A wealth question for the Sanders supporters

[OldJourno]

I watched my first debate last night and my hunch was right. Great entertainment value.
But I wanted to follow up on a point made by Bernie Sanders in hopes of getting some clarification from a supporter or at least someone who harbors ill feelings toward someone with lots of money.
Bernie pointed out that the newest candidate, Mike Bloomberg, was worth about $60 billion. I don't recall the exact wording or the net worth, but Sanders said Bloomberg had as much money as the poorest 125 million (or maybe it was 150 million) Americans combined.
Sanders said this was bad. I believe the word he used was unconscionable.

My question: If Bloomberg only had $10 million, how much more money would the poorest 125 million Americans have?

 

[Conager]

That is a great question.

As a follow-up question I would ask if you assume that Bloomberg recognizes the error of his ways takes a vow of poverty and gives- let's say 59 and a half billion. (Maybe 59 billion I think he's already spent a half a billion so let's say he gives 59 billion directly to the treasury of the United States by check. He can certainly do that on his latest tax return if there's a helpful box to check and you just right in the amount that you intend to offer as a gift to the treasury.) Assuming he did that, using trickle-up economic theory as championed by Nobel prize-winning Economist Paul Krugman, how quickly would you see those less-wealthy, acheive parity with the wealthiest half of Americans?

 

[adrina]

Sarah Palin would be proud of you.

 

[dan_c00000]

My question: If Bloomberg only had $10 million, how much more money would the poorest 125 million Americans have?

I see what you're saying but I think you're missing the point of Sanders critique of Bloomberg's wealth. It isn't only about money but the things Bloomberg's money could buy.

In other words, if Bloomberg (net worth $65.2 billion according to Forbes) suddenly only had say $1 billion that would mean the US could double the money the Department of Education had budgeted for 2019 ($59.9 billion). That's more money for low income students to attend college, repair aging schools, and provide services for students with physical and mental issues.

Also, and this is really important, giant corporate like GE and Verizon not only paid no taxes they actually received a tax refund.

So while giving cash to those with less is an excellent idea it should also be combined with more money to government services like health care, education, and veterans affairs.

 

[OldJourno]

I see what you're saying but I think you're missing the point of Sanders critique of Bloomberg's wealth. It isn't only about money but the things Bloomberg's money could buy.


So while giving cash to those with less is an excellent idea it should also be combined with more money to government services like health care, education, and veterans affairs.

Why is giving cash to people who haven't earned it an excellent idea?

 

[Conager]

What a brilliant idea. We already have far more unqualified college graduates who cannot find jobs in the field for which they were ostensibly trained for so let's lower the standards for college admissions even further so that we can enrich the academic industrial complex with some more students who are even less qualified to go to college so they can have a piece of paper saying that they're "educated."

Pell Grant's ate already a thing. There are not this vast, untapped pool of hardworking, diligent *capable* motivated students who would suddenly thrive if only the bloated academic industrial complex would find a way to shoehorn them in.

Let's take it back even further to the earliest efforts that we currently make to "educate" the less privileged. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the government paid for daycare system known as Head Start makes absolutely no difference in future academic performance. The solution to that of course is let's throw even more money at that completely failed experiment.

Public education through grade 12 is already in tirely free. Underperforming schools are underperforming because they have students who are less capable and less motivated coming from homes where education is not valued and parents do not support the education of their children. The obvious solution to that is readily available testing that would let us know who is capable who is motivated and get them into performing School. Of course we can't do that because of the teachers unions.

Underperforming schools are Rife with all manner of social ills and because of the almighty Federal dollar that they get for every student that they place in a chair on a regular basis they tend to expel no one further exacerbating the problem.

The problem is not that we spend too little on education the problem is we spend far too much and on the wrong things.

I mean, look at you. You obviously consider yourself an educated individual there's nothing that I said above that you can possibly refute but yet here you are claiming that we should just throw more money at the problem which is something we have continually done to no effect.

Now here's the part where the peasants descend, find some typographical or grammatical errors in the above and declare victory. You're welcome.

 

[Conager]

Why is giving cash to people who haven't earned it an excellent idea?

Look how well that has worked on native reservations and in all the big, blue cities where twenty TRILLION dollars of social programs since Johnson's Great Society have all but eliminated all of the social ills that we were assured were caused by poverty, not the other way around.

Here is another question. Instead of working for the evil, greedy Bloomberg, where should all of those people he exploited on his way to making 59 billion dollars have worked? Where should the workers who would then be displaced by those Bloomberg workers work?

How many of those workers were employed after he made say his first billion? Let's just say he reached his first billion and he decided that at some point you have to say that you've made enough and you wanted let someone else have a chance so he retired. Who was the other person that now that they are given the chance by Bloomberg absence would have stepped into the breach? What's the plan here we have 59 individual billionaires? How does that improve anything? Don't we take advantage of economies of scale with large, centralized concerns according to the collectivists?

 

[HisArpy]

Why is giving cash to people who haven't earned it an excellent idea?

I keep wondering how 1 years worth of confiscation is going to help next year's needy.

It isn't like Bloomberg and the rest are going to be able to rebuild their net worth in a year after the Government steals it from them. Nor will they be predisposed to try since the obvious realization is that the Government is just going to steal it again.

At which point the ever voracious Government is going to turn on the other citizens wealth to fill the void.

Socialists never seem to understand those points. Which is why socialism ALWAYS fails.

 

[Conager]

Did you mean to imply that you will eventually run out of other people's momey?

 

[BotanyBoy]

So while giving cash to those with less is an excellent idea.

What is so excellent about it?

 

[HisArpy]

Did you mean to imply that you will eventually run out of other people's momey?

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Right now Venezuelans are running out of other people since there's no money or food left. Eventually all that will remain is the socialists running out ahead of the mob that will hang them.

Tis the ever repeating cycle of socialism.

 

[OldJourno]

I keep wondering how 1 years worth of confiscation is going to help next year's needy.

It isn't like Bloomberg and the rest are going to be able to rebuild their net worth in a year after the Government steals it from them. Nor will they be predisposed to try since the obvious realization is that the Government is just going to steal it again.

At which point the ever voracious Government is going to turn on the other citizens wealth to fill the void.

Socialists never seem to understand those points. Which is why socialism ALWAYS fails.

Exactly.
Elizabeth Warren acts like Billionaire A will always have $25B when her taxes kick in. But after Billionaire A hides as much as possible legally but still takes a giant hit, he/she is going to move to a friendly tax climate with his/her remaining $23B.
Ross Perot was famous for talking about the "giant sucking sound" when he ran for president in 1992.
That sucking sound if Warren, Buttplug, Sanders or damn near any of them will be
private investment capital fleeing the U.S., followed by the slow collapse of the economy.

 

[OldJourno]

Sarah Palin would be proud of you.

Do you have anything else to offer besides the above idiocy?
Want to tell us why you're so smart?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why is giving cash to people who haven't earned it an excellent idea?

Why is giving health care to people who haven't earned it an excellent idea?

 

[Conager]

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Right now Venezuelans are running out of other people since there's no money or food left. Eventually all that will remain is the socialists running out ahead of the mob that will hang them.

Tis the ever repeating cycle of socialism.

According to Zumi and SubstandardAuto, they can eat cake, or in this case, Dead Baker Asada Tacos. From street vendors.

 

[HisArpy]

Exactly.
Elizabeth Warren acts like Billionaire A will always have $25B when her taxes kick in. But after Billionaire A hides as much as possible legally but still takes a giant hit, he/she is going to move to a friendly tax climate with his/her remaining $23B.
Ross Perot was famous for talking about the "giant sucking sound" when he ran for president in 1992.
That sucking sound if Warren, Buttplug, Sanders or damn near any of them will be
private investment capital fleeing the U.S., followed by the slow collapse of the economy.

If any of the Demmies are elected, and their idiotic financial ideas actually make it through the legislature, you will see many US citizens become Ex Pats as fast as possible regardless of whether they're worth "billions", "millions", or even "a few hundred thousands".

I may even be 1 of them.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Why is giving health care to people who haven't earned it an excellent idea?

It's not, thanks for playing!

 

[DeluxAuto]

According to Zumi and SubstandardAuto, the can eat cake, or in this case, Dead Baker Asada Tacos. From street venders.

What?

 

[BotanyBoy]

If any of the Demmies are elected, and their idiotic financial ideas actually make it through the legislature, you will see many US citizens become Ex Pats as fast as possible regardless of whether they're worth "billions", "millions", or even "a few hundred thousands".

I may even be 1 of them.

Quickly.....well before the the property confiscations and reeducation camps.

 

[dan_c00000]

Why is giving cash to people who haven't earned it an excellent idea?

There are plenty of "working poor", people who work at Walmart who are on food stamps. According to one report Walmart alone is costing American's taxpayers $6.2 billion dollars.

Giving these people more money would allow them to afford not only food but housing and healthcare as well.

Also, this is a point that's often missed most people who receive government assistance are the elderly and children. So unless you want to start employing more people over 65 or want to advocate for child labor you're going to have a hard time following your "earned it" logic to it's end point.

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the government paid for daycare system known as Head Start makes absolutely no difference in future academic performance.

That's just a blatant lie. It took my about 5 seconds to find two studies that show Head Start has a lasting impact on academic performance.

I mean, look at you. You obviously consider yourself an educated individual there's nothing that I said above that you can possibly refute

Not only did I refute it I proved you to be a liar. Furthermore, if you look at countries that spend a significant amount of money on early education you'll see that their students do better than US students (Denmark is a good example).

Why is all of this a good idea? First it would take money away from racist Nazi assholes like bot and, maybe, he'd give up and stop posting on here.

Aside from that obvious perk having a society with less economic inequality would benefit all levels of society. Again, look at Denmark and Sweden they have much less economic inequality than the US and those two countries are both happier (Denmark #2, Sweden #7, and the US #19, pg. 24-25) and more free (as rated by the conservative CATO Institute's Human Freedom Index Denmark #6, Sweden #11, and US #15, pg. 8-9).

It's simple really if you don't have to worry about seeing a doctor, paying for a good education, or worrying about how you'll get your next meal you can do a lot of other shit.

Even bot might find something better to do than be an internet Nazi but that's doubtful.

 

[Conager]

Why do you socialists always extol the virtues of lillywhite European enclaves?

It's almost like you don't want to actually coexist with black folks. What ever happened to diversity is our strength? How are such Utopias thriving sans diversity?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Giving these people more money would allow them to afford not only food but housing and healthcare as well.

So instead of making them either up their game or their employers pay them.....just go rob everyone else to cover it?

LOL.....brilliant.

Why is all of this a good idea? First it would take money away from racist Nazi assholes like bot and, maybe, he'd give up and stop posting on here.

Nope...I'd just leave and take my money elsewhere.

Then you get NOTHING.

Again, look at Denmark and Sweden they have much less economic inequality than the US and those two countries are both happier

Move then....get the fuck out, go live there.

It's simple really if you don't have to worry about seeing a doctor, paying for a good education, or worrying about how you'll get your next meal you can do a lot of other shit.

I don't worry about those things now.

Sooooo where is it a benefit to me to have less of my wealth???

 

[Kantarii]

a better question is

why is it unconscionable.

did he steal it? did he not build a company and earn it?

would BS axe movie stars or rap stars who make millions that their salaries and wealth are unconscionable.

NO!

Damn, Skelator. Watcha do this time?

 

[OldJourno]

All the information I've seen about the classroom advantages of Head Start is it's gone by the third or fourth grade.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Dan_C000 returns from sabbatical and immediately scores a rare quadruple "tard trigger" amongst the bottom dwellers of Wingnut Swamp.

Nicely done, Daniel.