apple making 10x more money while paying 10x less taxes.


[QUOTE]Over the past two years, ExxonMobil reported $9,910 million in pretax U.S. profits. But it enjoyed so many tax subsidies that its federal income tax bill was only $39 million

[TheMan]

I'm not miserable at all. In fact, that's what this is really about.

I have something, and you dont.

Is that fair? No, but life isn't fair. If you need something paid for, there's plenty of liberal actors, entertainers, and athletes who give off the impression they'd be more than willing to help out.
No one is asking for handouts...

All I'm saying is the status quo is obviously not working, even though the country has turned way to the right the last 30 plus years of neoliberalism economic policy:confusedshrug:

[Hawker]

ha the good old right wing retards, worried about poor people paying less 100 bucks on insurance, but not batting a eye at Apple making 10x more money while paying 10x less taxes.




Poor people have fridges? Say it ain't so :mad:


Also always the incredibly retard comparisons. Comparison to asking insurance after the house burned down, would be asking for insurance after you being dead. How dumb are you not to get something so simple as this?


How about exterminate dumb people?


Got a link for that ExxonMobil figure and the subsidies they get or are some of those actual tax deductions/write offs?

Let's exterminate you. Begging people for money so you can go on a road trip to try and make friends with ISHers because you have none? You serious?

[kNIOKAS]

This is based on the ssumption that people who have been aborted wouldnt contribute to society, or wouldnt be part of he half of society who pays almost all the taxes. The first is almost definitely wrong, the second is probable but a dumb reason to say its not smart to let someone live into adulthood.

You dont seem to understand the government is an extractive institution, it does not (for the most part) create its own wealth. It relies on extracting it from society, and then makes decisions, often normative, on how it would best be spent. So because a person who was aborted might not contribute to this institution, does not mean its "cheaper" to let that person die, because even if hes/she is in bottom quintile of wealth in America, he/she would contribute a million dollars of goods and services to society and thats excluding the fact that by the time theyve retired, the bottom quintile will probably be contributing much more than that from accumulated economic progress.

Sounds like most big business today

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCGVM5eW0AIWIwO.png

[Dresta]

Sounds like most big business today

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCGVM5eW0AIWIwO.png
Don't be stupid. Those companies may not "create wealth" in the way you think wealth is created, but they save consumers money (well, not facebook, but if people weren't so obsessed with themselves that company would never have exploded like it did), which is basically the same thing. If you can buy more with the money you have then you are wealthier. Not really that complicated.

The US Federal Government, on the other hand, is a vast engine of wasteful patronage, one which encourages living by unscrupulous means, of living by contracting debts one cannot pay, and most of all, of living by office hunting, through the granting of favours and the connections of powerful people.


ha the good old right wing retards, worried about poor people paying less 100 bucks on insurance, but not batting a eye at Apple making 10x more money while paying 10x less taxes.

:roll:

Talk about a straw-man; why can't people like you discuss things without slandering your opponents with viewpoints they never even came close to expressing?

[kNIOKAS]

Don't be stupid. Those companies may not "create wealth" in the way you think wealth is created, but they save consumers money (well, not facebook, but if people weren't so obsessed with themselves that company would never have exploded like it did), which is basically the same thing. If you can buy more with the money you have then you are wealthier. Not really that complicated.

The US Federal Government, on the other hand, is a vast engine of wasteful patronage, one which encourages living by unscrupulous means, of living by contracting debts one cannot pay, and most of all, of living by office hunting, through the granting of favours and the connections of powerful people.


:roll:

Talk about a straw-man; why can't people like you discuss things without slandering your opponents with viewpoints they never even came close to expressing?
Whoa, mister "I tell you what you position actually is and post some random insults" himself started calling people out on strawman. You're getting rich.

The said companies save consumers money by making them believe they should be paying in the first place. They are who should be paid, because they produce content. In the case of AirBnB and Uber, they blatanly cut guarantees and benefits of the users, as well as horribly exploiting the so-called "volunteers" that cannot get by without commodifying their own property.

Also, wealth isn't about the shit you can buy, it's about the status and power in the social world. Kings didn't have iPhones, doesn't mean we are wealthier than any of them were.

[Dresta]

Whoa, mister "I tell you what you position actually is and post some random insults" himself started calling people out on strawman. You're getting rich.

The said companies save consumers money by making them believe they should be paying in the first place. They are who should be paid, because they produce content. In the case of AirBnB and Uber, they blatanly cut guarantees and benefits of the users, as well as horribly exploiting the so-called "volunteers" that cannot get by without commodifying their own property.

Also, wealth isn't about the shit you can buy, it's about the status and power in the social world. Kings didn't have iPhones, doesn't mean we are wealthier than any of them were.
:biggums:

What is this garbage?

Yeah, dude, Uber is making people believe they need cheaper taxi rides, and forcing them to use their property to make some money; what a load of drivel you spout. If these companies did not provide a sought after service, then they would not be so popular; the fact that you don't like it, and that you think Uber and Airbnb are brainwashing people against their own interests, is completely irrelevant.

"blah blah blah, exploitation, exploitation, blah blah blah" - you're like a ****ing broken record with that shit.

And apparently you don't even know what the word 'wealth' means. Definition:

[QUOTE] an abundance of valuable possessions or money:

[falc39]

Sounds like most big business today

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCGVM5eW0AIWIwO.png

There is nothing wrong with these companies like Airbnb and Uber. There is value in saving someone's money, time, and not mucking up an industry with so much red-tape and govt regulatory inefficiencies.

[kNIOKAS]

There is nothing wrong with these companies like Airbnb and Uber. There is value in saving someone's money, time, and not mucking up an industry with so much red-tape and govt regulatory inefficiencies.
http://www.cracked.com/video_19610_cracked-explains-why-uber-terrible.html
https://toe.prx.org/2015/06/instaserfs-i-of-iii/
https://pando.com/2015/12/01/has-pando-missed-heart-uber-problem-transportation-industry-expert-writes/
[QUOTE](A) I think the Convoy piece (as well as most previous Pando reporting on Uber) misses the critical point that neither company has an underlying business model linked to any rational evidence of sustainable competitive advantage, and you

[kNIOKAS]

Dresta your posts actually are getting better, little by littles - less venomous, more regarding the actual things that were said, less putting words into somebodies mouths and less strawmen. Also insulting less.

Still a long way to go, son.

[falc39]

http://www.cracked.com/video_19610_cracked-explains-why-uber-terrible.html
https://toe.prx.org/2015/06/instaserfs-i-of-iii/
https://pando.com/2015/12/01/has-pando-missed-heart-uber-problem-transportation-industry-expert-writes/

And yet people continue to use uber and lyft. That's just how the market works. I'm here in the region where the superbowl is happening. It's just a part of the economy and people vote with their wallets and no one is being forced to use these services (including the drivers) yet that's what they do. Sorry if it's not what you expect.

[kNIOKAS]

And yet people continue to use uber and lyft. That's just how the market works. I'm here in the region where the superbowl is happening. It's just a part of the economy and people vote with their wallets and no one is being forced to use these services (including the drivers) yet that's what they do. Sorry if it's not what you expect.
Just like people vote with their wallets to support companies that use slave labour. No one is forced to do that, but if you can only put enough distance between consumers and the exploitees, it becomes "just the market".

[falc39]

Just like people vote with their wallets to support companies that use slave labour. No one is forced to do that, but if you can only put enough distance between consumers and the exploitees, it becomes "just the market".

The hyperbole a bit too much here. Last time I went on a ride with an uber driver, he was very light-hearted and seemed to enjoy what he was doing. It wasn't his primary job but he was glad that he could do it on the weekends and make some extra cash. He didn't look like someone from a third-world country and being exploited with slave labor.

[kNIOKAS]

The hyperbole a bit too much here. Last time I went on a ride with an uber driver, he was very light-hearted and seemed to enjoy what he was doing. It wasn't his primary job but he was glad that he could do it on the weekends and make some extra cash. He didn't look like someone from a third-world country and being exploited with slave labor.
Uber drives don't last for long, and he can do whatever he wants to, until he gets fed up with it. The trick is that Uber is cutting costs by pushing them over to the 'volunteer' drivers. There's no free stuff, just as there's no lesser prices. Something has to get cut, you know yourself.


Amazon/EBay type business models were based on powerful competitive advantages over the businesses they were seeking to supplant while the Uber (and apparently Convoy) models seek to “disrupt” an industry with economics that are actually worse than existing competitors. Despite other issues, Amazon could offer consumers much wider choices than they ever had before, eliminated all of the costs of retailing, achieved huge warehousing and distribution efficiencies and clearly had scale economies that no traditional competitor could match. On the other hand, the Uber business model (software/brand company plus its “independent” contractors) fails each of these efficiency/competitive/technological tests. Uber isn’t transforming the consumer product—it offers the exact same service as traditional taxi/limo operators. Uber—even a future, more mature Uber-- will have much higher driver, insurance, training, ownership and maintenance costs. The massive subsidies that create the appearance that Uber offers better/cheaper service are not sustainable. Since the mature Uber won’t be able to produce urban car service at significantly lower cost, there are no welfare gains from increased service or lower prices. There is no evidence that a reasonably well run taxi/limo company has bloated costs that cry out for new market entrants, and there’s ample evidence (dirty cars, horribly paid drivers) that industry costs are already extremely lean. Even Uber’s vaunted app is irrelevant to competitive economics. The ordering/pricing aspects of the app are a tiny piece of total costs, they don’t drive any big network economies, and apps can easily be copied. The app actually illustrates a serious Uber structural disadvantage. The economic key to any transportation company is the ability to balance supply (i.e. assets) against volatile demand in the medium/longer term. Thus profits depend on managers with long experience dealing with complex markets, and with sophisticated tools for capital planning and shorter-term price/supply adjustments. Airlines, railroads and shipping companies use some of the most advanced management systems anywhere in the private sector. Yellow Cab isn’t in the same league, but has managers with serious fleet management capabilities, and dispatchers who understand all the idiosyncrasies of local demand patterns (factory night shifts, conventions, bar/restaurant patterns). Uber has an app that ignores the both vehicle management, and market demand forecasting, has no local market knowledge and simply reacts to short-term car requests. Any urban transport operator faces much tougher economics than freight or intercity passenger operators, because there’s no way to reduce costs by smoothing demand peaks. Airline revenue management can massively reduce capital costs by getting price sensitive people to not fly on Friday afternoon. The Long Island Railroad has had peak/off-peak pricing for a hundred years, but rush hour is still rush hour, and the LIRR suffers with the cost of hundreds of cars that only get used ten hours a week. Surge pricing will not get anyone to shift their Saturday night out to fill empty cabs midday Tuesday, and there’s nothing else in the Uber model that addresses any of these fundamental problems with the economics of urban transport. Given the vastly greater complexity of trucking, the idea that a company with a software app could produce new efficiencies great enough to drive most existing trucking companies out of business seems too ludicrous to take seriously. As you clearly point out, there is lots of historical evidence that the last few decades of competition have already made existing operators pretty efficient.
https://pando.com/2015/12/01/has-pando-missed-heart-uber-problem-transportation-industry-expert-writes/

[longtime lurker]

There are a lot of factors involved and maybe American culture (individuality over everything else) would be a big obstacle in implementing that style of governance but those countries offer complete healthcare and all the higher learning you want free of cost, since you'd already be paying for it with your taxes. Those countries are homogeneous while the US is a mixed bag of cultures so there's that...

I've read articles on their lifestyles and they don't put a premium on materialism and consumerism like America does, they celebrate the smaller things in life like family, friends and going out and enjoying the simplier things in life. Americans are so caught up in trying to acquiere material goods and Corporate America feeds this to Americans, you gotta buy the new iPhone, a new car every year etc etc. It's a rat race and people in the US are miserable because of it because most people feel they haven't achieved the status this culture pushes you to have.

I knew an Italian in Mexico who married my wife's best friend and he told me about all the time off from work they get paid for. Basically a month of vacation time to relax and do whatever you want. Americans OTOH are lucky to get a week per year.

What I'm trying to say is we have our priorities messed up if we aren't as happy as those countries that pay a lot more taxes...

And I'm not saying everyone's taxes should go up but it's time the rich start paying their share, they've been given tax breaks for 30 plus years and they've become richer while the rest of us have become poorer. To begin, how about doing something about our infrastructure? It's rotting and you know something is wrong when China's infrastructure is more modern than the US. People would get good jobs and our infrastructure would be top notch, like the world's most powerful nation should have, don't ya think?

This is the crux of the problem. Americans are brainwashed to think ME ME ME and not give a damn about anyone else even if they might stand to benefit from it. If the rest of the developed world are doing better than America, then it's America that's doing something wrong, not the other way around.

[Blue&Orange]

Got a link for that ExxonMobil figure and the subsidies they get or are some of those actual tax deductions/write offs?

First, Ever heard of google retard? google it it's a new thing.



Let's exterminate you. Begging people for money so you can go on a road trip to try and make friends with ISHers because you have none? You serious?
second, what da **** are you talking about retard?


nice to see u have money for bath salts.

[Hawker]

First, Ever heard of google retard? google it it's a new thing.


second, what da **** are you talking about retard?


nice to see u have money for bath salts.

I asked you because it's just not true and I know you didn't do any proper research. If you quote something, provide a source. The O&G business gets tax breaks, not subsidies, just like every other business out there. And big oil companies like ExxonMobil can't claim some of these anymore but small business/independent producers can. Shoddy journalism doesn't make it true.

[kNIOKAS]

The funny thing is that uber is actually example of people getting around regulatory capture using technology. Ill take the time to explain what uber does first since clearly you dont understand.

Uber puts people with vehicles who are willing to drive people together with those who need to be driven. That is the service they really provide. The drivers themselves are providing a separate service.

So, for example, in NYC, the city sells taxi medallions which allow drivers to paint their cars and pick people up. They limit the number way below market demand, and then sell them at a million dollars. This amounts to both a huge tax on consumers, and a huge loss of market potential.

Uber goes around this so that costs are both lower, and its easier to get a ride. So while somehow you are labeling Uber as exploitative, it is in fact working around the exploitation that the NYC (and other) governments have put in place which is a burden to consumers.

I dont know how you think these companies survive if theyre not providing anything. What, in your mind, are they doing to make money exactly?
They are sucking up the data of their users and reselling it. Regarding the Uber, read the god damn article. The things I've copied down should be enough, if the article is locked for you. Or, listen to the podcast where the guy was actually doing Uber. Listen how it was like.

You don't take a second to actually think, do you?

[Take Your Lumps]

Anyone see Carl Bernstein (of Watergate scandal reporting fame) demolish Hillary on CNN?

https://twitter.com/PoppyHarlowCNN/status/696131119033556992

Savagery.

[falc39]

Uber drives don't last for long, and he can do whatever he wants to, until he gets fed up with it. The trick is that Uber is cutting costs by pushing them over to the 'volunteer' drivers. There's no free stuff, just as there's no lesser prices. Something has to get cut, you know yourself.


https://pando.com/2015/12/01/has-pando-missed-heart-uber-problem-transportation-industry-expert-writes/

As others have explained, Uber is not the same as a taxi, airline, freight, trucking, or whatever company you or the article is comparing it to. Uber is a ride-matching company, that's it. It doesn't have the same business model. It is not being exploitative. It's a conduit, not the actual service that picks up the consumer and takes them on a drive, nor does it need a middleman dispatcher set on rigid schedules. If you want to blame something for the success of Uber, or the "artificial market power" it has on its competitors, then blame the government, because ultimately it is government regulation that has caused the mess that allowed companies like Uber to dominate. That's the lesson to learn. Government failed and emerging technology in this case was used to get around government failure and inefficiencies to provide a benefit to both the consumers and the people who want to drive and provide a service.

Look at this, Taxi drivers jumping to become Uber drivers:
San Diego’s Taxi-Turned-Uber Drivers Get A New Lease On Life (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/aug/15/san-diegos-taxi-turned-uber-drivers-get-new-lease-/)


The convenience is winning over tech-savvy millennials. But it’s time that has won over former taxi driver Abdulhamid Somo. He drove a cab for 20 years before making the switch to Uber.

“I have four little kids, which say when I go to work, ‘Dad, don’t go! Don’t leave us! Stay with us!’” Somo said. Under Uber, he’s been able to stay home with his children during their summer break. He’s been working Friday through Sunday. He clocks in by turning on his app, and he can drive as often or as little as he’d like.

“Nobody forces you to work with the Uber,” Somo said. “But if you drive a taxi, you have to drive 30 (days a month) or 365 days yearly. Even if you’re sick, you have to pay a lease with the taxi company.”

To be clear, though, working every day is not written into taxi contracts. But cabdrivers say their leases cost so much, they have to work that many hours to take home even a little money.


Uber came to San Diego in 2012, right before drivers’ calls for taxi industry reform went public. The city is still piecing together that reform. Meanwhile, Uber has already ushered in change.

“I just went downtown and I asked a (taxi) driver and he said, ‘Uber’s one of the best things that ever happened. My lease rate went down,’” said Sarah Saez, an organizer for United Taxi Workers. “I think there are a lot of drivers in the taxi industry who are welcoming the competition, because it’s the first time that permit holders in the taxi industry are actually trying to improve it, again, by lowering leases, by treating their drivers better.”


“A lot of our taxi drivers who went to Uber are saying, ‘If the taxi industry is fixed, we’ll come back to the taxi industry,’” Saez said. “I’ve had more than a handful of drivers who are like, ‘My heart is in the taxi industry but this is a better opportunity for me right now.’”

So if anything, be happy for the success of Uber, as it is introducing a different kind of competition to the market, a type that may force the government to reassess it's problems and the cartel-like environment it has created with the taxi industry.