As if he isn't also super fücking rich.
@DandyZombie35, he only has 3 houses. That’s practically poverty
@DandyZombie35, Bernie does own 2 homes, but his net worth is only around $700k. That’s not a lot really in this day and age. Dudes 77 and still working. Good for him.
@griffinstorme, no he bought a 600k home last year and didn’t sell either of his other 2 homes so he has 3. Made over 2 million dollars since 2016 when he wrote a book plus his senate money. Only a fool believes a 1 percenter is actually a socialist. He’s got a schtick that gets him his money and that’s it
Demonizing the most successful demographic in your society doesn’t end well, Bernie. Just look at the Russians, they showed that very well. As did the French.
The dumbest crap. Let’s chase out everyone that has any money to invest back into the economy
@Richard Cypher, aw shjt.... gonna need my jumbo popcorn bag for this one
@MrJojo, *reaches in and feels dick* eh fvck it *keeps eating popcorn*
@Richard Cypher, lets cripple the people that provide jobs to others!
@Richard Cypher, I'm sorry my friend, but trickle down economics doesn't work.
@Richard Cypher, “rich people are job creator” -a moron
@liberachi , know many poor people who hire people to work for them?
@Richard Cypher, you mean horde
@Richard Cypher, 2018 was the biggest stock buyback year in history
@CellSword, so? Who cares
@Richard Cypher, true disciple of the Republican church "rich people need the money to make jobs" *to the tune of a classic Christian hymn*
@Richard Cypher, stock buybacks actually do the opposite of investing in jobs, they only make the stock value of a company go up buy reducing stocks in circulation, this makes the shareholders happy and nobody else, this makes the board happy, which gives the CEO (most likely his decision) a huge raise and bonus. The tax break was SUPPOSED to get companies to invest into new tech, branches, employee salaries. But guess which fvcking one happened? Several rich people themselves have said trickle down doesnt work. We've been using it since the 80s and look at the fvcking wage gap. Just fvcking Google "wage gap over time"...
@Richard Cypher, and to further blow your point out of the water, how many poor people have business ideas and cant get enough money to start them? i bet that number (and capitalistic return on innovation/competition) would be is much higher than "the same 100 people are the ones who need more and more money or else they'll leave the country". guess what that only really benefits them and it's not patriotic, its ransom.
@CellSword, your logic is quite skewed and all over the place. For starters stocks/shares are just little bits of ownership of the company. They are used for investors to buy so that they get a little piece of the company and get a portion of the profits from said company and in return, the company can gain the funds it needs to finance expansion/growth. Anyone can buy stock in a company. Literally anyone, it’s not hard to do. A buy back is simply the company consolidating itself to either sell again later when they are ready for growth or to sell of the company itself. Either way it’s irrelevant. As far as the stockholder is concerned they are just getting back the money they had invested. It’s a win win for all involved.
@CellSword, and I don’t even know what kind of point you are trying to make with the poor people business plan. Like what are we supposed to tax businesses and the wealthy at criminal rates and give it to anyone wanting to try their hand at entrepreneurship? You make an irrelevant point with no possible way to actually do anything about it.
Wage gap argument is dumb btw. Poor people today are richer than poor people of yesterday.
And lastly your “to further blow your point out of the water” like you have some smoking gun, I had no other point beyond “Bernie(and AOC’s) ideas are dumb” and they still are. Thanks for playing please don’t bother continuing as I won’t keep typing these essays. ✌🏻
@Richard Cypher, how is it not relevant, that is where all of the tax break money is going. and typical response from someone who doesnt actually know what they are talking about "I said what I wanted to Aaaaaand I'm done, no further discussion, peace out"
@PsychedelicCow, says the wealthiest middle class ever in the history of the world.
@CellSword, so remove the regulations stopping them from starting a company in the first place!
@big freedom, I'm good with that
@Richard Cypher, anyone who uses legal loopholes to hord their money while thouse who work under them aren't even recieving livable wages deserve to be chased out.
@HappyBandit7, legal is the key word. And you can’t regulate your way into a utopia. Who determines who gets what? If I have a company and need to hire a janitor part time, am I required to pay them a living wage for a part time menial job? If so, you just made someone’s job illegal. You put them out of work. Congrats
@big freedom, it seems like more and more people nowadays think that a job that requires no skill should pay as well as one that actually does. It's just laziness personified.
For whatever reason people no longer understand that minimum wage jobs are basically meant for young people while going to school or as a source of secondary income. They aren't meant to make a career out of. And I get that not everyone has been fortunate enough to get a good education, but if you apply yourself, maybe you can get promoted and use that new experience and job title on your resume for a better job down the road.
I have worked my way up from the bottom several times during my life, but not once have I ever began a new job with no intention on moving up the ladder, including my current job, which already pays very well. The reason I got that job was in fact, due to my experience.
@phalcon , how many poor people buy things so others could work?
@Richard Cypher, you get downvoted because people don't get economics lol. Keep it up though, you are just stating facts.
@CellSword, okay to be fair getting a loan to start a business is completely doable. People just think that their little business idea is so great even if in reality it'll probably never be profitable. There is much more to economics than "I have money and an idea and it's all going to work out."
@Richard Cypher, the smoking gun thing cracked me up haha.
@Uranusisbig, can you elaborate how I dont understand economics? I grew up with two PhD in macro and micro economics degree parents, but apparently the economic slowdown despite a 50% corporate tax break means I dont know sh!t
@CellSword, yes google real wages over time and then google house price increases over time. Then compare the two and see why people complain that wages are low. Too bad many trump supporters dont have the capacity to do this.
@CellSword, i do trend analysis and look at data so all your points are clear. The company i work far has people that actually look at trends in consumer purchases and has already begun to notice a trend to buying habits that are typical in a recession. To add to your point small businesses create jobs, not mega corporations. Small businesses employ about 55% of the workforce. And 95% of those have less than 10 employees. Large businesses employ about 38% of employees
@big freedom, regulations to start most businesses are quite low actually. I was able to start a part time business for less than $1000, it would have been less then $200 if i decided to not make it an LLC. I can easily outsource payroll for $25+5 per employee if i wanted to. One could argue its even easier to start a business now than before due to all the outsourcing you can do.
@CellSword, 1. You’re literally making shît up. The economy is roaring.
2. Things take time to impact the masses.
3. Your parents can have all the degrees in the world, that doesn’t make you understand economics
@Implicit88, did you have a physical location that had customers or home based business? There’s a huge difference. What state is your business? There’s a big difference between CA (very business unfriendly) or TX (business friendly) do your employees have to come to physical location? No outsourcing gets around regulations. All this to say, there are countless jobs that were never created because there are countless businesses that never got started because there are countless laws and regulations that impede small businesses - all written by the large corporations in cahoots with their whores... I mean legislators
@big freedom, and you can be a dumb redneck with a "natural instinct" for economics, doesnt mean you know sh!t, and enjoy the economy over the next year and a half dipsh!t (you started the fight this time) btw tons of articles on the slowing of the housing market, retail market, fewer jobs produced etc... my guess is you're going off dow jones?
@big freedom, by outsourcing i mean software and accounting for small business can be completely purchased as a service. I do not have a physical location as cost to rent is not worth it since this is a side business i have. Im actually in cali. This is also not to say some areas are harder to start than others, which makes sense. I wouldn’t want just anyone doing electrical work on my house, for example. The only issue right now is double taxation thanks to the new tax code.
@CellSword, dont forget the most important metric, jobs produced above the cost of living! Having 20k more min wage jobs is not the same as having 10k more livable wage jobs.
@CellSword, Dow Jones is for dolts on tv. And many “experts” have predicted many things. They make a guess that barely ends up over .500
Call me a redneck all you want. I’m not. But I’d rather be a redneck than whatever the hell you are. Btw I’m a business manager with 2 degrees and 19 years real experience since college. You are a utopian nonsense spouting socialist at worst democrat party member at best. You have proven that you have no ability to think for yourself and just spout liberal talking points. Good chat Rusty
Lol. I just read what I wrote to you... that started a fight? Holy shît you’re a sensitive little cûnt aren’t you.
@Implicit88, that’s great. I’m happy for you. That still doesn’t dismiss how hard it is to start a business in CA with a physical location that has employees and/or customers coming on site. I’ve spoken with a lot of business owners there. I just moved out of state after 15+years there. It’s incredibly anti-business
@big freedom, I'm happy with who I am and what I understand, like I said enjoy the economic dive over the next 1.5 years buddy
@Implicit88, I don’t understand this point.. “how many poor people buy things so others can work”. What are you saying here?
@CellSword, I heard that 2 years ago. And 4 years ago and 6 years ago and so on and so forth. keep wishing for the economy to fail because you don’t like the president.
And of course you’re happy. Stupid people don’t realize they’re stupid.
@big freedom, I'm glad you can point out your own flaws, step one is acknowledging you have a problem. Btw like you said the economy takes time to materialize out of law right? Then this "roaring economy" is the result of the Obama administration
@big freedom, what that means is business only exist because people spend money. Our economy is based on people spending money. As ones disposable income increases, their propensity to save increases. This means every dollar that is earned does not enter the economy again (in the short term). However, we still have a situation where so much money is earned that it will never be used
@Implicit88, yes we’re built on an economy of spending (and we’re worse off in the long run for it). I have a feeling that you’re leaning towards a Keynesian theory. Not every dollar spent is a good thing. If people don’t save, and make bad choices we bail them out. And also, we have the highest percentage of middle class that have more luxuries than most of the worlds wealthy people. Our poor people have more wealth than most of the worlds “rich”.
I still don’t get your point. We need businesses in order for people to have jobs. You take away the incentive to create a business you have less money all around. This was the point you were answering “how many poor people have employees and create jobs”. We NEED the job creators. We need to get out of their way not demonize people for being successful
@big freedom, no. What i said was it becomes a problem when people accumulate more money than they will ever be able to contribute by such large amounts.
@Implicit88, that’s such a tiny percentage. And What difference does that make to anyone else. It’s not as if them keeping their money stops others from making or accumulating wealth.
@CellSword, I wasn't talking about you* specifically, but if the shoe fits fine. What measurements are you using to state that we have an economic slowdown? Wages? Unemployment? Stock market? Be specific. I'm an economist myself so I'll make sure to put your credentials to the test.
@big freedom, 1% of people own about 40% of all wealth. That means 99% of people in the usa have to share the remainder. There is a finite amount of money to go around. Yes it increases yearly, but its still severely imbalanced.
@CellSword, I'll do you the favor of correcting your mistakes. There is a lag between detecting a problem, measuring and fixing economic policy. It can take months and even a year, but not more than that. To say Obamas policies are causing today's growth is wrong. Besides it contradicts your conclusion on another comment where you say we are experiencing a slowdown
@CellSword, here you are wrong. There are too many variables to predict if the economy will slow down in a year and a half. If you knew economics you'd know models become less predictable as time goes on. 6 months top, and take it quarter by quarter to adjust.
@CellSword, here you have no idea what stocks are used for. Phd my ass. Buying back stocks is risky as it leaves the company with less cash, but it's a trade off for the future. This moves shows CONFIDENCE in the economy for the coming years. As projects are executed the stocks are re-offered to invest heavily in them CREATING JOBS. When a company buys back stocks they inject cash into the economy: people like me who invest daily.
@Implicit88, the largest employer is Walmart. Guess the second one, the third one?
@Implicit88, that just means the Pareto distribution applies to us. Statistics 101.
@Uranusisbig, buying back stocked is basically saving the company money as it is less dividends they have to pay out. It also reduces stock quantity increasing price. Lets execs cash out for a heavy pay day. Has nothing to do with confidence. Yes buying stocks increase total money in the economy but selling stock decreases it. In addition, main people that own stock are not living paycheck to paycheck.
@Uranusisbig, what does it matter who it is? Walmart pays workers min wage and get subsidized by tax payers.
@Implicit88, you talk about money as if it was "limited". Rich people don't own money, they produced money. Money is produced out of thin air, there's no limited quantity. To be precise, there is an entry flow and an exit flow as debts are extinguished. But money isn't limited.
@Uranusisbig, u misunderstood. Money is finite at any one given time or period. Rich people do not produce money. Money is only exchanged. Only the fed can create money. Even banks with loans do not create money. Banks artificially increase buying back via loans. This should not be confused with creating money. What happens when you go buy something is you exchange money for a good and service. You give money to the workers and the corporation. The corporation does not produce money into the economy.
@Implicit88, not all companies give out dividends.. so it's not a problem. Besides, if it's expensive they can choose to stop paying out dividends. Saying it has nothing to do with confidence is not an argument. Stock buyback is an important decision that can leave the company bankrupt if the economy or the market slows down. (That's why Toys r us is gone) so when a bunch of companies buyback stock it's a Strong signal they have confidence in the economy. So what if people who own stock don't live paycheck to paycheck? What does that mean??
@Implicit88, you said large corporations don't create jobs. You are wrong.
@Implicit88, sigh... money isn't finite. If I'm a business and want to invest I go to the bank for a loan. If the bank lacks funds the bank borrows from the federal reserve. The federal reserve just prints money. The business pays your wage. The business pays the loan to the bank. The bank pays the loan to the federal reserve. Money is erased. It's a flow controlled by the interest rate charged by the federal reserve to the banks. There are more processes where a worker uses money to buy things which allow the business to pay loans/ wages but that's besides the point.
@Uranusisbig, you are taking my words out of context. Plz stop doing that. Most new jobs being created are by small businesses with less than 10 employees. That was the point i was making. Huge corporations dont just spring up everyday
@Uranusisbig, toys are us went bankrupt due to the massive debt it had and decreased sales due to not being able to adapt to the new market.
@Uranusisbig, saying dividends is about a strong economy is not an argument. If a company does not pay out dividends and it has in all prior periods stock holders will easily lose confidence.
@Implicit88, you said and I'm quoting "Small businesses create jobs, not mega corporations" I can fix it for you to "small businesses create more jobs than mega corporations" You say you have a Phd, there's a difference between saying the truth and skewing sentences to fit your narrative.
@Uranusisbig, i never said i had a phd? That wascellsword. My entire comment stated exactly how many jobs are held by big business vs small. It clarified my comment. If you want to create more jobs small businesses are better at it.
@Implicit88, that's true, there were many causes but the move that left them cashless was the stock buyback. Toys are us had a huge pile of money. They bought back stocks, short sighted move, and then what you said happened. They could have lasted more if instead they used the money to improve and adapt.
@Implicit88, I didn't say dividends is about a strong economy. You said corporations don't want to pay dividends hence they buyback stocks. I said dividends were not a worry for corporations since they can't stop at any time. That's all.
@Uranusisbig, right but businesses that stop dividends give the impression they arent doing well.
@Uranusisbig, toys r us was too far behind and with a negative cash flow, its over. What other companies took years to do, no way toys are us would do it quickly.
@Implicit88, my bad. I like your sentence better, small businesses are better at it. Very different from "Not mega corporations"
@Implicit88, yes. What then? Companies that have confidence in the economy engage in stock buybacks.
@Implicit88, maybe. Doesn't change the fact the most determining factor was the stock buyback. You can find countless studies that agree on google. It was a famous case.
@Richard Cypher, just gonna say regardless of politics you’re flat out wrong about stock buy backs.
@Implicit88, you show a remarkable lack of knowledge about economics of creation of wealth and money, and specifically stocks and stock buy backs. I read through this entire thread, your understanding of how this works is astounding! Dividends have nothing whatsoever to do with stock buy backs. Many companies that are performing very well never pay a dividend ever. They are reinvesting in RandD, or production or growth etc. buy backs happen when a company feels that they are in a positive position and wish to have more controversial their future.
Wealth is literally created out of nothing and is theoretically infinite. Don’t confuse cash, which is an indicator and finite, with wealth.
@griffinstorme, In what way specifically?
@Uranusisbig, i wouldnt say that, that was merely,potentially, the last straw. If they had adapted to the new market cash flow would have been positive and buying the stock would be no issue.
@big freedom, sorry but many companies that do well give dividends. Of course some dont. But a lot do. You are the one with a lack of understanding. If a company does not have dividends there is no reason for it to stock buyback as the company could potentially never pay that money back. Wealth is finite, there is no way it can be infinite. Infinite means unending. Wealth is created but is finite. If you dont understand this then you really need to read more. Stock market is technically a zero sum game.
@Implicit88, Jesus, it’s hard to know where to begin with this. And in the end I will not change your mind. You need to get out of your confirmation bias circle. Find something to read that doesn’t already agree with what you believe. Start with Milton Friedman and Carl Menger.
@big freedom, i know of Milton Friedman and he makes dome good points. For example he proposed a negative income tax for the poor, however, he also supported abolishing medical licenses. He did want there to be little to no regulations, however, no regulations while good for a business, is bad for the people. He basically would have wanted a completely free market if he could do that. A completely free market will always trend to monopoly, this is why antitrust laws were created.
@big freedom, this might be the biggest trigger chain I've seen on funny pics lol
@big freedom, I bet you can agree with that. First thing is first though, were both Americans and love this country, just have different opinions on how to do so. I do appreciate your opinion and think that argument is the foundation of democracy
@CellSword, I would defend you in any fight with any non American, because you fvcking earned it
@big freedom, respect
@Implicit88, he does not advocate for not having licenses. He advocates for not having government issued license. There are many free market options that would be better and more efficient than government run license boards.
I heard a great quote last week. “Why would you trust someone that has no accountability if they get it wrong?”
Government programs are rewarded for incompetence and punished for effectiveness.
Government does not eliminate monopoly (see PGE in CA) they just chose which monopoly gets to win through regulations.
@big freedom, you would trust a private institution issuing licenses? Wow. Look at boring airplanes and see how well they can self regulate. It would be impossible to regulate or even audit businesses that gave out licenses. Pge is a natural monopoly, this is why something like utilities should be either government owned or municipally owned. Pge is merely a precursor of what is to come due to our reliance on privately funded utilities.
"I'm one of the good ones"
Successful performance saving throw.
@OfficialNyarlathotep, my thoughts exactly. Credit where credit is due.
I steal from the rich, and middle class, and increase give 10% of that to the needy, and create new ways to hinder them from moving up to make it on their own with incentivized govt programs, food stamps and the like and blame it on the rich for their lack of vertical movement in the economy even though small businesses account for over 2/3 of jobs and would be the ones who suffer the most from the regulations and taxes you would impose, missuser hood
@Hockman9, correction small businesses account for 50% of employment, 2/3 of new jobs. If you think his laws would hurt small businesses you know nothing about his policies.
@Not him again, @big freedom, ok 2 things
1st just because something is legal dosen't mean its morally acceptable. So say the only job you can get pays minimum wage you won't be able to provide for yourself if the law says its ok for your employer to pay you so little that you can't afford basic necessities like for food or shelter. So yes you are required to pay them a livable wage regardless of how long they are going to work for you because that's what a decent employer would do.
2nd obviously nobody wants to stay in a minimum wage job that requires no skill but if more people have a little bit of cash that they can use to lift themselfs out of their situation then they can use it to: get educated, pay depts, improve their health ect. When more people have more money more people benifit from it. When less people have more money it only benefits them.
@HappyBandit7, the first part is utopian nonsense. If I hire an employee I pay them what they are worth to my business. If I pay them more, I no longer have a business and no they don’t have a job at all.
2nd part is correct. It benefits me as an employer to hire people that become more skilled. That’s why they get raises when they gain skills. If everyone made “a living wage” then there is less incentive to become better.
You really need to learn the difference between what “feels good” and what reality is.
@HappyBandit7, that’s absolutely ridiculous. An employer is not taking on the responsibility for their employee’s lives. An employers responsibility is fair compensation. If all you’re doing is wiping off tables and walking back and forth with a platter, occasionally cleaning the bathrooms, you don’t deserve to get paid the same as the guy balancing your business’s budget. Doing that isn’t a career and is not meant to sustain your whole life.
@I Are Lebo, so why are the tax payers responsible, and not the companies, for ensuring a livable wage? Everytime someone works and doesn’t make ends meet the tax payers pay for it. I believe anyone working full time should be able to afford food and shelter. Currently that is not the case.
@Implicit88, the taxpayers are paying into their country, their province/state, and by extension, their community. It’s not an employers job to make sure ends meet for their employees, that’s absurd. How many people can’t make ends meet purely because they make bad financial decisions? Everyone in the USA that is working a full time job can afford food and shelter, unless they are attempting to live beyond those means by either living in a higher end area or making purchases outside of their scope. That is the purpose of minimum wage laws. If someone is single handedly supporting ten dependents, that’s not their employers responsibility. You do a job and you get paid for that job. Your home life is irrelevant to that relationship.
It is not the purpose of society to change to fill your needs, it is up to you to fit within society or find your proverbial hole to fill.
This is self-entitled thinking.
@Implicit88, because people want a mommy government to provide for them and tell them what to do. we elect soft heads who insist on multiple redundant programs all of which encourage government reliance. This keeps the 2 party system in power as the people bicker over minor differences that the politicians have no desire to fix, because it’s too valuable as an issue.
Ok so ignoring the political in my funny, what’s up with the blue guy fierri ?
I don’t want to argue with a man who has a superhero going to his rally.
@Ewok612, Which superhero? Commander Bluebeard, or the guy who murdered Freddy Krueger and stole his hat?
@Berntley, Commander Bluebeard. Though, I am interested in this hat-based-heroism.
Can’t put that on a slogan board though