Bernie Sanders Filibustering the FUCK Out of the Senate

[SanePsychotic]

He's not just reading out of cookbooks or shit like that. He's actually talking about shit that's relevant. It's beautiful.

[caveBEAR]

On CSPAN or CSPAN-2?

[AP_Punk]

cspan dos

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Just turned to it. Sanders is calling out all the billionaire CEOs

[caveBEAR]

I have no idea why, but it appears my cable provider has pulled CSPAN-2...odd.

Of course, I can always watch it on the 24 hour news networks where idiots who don't know what they're talking about can talk about what Sanders is talking about.
:rolleyes:

[loveisdead]

Love Sanders.

[shit stroll]

:appl:

[JuneJuly]

This still going on? Where can I find a stream of CSPAN. haha.

[DCfreak]

lol he is still going strong.

[JuneJuly]

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx

for anyone that doesn't have the channel.

[saysmydoctor]

The. Man.

[SanePsychotic]

He's fucking amazing. Now he's talking about how we won WWII by manufacturing and how we need to rebuild our manufacturing. It's great.

[The Indigo]

This afternoon just got interesting.

[SanePsychotic]

It's been going on since 10:25AM. Amazing.

[peder458]

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx

for anyone that doesn't have the channel.

wasn't going to ask, but THANK YOU!

[The Personist]

Is he still going? Please say yes.

[AP_Punk]

yep, still going at it! :appl:

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Approaching the 6 hour mark. I hope he's got plenty of Red Bull handy

[J.C.]

Weekend with Bernie

make it happen

[atticus18244fss]

Just started watching. Couldn't give two shits about politics and have no clue who this is. Let's see how this goes.

[cwhit412]

I like his accent.

[tkamB]

Pretty insane that 4 banks own 63% of our GDP.

[honkyg88]

For some weird reason I'd love to see a filibuster in person.

[The Indigo]

PolitiFact is doing a lot of cross-checking this speech and Bernie is hitting the nail on the head everywhere.

Also, Bernie Sanders is trending at #3 on twitter, right below #replacebandnameswithpenis

[flask]

amazing

[Tinnerz]

So awesome. He's schooling both Democrats and Republicans.

[deFobbed14yrs]

damn, he is old. Good for him for going strong and trying to make a difference.

[uberlou]

i've been watching this off and on for the last few hours. Amazing! It's also quite entertaining that he sounds a little like Larry David.

[abstain]

This is so great.

i've been watching this off and on for the last few hours. Amazing! It's also quite entertaining that he sounds a little like Larry David.

How did I not think of that. So true, man. So true. Especially when he says, "Mr President" with the very David-esque enunciation

[Juan Jose]

Let's see if he pushes past Strom's 24 hour mark

[mcm1610]

This is awesome. He hasn't said a thing (that I've heard) that I've disagreed with.

Haha he just lost his train of thought.

[peder458]

loving this. he is going strong. any guesses on when he will go til?

[flask]

I'm surprised this is over 6 hours in. He sounds like he's just getting started.

[mcm1610]

Reading letters... I think he's running out of steam.

[deFobbed14yrs]

Reading letters... I think he's running out of steam.

They're really sad, I think he's trying to get at people's emotions.

[bNz719]

Wow, this is great.

[JuneJuly]

He seems like he's slowing down now :-(

[deFobbed14yrs]

God these stories suck. I didn't even know they had dented cans stores. I thought that was like a WWII thing.

[Poe-tryGirl]

Bernie Sanders is one of my favorite politicians. Vermont has some serious sense. Come on Bernie! He's like Mr. Smith in Washington right now, haha.

[Jason Tate]

... why is he doing this?

[abstain]

He hasn't yelled in a while, but he is now about lobbyists. I don't think he's running out of steam.

... why is he doing this?

Probably because no one else will.

[deFobbed14yrs]

It's wrong that people go hungry in this country.

People shouldn't have to work until they're 70 or above.

[deFobbed14yrs]

... why is he doing this?

Trying to stop the tax cuts from continuing.

[abstain]

"before I get back to why I'm on the floor and why I've been here for a few hours..."

lol

[Jason Tate]

Trying to stop the tax cuts from continuing.
Eh. I hate the filibuster. But at least it's being used compared to just threatening. Nothing bugs me more than debate being stopped by a threaten / need of super-majority. That said ... the tax cuts need to continue for a lil-while longer.

[deFobbed14yrs]

Eh. I hate the filibuster. But at least it's being used compared to just threatening. Nothing bugs me more than debate being stopped by a threaten / need of super-majority. That said ... the tax cuts need to continue.

I think most people hate them since usually it's some guy just rambling about nothing. Is there an explanation to why you want the tax cuts to remain in one of the other politics threads?

edit: nvm found it

[Jason Tate]

I think most people hate them since usually it's some guy just rambling about nothing. Is there an explanation to why you want the tax cuts to remain in one of the other politics threads?

edit: nvm found it
Well, you probably want a different reason than "I pay taxes and want to keep more of my money." Giving 1/3 of it to the government to turn around and spend on hiring boys as sex slaves, bugs me on a personal level.

The story that the White House tells about the tax cuts is this: We have a shaky economy that can't afford a large tax increase. Congressional Democrats refused to vote the upper-income tax cuts out of existence before the election. They could've done it, the White House wanted them to do it, and Obama certainly would've signed the bill. But they didn't. And then they lost the election. Newly empowered Republicans refused to extend the tax cuts for income under $250,000 unless they also got the tax cuts for income over $250,000. This isn't a popular position in the country, but with the next election two years away, they're not worried about popularity. So given the choice between letting the cuts expire and potentially harm the recovery and negotiating a compromise which pumps hundreds of billions in extra stimulus into the economy over the next two years, the White House chose the latter.

That, I actually agree with. And I like a lot of the other stuff in the proposal "$120 billion in payroll-tax cuts, $40 billion in refundable tax credits (Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and education tax credits), $56 billion in unemployment insurance, and, depending on how you count it, about $180 billion (two-year cost) or $30 billion (10-year cost) in new tax incentives for businesses to invest."

[saysmydoctor]

... why is he doing this?
Because he opposes the compromise/tax cut deal. He is okay with the majority of extensions. Same basic reason why a majority of House Dems plan to vote against it as well.

[deFobbed14yrs]

Well, you probably want a different reason than "I pay taxes and want to keep more of my money." Giving 1/3 of it to the government to turn around and spend on hiring boys as sex slaves, bugs me on a personal level.

The story that the White House tells about the tax cuts is this: We have a shaky economy that can't afford a large tax increase. Congressional Democrats refused to vote the upper-income tax cuts out of existence before the election. They could've done it, the White House wanted them to do it, and Obama certainly would've signed the bill. But they didn't. And then they lost the election. Newly empowered Republicans refused to extend the tax cuts for income under $250,000 unless they also got the tax cuts for income over $250,000. This isn't a popular position in the country, but with the next election two years away, they're not worried about popularity. So given the choice between letting the cuts expire and potentially harm the recovery and negotiating a compromise which pumps hundreds of billions in extra stimulus into the economy over the next two years, the White House chose the latter.

That, I actually agree with. And I like a lot of the other stuff in the proposal "$120 billion in payroll-tax cuts, $40 billion in refundable tax credits (Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and education tax credits), $56 billion in unemployment insurance, and, depending on how you count it, about $180 billion (two-year cost) or $30 billion (10-year cost) in new tax incentives for businesses to invest."

I see, and as someone whose family makes above that 250,000 mark (but live in Suburbia, New York where that's chump change,) the extension of the tax cuts would benefit my family. But if they were taken away, it really wouldn't hurt my family, but it would benefit others I believe. I mean can't we get a little tax rise and some taxcut combo? Like with the money gotten from the taxes couldn't that fund some of those things you listed?

[J.C.]

Bernie's talked more in the last 8 hours than I have in 24 years.

[Jason Tate]

I see, and as someone whose family makes above that 250,000 mark (but live in Suburbia, New York where that's chump change,) the extension of the tax cuts would benefit my family. But if they were taken away, it really wouldn't hurt my family, but it would benefit others I believe. I mean can't we get a little tax rise and some taxcut combo? Like with the money gotten from the taxes couldn't that fund some of those things you listed?
The Republicans won't pass it.

[Jason Tate]

Because he opposes the compromise/tax cut deal. He is okay with the majority of extensions. Same basic reason why a majority of House Dems plan to vote against it as well.
They should have dealt with it before they got their asses handed to them in the last election ... it's not like this is something that came out of the blue.

[deFobbed14yrs]

They should have dealt with it before they got their asses handed to them in the last election ... it's not like this is something that came out of the blue.

True i am rather upset at them for not being able to come together to repeal those taxes. I mean they had two years, they could have done more than pass a health care bill that had no public option.

[saysmydoctor]

They should have dealt with it before they got their asses handed to them in the last election ... it's not like this is something that came out of the blue.
:shrug:

Whether they dealt with it then or now, it still would have gone down the same I think.

[saysmydoctor]

What Democrats should have done was handle financial reform first. The healthcare debate, no matter how mind-boggling inane it was, ruined their credibility and made Republicans look...I don't even know the word to use here.

Honestly, both parties just fucking suck so god damn much.

[Jason Tate]

:shrug:

Whether they dealt with it then or now, it still would have gone down the same I think.
I don't think they have the balls to actually fillibuster. Especially when it could have be framed to just be for the bazillionares.

[Jason Tate]

What Democrats should have done was handle financial reform first. The healthcare debate, no matter how mind-boggling inane it was, ruined their credibility and made Republicans look...I don't even know the word to use here.

Honestly, both parties just fucking suck so god damn much.
Tax Reform needs to be a priority. But it's going to be fucking miserable to sit through.

[Jason Tate]

Schumer vs. the White House? (http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=916f611ccfd8215c4f305c a55b3c1143)

But it's not the deal they messaged. In fact, none of the deals were effectively messaged. And that's because the Democratic Party wasn't unified. It didn't come together behind Schumer's plan, or the original Obama plan, or the deal that the administration ultimately struck. The problem wasn't that the Democrats didn't have popular positions, or even that they didn't mention their popular positions, but that they couldn't decide on -- and stick to -- one of them. And now the Obama administration and Schumer are sniping at each other in Politico? It's that disunity that impedes the Democratic Party's efforts to communicate, not anything intrinsic to the issues.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't think they have the balls to actually fillibuster. Especially when it could have be framed to just be for the bazillionares.
Man, nothing would surprise me now.
Tax Reform needs to be a priority. But it's going to be fucking miserable to sit through.
Tax reform debate and a Republican-House.

We're doomed.

[saysmydoctor]

Spoiler alert: Schumer wins and Dems lose. But, hey, fuck it.

[Jason Tate]

Spoiler alert: Schumer wins.
Wins what? He's wrong on policy.

[J.C.]

BERN BABY BERN

x

[saysmydoctor]

Because Schumer is Schumer is Schumer.

[JuneJuly]

I don't know why I found his little whisper with his aide so funny.

"Ariana Huffington."
"Oh yeah."

[saysmydoctor]

When I say Schumer wins, I mean he gets on TV therefore he wins. Schumer is a self-serving individual in a lot of ways. It's something New Yorkers have to deal with, but it's okay, because he brings the pork home.

[Broken Parachute]

http://www.isberniesandersstilltalking.com /

[loveisdead]

http://www.isberniesandersstilltalking.com /

Hahahahahaha.

[Neo Cassady]

http://www.isberniesandersstilltalking.com /

:appl:

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Still doesn't beat my "Is Abe Vigoda Still Alive?" Facebook app

[Neo Cassady]

The last 10 minutes have sounded like he's wrapping it up.

http://a1.phobos.apple.com/us/r1000/047/Purple/f3/49/ef/mzl.narfynlm.320x480-75.jpg

[loveisdead]

He's done!
:appl:

[JuneJuly]

Done!

[Neo Cassady]

I was hoping he'd still be talking when I came back from the bar tonight. Filibuster drinking games could have been fun.

[J.C.]

Had to get home in time for Matlock.

[abstain]

Aw, when did he stop? Dammit.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Thought he was going to try to break Strom Thurmond's record of 24 hours (whereby he fought for racial segregation)

[loveisdead]

I was hoping he'd still be talking when I came back from the bar tonight. Filibuster drinking games could have been fun.

Haha. I like you.

[Broken Parachute]

Strom Thurmond's 24 hour filibuster is absolutely ridiculous. He went from August 28th, 1957 at 8:54 pm to August 29th, 1957 at 9:12 pm.

[The Indigo]

Goddamn, I'm so pumped.

[saysmydoctor]

I was hoping he'd still be talking when I came back from the bar tonight. Filibuster drinking games could have been fun.
Take a drink every time he talks.







Fuck.

[rcrook]

fuck. i wanted him to make it til tomorrow so it could be deemed "weekend at bernies"

[Kammy]

I haven't been following this too closely (I'm British, so I've been busy with all the cuts/protests) but I have the sudden urge to The West Wing. "The Stackhouse Filibuster" is one of my favourite episodes.

[Mitch]

I have a feeling I'd really enjoy The West Wing.

Anyway, major props to Sanders.

[The Personist]

Bernie Sanders is the fucking man.

[Broken Parachute]

TRBLmogRL4c

[The Personist]

K6pa-QdL4Wo&feature=player_embedded

[loveisdead]

senatorsanders 99.7% of American families will not pay 1 nickel in an estate tax. This is not a tax on the rich, this is a tax on the very, very, very rich

[Jason Tate]

The "very, very, very rich" already paid taxes on that income. I am against the estate tax on principle.

[Jason Tate]

I have a feeling I'd really enjoy The West Wing.

Anyway, major props to Sanders.
First 4 seasons are amazing. Then it kinda starts to fade.

[loveisdead]

The "very, very, very rich" already paid taxes on that income. I am against the estate tax on principle.

Like those people couldn't afford it. These are presumably the same people who are benefiting in a huge way (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/two-year-wall-street-revenue-soars-but-will-it-continue/67924/) from the bail out. Fuck them, it's no skin off their back.

[Jason Tate]

Like those people couldn't afford it. These are presumably the same people who are benefiting in a huge way (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/two-year-wall-street-revenue-soars-but-will-it-continue/67924/) from the bail out. Fuck them, it's no skin off their back.
Who cares if they can afford it? They're dead, anyone who is dead can afford it. On principle, they're getting fucked over simply for making money. I disagree with that premise. Class discrimination. They won't miss a 90% tax either, but it's still wrong. This "fuck the rich" mentality is wrong - this country is already running off their backs. They already paid taxes, I believe it's wrong to tax them again on income they already paid taxes on.

This is one of those conservative arguments I actually agree with on principle. Taxing people just because we can, and they can afford it, is not a good enough argument. I am a supporter of a more progressive income tax (and think tax reform needs to be a priority). But not an estate tax.

[loveisdead]

Who cares if they can afford it. On principle, they're getting fucked over simply for making money. I disagree with that premise. They won't miss a 90% tax either, but it's still wrong. This "fuck the rich" mentality is wrong - this country is already running off their backs. They already paid taxes, I believe it's wrong to tax them again on income they already paid taxes on.

This is one of those conservative arguments I actually agree with on principle. Taxing people just because we can, and they can afford it, is not a good enough argument.

Your argument about them paying taxes on money they already paid taxes on is a good one. Is my argument that I paid taxes so they can have this money (talking about the bailout) a bad one? Do they not owe us a little bit more?

[GeeBee]

Who cares if they can afford it? They're dead, anyone who is dead can afford it. On principle, they're getting fucked over simply for making money. I disagree with that premise. Class discrimination. They won't miss a 90% tax either, but it's still wrong. This "fuck the rich" mentality is wrong - this country is already running off their backs. They already paid taxes, I believe it's wrong to tax them again on income they already paid taxes on.

This is one of those conservative arguments I actually agree with on principle. Taxing people just because we can, and they can afford it, is not a good enough argument. I am a supporter of a more progressive income tax (and think tax reform needs to be a priority). But not an estate tax.
I can agree with everything but the bolded. This country runs off the backs of the very class that is being eviscerated - the middle.

Whoever inherits the estate gets "income" that hasn't yet been taxed...

[Jason Tate]

Your argument about them paying taxes on money they already paid taxes on is a good one. Is my argument that I paid taxes so they can have this money (talking about the bailout) a bad one? Do they not owe us a little bit more?
Theoretically, they already paid a lot more in a progressive tax. You didn't lose any money on the bailout though. And we can't assume that every one paying the estate tax was due to the bailout? I think the ridiculously rich that are involved in something like this: www.givingpledge.org - where they're giving virtually all of their wealth away at death - are my heroes. And I trust they know where their money can help more than I think the government needs another stealth plane.

I'd rather the progressive tax system be set so that they pay the taxes up front, instead of at death. I think that on principle they shouldn't be punished twice. Restructure the system at the forefront. I know they can afford it, my problem with it is purely on principle: they already paid taxes on it.

[loveisdead]

Theoretically, they already paid a lot more in a progressive tax. You didn't lose any money on the bailout though. And we can't assume that every one paying the estate tax was due to the bailout? I think the ridiculously rich that are involved in something like this: www.givingpledge.org - where they're giving virtually all of their wealth away at death - are my heroes. And I trust they know where their money can help more than I think the government needs another stealth plane.

I'd rather the progressive tax system be set so that they pay the taxes up front, instead of at death. I think that on principle they shouldn't be punished twice. Restructure the system at the forefront. I know they can afford it, my problem with it is purely on principle: they already paid taxes on it.

I'll agree with the progressive tax system and leave it at that.

[Jason Tate]

We all know the stats about the top earners paying the gross majority of the tax. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. That's not the middle class. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. That's not the middle class. The country runs on money, and the "rich" are obviously footing the bill. They should. That's how it SHOULD work. No qualms with that. But let's not demonize them.

http://www.american.com/graphics/2007/november/Guess%20Who%20Really%20Pays%20the%2 0Taxes.jpg

Fine, then tax every inheritance as income.

[caveBEAR]

Your argument about them paying taxes on money they already paid taxes on is a good one. Is my argument that I paid taxes so they can have this money (talking about the bailout) a bad one? Do they not owe us a little bit more?

I would even argue that since the upper 2% were pretty much the ones who could play around in the derivatives market hellhole and since they didn't use their wealth to attempt to sway the Bush administration away from the Iraq War, and since they've been getting these tax breaks already since the Bush years and have done virtually next to nothing to help spur the creation of jobs...well, fuck 'em. The deficit didn't shit itself into existence.

[Jason Tate]

I would even argue that since the upper 2% were pretty much the ones who could play around in the derivatives market hellhole and since they didn't use their wealth to attempt to sway the Bush administration away from the Iraq War, and since they've been getting these tax breaks already since the Bush years and have done virtually next to nothing to help spur the creation of jobs...well, fuck 'em. The deficit didn't shit itself into existence.
:hitself:

Just ridiculous. This entire post.

[GeeBee]

We all know the stats about the top earners paying the gross majority of the tax. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. That's not the middle class. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. That's not the middle class. The country runs on money, and the "rich" are obviously footing the bill. They should. That's how it SHOULD work. No qualms with that. But let's not demonize them.



Fine, then tax every inheritance as income.

I'm fine with that.

But the transfer of wealth over the last few decades has gone upward, not downward. Regardless of who pays the largest proportion of tax toward the U.S. Treasury, you're forgetting who pays the largest proportion of discretionary income in taxes...and it's not the rich.

I'm not about demonizing the rich, but you can only tax those who have money to tax. And in the last decade or two, only one section of society has more than enough to spare.

[Jason Tate]

I'm fine with that.

But the transfer of wealth over the last few decades has gone upward, not downward. Regardless of who pays the largest proportion of tax toward the U.S. Treasury, you're forgetting who pays the largest proportion of income in taxes...and it's not the rich.

I'm not about demonizing the rich, but you can only tax those who have money to tax. And in the last decade or two, only one section of society has more than enough to spare.
Um, with a progressive tax system ... the rich still pay the largest proportion of income in taxes.

http://www.macoassociates.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2010-tax-brackets2.jpg

35% is greater than 25%. And yes, the rich will always have more than enough to spare. Because they make more money.

[caveBEAR]

:hitself:

Just ridiculous. This entire post.

Agreed. I don't follow enough financial news to form a worthwhile opinion anyways, so that was expected.

[GeeBee]

Um, with a progressive tax system ... the rich still pay the largest proportion of income in taxes.


My apologies, I was referring to disposable vs. non-disposable income.

[Jason Tate]

My apologies, I was referring to disposable vs. non-disposable income.
Which is going to change from family to family depending on lifestyle choices. And yes, the more money you make - the more disposable income you are going to have. That's the way it should work. I don't believe we should tax people into all having the same amount of disposable income, or even close to that, it would destroy incentives.

I think people need to make better choices with the money they make.

[Scrandon]

Paying the most taxes doesn't mean that the country is running on them. The middle class generates much of the wealth that ends up in their pockets to begin with. They are not superhumans who work many times harder and are many times more productive than everyone else. They are the ones benefiting most from society, they should contribute the most.

[Jason Tate]

Paying the most taxes doesn't mean that the country is running on them. The middle class generates much of the wealth that ends up in their pockets to begin with. They are not superhumans who work many times harder and are many times more productive than everyone else. They are the ones benefiting most from society, they should contribute the most.
If we accept the premise that the country needs money to run, yes it does.

I'm not arguing against a progressive tax. They should, and do, contribute the most.

[GeeBee]

Bear in mind, the largest migration of wealth in history has benefitted only one group of people.

[GeeBee]

If we accept the premise that the country needs money to run, yes it does.

I'm not arguing against a progressive tax. They should, and do, contribute the most.
But the tax code has been progressive for a long time, and yet the stratification continues. Without a middle class, you can't be viable as a nation, regardless of how rich the rich get.

[Jason Tate]

Bear in mind, the largest migration of wealth in history has benefitted only one group of people.
Who else is it supposed to benefit? This makes logical sense.

What matters more is how many people are moving between "classes." Going from 40k jobs to 60k jobs and from 60k jobs to 100k jobs.

[Jason Tate]

But the tax code has been progressive for a long time, and yet the stratification continues. Without a middle class, you can't be viable as a nation, regardless of how rich the rich get.
Not sure what this has to do with anything we're talking about. I have never once said we should eliminate the middle class, or anything of the sort. I've said we shouldn't demonize the rich (and taxing them twice is just stupid). There is no way things get better with that kind of thinking; because it only deepens the trenches.

The tax structure should be re-thought out. And we should add a few more brackets in there.

[Scrandon]

If we accept the premise that the country needs money to run, yes it does.

I'm not arguing against a progressive tax. They should, and do, contribute the most.
I am contending that the middle class does a lot of the work, creates a lot of the value that ends up in thr form of cash in a rich guy's pocket. There's no way anybody in this country is worth a multimillion dollar salary at the same time that people work their asses off in the same industry for 100k. There's no way that rich guy works dozens of times harder or is dozens of times more productive than his 100k counterpart. Therfore, it would appear that the rich guy is earning money on value that the lowly workers have produced.

[Jason Tate]

I am contending that the middle class does a lot of the work, creates a lot of the value that ends up in thr form of cash in a rich guy's pocket. There's no way anybody in this country is worth a multimillion dollar salary at the same time that people work their asses off in the same industry for 100k. There's no way that rich guy works dozens of times harder or is dozens of times more productive than his 100k counterpart. Therfore, it would appear that the rich guy is earning money on value that the lowly workers have produced.
Every class does a lot of work. And yes, there are plenty of ways people are worth multimillion dollar salaries. Exclusivity and the market shows us plenty of people that are worth more than others. This should be obvious. And if someone is making 100k, good for them, that's more than enough to live in this country just fine. And calling a 100k a year guy a "lowly worker" is just hilarious.

It's not about who "works harder" or "is more productive" ... you're not paid on how hard you work. The guy painting lines on the road works "harder" than Lebron James. But while virtually everyone can paint lines ... only a handful of people can do with LBJ does. I'm sure the programmer in the basement works "harder" (and this is where that word becomes oddly subjective - and ignores history) than Steve Jobs. But only 5 people in the world can do with Jobs does. There's a growing misconception that the "boss" just sits up on top of the building doing nothing and benefiting from everyone else.

I feel like this should all be self evident.

[GeeBee]

Who else is it supposed to benefit? This makes logical sense. What matters more is how many people are moving between classes. Going from 40k jobs to 60k jobs and from 60k jobs to 100k jobs.
Completely agree. And that hasn't been happening a whole lot as of the last decade.

[GeeBee]

Every class does a lot of work. And yes, there are plenty of ways people are worth multimillion dollar salaries. Exclusivity and the market shows us plenty of people that are worth more than others. This should be obvious. And if someone is making 100k, good for them, that's more than enough to live in this country just fine. And calling a 100k a year guy a "lowly worker" is just hilarious.

It's not about who "works harder" or "is more productive" ... you're not paid on how hard you work. The guy painting lines on the road works "harder" than Lebron James. But while virtually everyone can paint lines ... only a handful of people can do with LBJ does. I'm sure the programmer in the basement works "harder" (and this is where that word becomes oddly subjective - and ignores history) than Steve Jobs. But only 5 people in the world can do with Jobs does. There's a growing misconception that the "boss" just sits up on top of the building doing nothing and benefiting from everyone else.

I feel like this should all be self evident.
I think we're all arguing two different points. We're simply saying that we disagree that this country runs on the backs of the rich. Without the factory workers who make I-Pads...Steve Jobs' ideas would remain in his head.

[Scrandon]

Every class does a lot of work. And yes, there are plenty of ways people are worth multimillion dollar salaries. Exclusivity and the market shows us plenty of people that are worth more than others. This should be obvious. And if someone is making 100k, good for them, that's more than enough to live in this country just fine. And calling a 100k a year guy a "lowly worker" is just hilarious.

It's not about who "works harder" or "is more productive" ... you're not paid on how hard you work. The guy painting lines on the road works "harder" than Lebron James. But while virtually everyone can paint lines ... only a handful of people can do with LBJ does. I'm sure the programmer in the basement works "harder" (and this is where that word becomes oddly subjective - and ignores history) than Steve Jobs. But only 5 people in the world can do with Jobs does. There's a growing misconception that the "boss" just sits up on top of the building doing nothing and benefiting from everyone else.

I feel like this should all be self evident.
Yea, the thing is, I'm not inclined to believe that there are only 5 people in the world who can do what Steve Jobs does. People are not naturally that unequal. Our society has magnified these inequalities many times over in a way that is just not healthy.

[GeeBee]

Not to mention, LeBron James couldn't spend all the money he makes in 12 lifetimes, regardless of his talent.

[Jason Tate]

Completely agree. And that hasn't been happening a whole lot as of the last decade.
And there are various reasons as to why ... however, I'm not sure how any of it means we should double-tax one group of people. One of the few things I agree with Mankiw on (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/40_npc.pdf).

But hey, as we learn more and more what we're actually spending our tax money on (wooo, sex slaves!!!) ... I'm growing more and more annoyed. As I've repeatedly said, I have no problem with a progressive tax. I have a problem with it being doubled up for no real reason, and (tangent to this) I have a problem with how we're spending the money.

[Jason Tate]

Not to mention, LeBron James couldn't spend all the money he makes in 12 lifetimes, regardless of his talent.
Sure he could. Five years of retirement, an estimated 60% of former NBA players are broke. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsportsillustrated. cnn.com%2Fvault%2Farticle%2Fmagazin e%2FMAG1153364%2Findex.htm&rct=j&q=nba%20players%20retire%20broke&ei=a3QGTdWnLoycsQOBvNTODQ&usg=AFQjCNGvn1D10vF5idhc_E3WXbGiDC7 zLA&sig2=ccfceS_Gkp42drvF1Sh4cg&cad=rja)

[GeeBee]

And there are various reasons as to why ... however, I'm not sure how any of it means we should double-tax one group of people. One of the few things I agree with Mankiw on (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/40_npc.pdf).

But hey, as we learn more and more what we're actually spending our tax money on (wooo, sex slaves!!!) ... I'm growing more and more annoyed. As I've repeatedly said, I have no problem with a progressive tax. I have a problem with it being doubled up for no real reason, and (tangent to this) I have a problem with how we're spending the money.
We agree for the most part. I think it comes down to how much people perceive taxation as a punishment or an area of equality. I get hurt x-amount when I pay, and so I naturally don't want someone who does a helluva lot better than I do to hurt y-amount (proportionally less).
I think a tax on inheritance is a far more reasonable approach than to swoop in and scoop up what's left after someone dies.

[Jason Tate]

I think we're all arguing two different points. We're simply saying that we disagree that this country runs on the backs of the rich. Without the factory workers who make I-Pads...Steve Jobs' ideas would remain in his head.
The factory workers aren't paying any US taxes. Zero.

[GeeBee]

Sure he could. Five years of retirement, an estimated 60% of former NBA players are broke. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsportsillustrated. cnn.com%2Fvault%2Farticle%2Fmagazin e%2FMAG1153364%2Findex.htm&rct=j&q=nba%20players%20retire%20broke&ei=a3QGTdWnLoycsQOBvNTODQ&usg=AFQjCNGvn1D10vF5idhc_E3WXbGiDC7 zLA&sig2=ccfceS_Gkp42drvF1Sh4cg&cad=rja)
I'd call their spending habits into question, then - to your point.

[GeeBee]

The factory workers aren't paying any US taxes. Zero.
Precisely. Shipping jobs overseas does little to ensure an education system that can produce more Steve Jobses.
The labor, however, is still theirs to claim.

[Jason Tate]

Yea, the thing is, I'm not inclined to believe that there are only 5 people in the world who can do what Steve Jobs does. People are not naturally that unequal. Our society has magnified these inequalities many times over in a way that is just not healthy.
Well, you can believe that I suppose. Seeing as there's only one Apple; I'm content with letting reality be the proof. People are different, that's the beauty of the human race -- hell, of evolution in general. How "healthy" it is I suppose is something of a different debate.

[Jason Tate]

Precisely. Shipping jobs overseas does little to ensure an education system that can produce more Steve Jobses.
The labor, however, is still theirs to claim.
I have no idea how those jobs have anything to do with "ensuring an education system." And, in all honesty, I'd argue the education system has little to do with producing someone of Jobs quality.

[GeeBee]

I have no idea how those jobs have anything to do with "ensuring an education system." And, in all honesty, I'd argue the education system has little to do with producing someone of Jobs quality.
Taxes go towards education, and the U.S. as a whole ranked far better in science and math during Jobs' time than it does now, regardless of its effectiveness.

I was simply refuting the point that Jobs could do anything without a labor force...which is likely (factually) paid far far below what he is.

[Jason Tate]

Taxes go towards education, and the U.S. as a whole ranked far better in science and math during Jobs' time than it does now, regardless of its effectiveness.

I was simply refuting the point that Jobs could do anything without a labor force...which is likely (factually) paid far far below what he is.
... Jobs is a drop out.

And the labor force should be paid far below what he is.

[GeeBee]

... Jobs is a drop out.
Haha, touche.

[Jason Tate]

Haha, touche.
Got curious.

With two college dropouts, several graduates of state universities and, not surprisingly, some Ivy Leaguers, America's biggest billionaires are a diverse group indeed.

http://www.successdegrees.com/educationof10richestamericans.html

[GeeBee]

... Jobs is a drop out.

And the labor force should be paid far below what he is.
Below, perhaps. But a living wage at least. (and perhaps they do)

[Jason Tate]

Below, perhaps. But a living wage at least. (and perhaps they do)
Heh. Global free trade does not have easy answers.

The move will raise basic monthly wages to between 1,150 yuan (US$168) and 1,200 yuan (US$176), from the previous 900 yuan (US$132) to 950 yuan (US$139).

http://www.china.org.cn/china/2010-06/07/content_20199987.htm

[Scrandon]

Well, you can believe that I suppose. Seeing as there's only one Apple; I'm content with letting reality be the proof. People are different, that's the beauty of the human race -- hell, of evolution in general. How "healthy" it is I suppose is something of a different debate.
I know people are naturally different. If you read my posts: I am contending that some people are not naturally worth hundreds of times as much as others; that the fact that it is a reality is nothing more than a figment of a schizophrenic system.

But hey, empathy is strongest when the empathizer feels closest to the one in need. So if it helps people sleep at night to believe that they are just that much better than everyone else...

[Jason Tate]

I know people are naturally different. If you read my posts: I am contending that some people are not naturally worth hundreds of times as much as others; that the fact that it is a reality is nothing more than a figment of a schizophrenic system.

But hey, empathy is strongest when the empathizer feels closest to the one in need. So if it helps people sleep at night to believe that they are just that much better than everyone else...
The market disagrees. The fact that others have tried and failed disagrees. The fact that there is only one Steve Jobs disagrees. I don't know what is more natural than a free market in valuation. A subjective quantifying of everyone's "worth"? By who?

No idea what this second paragraph is supposed to say or mean. It has nothing to do with being "better" than anyone else. It has to do with being of more value, usually due to having a more exclusive skill set.

[GeeBee]

The market disagrees. The fact that others have tried and failed disagrees. The fact that there is only one Steve Jobs disagrees. I don't know what is more natural than a free market in valuation. A subjective quantifying of everyone's "worth"? By who?

No idea what this second paragraph is supposed to say or mean. It has nothing to do with being "better" than anyone else. It has to do with being of more value, usually due to having a more exclusive skill set.
But it ignores the factor of where a person started out to begin with. It's easy to be Paris Hilton when you're born...Paris Hilton. While some people are the product of their own sweat, external factors and a good deal of luck have plenty to do with it.
(this is simply a statement, not an argument for/against anything posted above)

[saysmydoctor]

Sure he could. Five years of retirement, an estimated 60% of former NBA players are broke. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsportsillustrated. cnn.com%2Fvault%2Farticle%2Fmagazin e%2FMAG1153364%2Findex.htm&rct=j&q=nba%20players%20retire%20broke&ei=a3QGTdWnLoycsQOBvNTODQ&usg=AFQjCNGvn1D10vF5idhc_E3WXbGiDC7 zLA&sig2=ccfceS_Gkp42drvF1Sh4cg&cad=rja)
How does one spend that much money?

[GeeBee]

How does one spend that much money?
That's what I can't fathom...
I'd buy a comfortable home, a decent car, and throw wads of cash under my mattress, haha.

[Scrandon]

The market disagrees. The fact that others have tried and failed disagrees. The fact that there is only one Steve Jobs disagrees. I don't know what is more natural than a free market in valuation. A subjective quantifying of everyone's "worth"? By who?

No idea what this second paragraph is supposed to say or mean. It has nothing to do with being "better" than anyone else. It has to do with being of more value, usually due to having a more exclusive skill set.
You honestly believe that a CEO alone provides as much value to society as hundreds of his medium to upper level employees? Because that's what they're being paid. That's fucking insane. One person alone is not that special, sorry.

Again, the free market wage shit is bullshit because if I believe I deserve to be paid a $1 million salary, but cannot get it, I still have to work for whatever I can get. People know this, so they would never offer me $1 million to begin with.

[Jason Tate]

But it ignores the factor of where a person started out to begin with. It's easy to be Paris Hilton when you're born...Paris Hilton. While some people are the product of their own sweat, external factors and a good deal of luck have plenty to do with it.
(this is simply a statement, not an argument for/against anything posted above)
I think virtually everyone in that situation agrees. As Warren Buffett often says, he "won the lottery of birth (http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2010/03/31/warren-buffett-on-the-lottery-of-birth/)."

[GeeBee]

I think virtually everyone in that situation agrees. As Warren Buffett often says, he "won the lottery of birth (http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2010/03/31/warren-buffett-on-the-lottery-of-birth/)."
He's my favorite rich person.

[Jason Tate]

You honestly believe that a CEO alone provides as much value to society as hundreds of his medium to upper level employees? Because that's what they're being paid. That's fucking insane. One person alone is not that special, sorry.

Again, the free market wage shit is bullshit because if I believe I deserve to be paid a $1 million salary, but cannot get it, I still have to work for whatever I can get. People know this, so they would never offer me $1 million to begin with.
Well, for one I don't assume that I alone can judge someone's value - which is why I think the market is a fine choice in this case. And, just because it's worth pointing out for our example: Jobs is paid a $1 salary. Most of his money is directly tied to the market.

But yes. I do think he is. For the value to the economy and innovation alone.

What you believe you deserve to be paid has absolutely nothing to do with the market. However, let me point out that you don't have to work for whatever you can get. And if you were able to prove your worth at a higher salary ... you'd be in an exclusive bunch, one of a small handful, and people pay for that exclusivity.

[Jason Tate]

He's my favorite rich person.
This book is so good (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0553384619?tag=absolutepunk-20&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0553384619&adid=13PCVD6QF5A16CM3JJWE&).

[Scrandon]

I think virtually everyone in that situation agrees. As Warren Buffett often says, he "won the lottery of birth (http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2010/03/31/warren-buffett-on-the-lottery-of-birth/)."
Wow. He's awesome.

[Scrandon]

Well, for one I don't assume that I alone can judge someone's value - which is why I think the market is a fine choice in this case. And, just because it's worth pointing out for our example: Jobs is paid a $1 salary. Most of his money is directly tied to the market.Yes. He is one of the responsible few.

But yes. I do think he is. For the value to the economy and innovation alone.
When a CEO retires, the company lives on, usually does at least as well. A new CEO is magically transferred superior management skills that he didn't have before he was officially named CEO?

What you believe you deserve to be paid has absolutely nothing to do with the market. However, let me point out that you don't have to work for whatever you can get. And if you were able to prove your worth at a higher salary ... you'd be in an exclusive bunch, one of a small handful, and people pay for that exclusivity.
What I believe I deserve to be paid is what makes up the supply curve for labor, so yea, it is relevant. And if I have no money in the bank account, I do have to take whatever I can get, even if I personally believe it's not worth my time. I don't get why that is even a question.