"Feel the Bern": The BERNIE SANDERS Thread

[TheCommissioner]

Um, it doesn't matter the tax breaks if corporations can pay workers 1 dollar a day and have little regulation in poorer countries.

exactly, no amount of tax breaks will save the company the money it does paying $2 a day wages in some random country across the ocean

 

[Thundercrack85]

Penalize companies for leaving. Simple as that.

 

[TheCommissioner]

How do you legally do that?

 

[kedrell]

Well corporations aren't individual citizens so they don't have the same rights as an individual citizen does. They aren't equal before the law but rather exist in the public marketplace which doesn't belong to them solely but rather to everyone. So you can get away with things against corporations that who'd be otherwise unconstitutional if done against private citizens. Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce so they can levy taxes to make it difficult for these corporations to be profitable if they go overseas. It's the old carrot & the stick routine. Thing is you can only push it so far before they(the rich who own & run these corporations) would simply fold up shop and sit on their assets while the lower classes scuttle about in poverty. So sure, it's a balancing act. They need to be able to still earn a profit here otherwise why bother?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Corporations are people, my friend. Just ask Mitt.

 

[Marvolo]

How do you legally do that?

Tax them more heavily.

 

[kedrell]

Corporations are people, my friend. Just ask Mitt.

They have some similar rights but not all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Legislation_in_the_United_States

And screw Mitt Romney.

 

[summerteeth]

This is such a dumb argument. Regardless of how much you lower the taxes, there will always be one tax haven or another which will charge next to nothing on corporate profits. Does that mean you start giving corporations a free pass by acting like the lowest bidder? Or are you so desperate for jobs that you are willing to risk American workers to the same kind of "indentured servitude" as their counterparts in China? Do you what that sounds like? It sounds like it is the corporations here that are dictating the terms, not you and when they have imposed upon you the fact that they have the bargaining power in this negotiation, then you've already lost.

What is mind-boggling to me is that these words are being said by citizens of the largest and most influential economy in the world. Other countries offer tax benefits and other financial perks because they need the transfer of wealth and technology you get from FDIs to become prosperous economies. If you knew how corporations actually think, they would pay for the privilege to do business in the U.S if the American government starts taxing corporate domestic earnings being remitted abroad as it ideally should. Make the remittance tax high enough that there is as little incentive as possible to send money to foreign tax havens.

And this is just one solution off the top of my head. With more data, one can easily come up with many effective and sophisticated proposals to keep these multinational corporations on the leash. Yes, it would be inexplicably hypocritical of the U.S to implement such forms of taxation and capital controls after imposing The Washington Consensus on so many countries (and bringing them to the point of complete economic ruin) and then turn around to contradict their own principles now that it has started to adversely affect them as it did others but it is time the U.S stop suffering from its own broken remedies if it wants to get its affairs in order. Heck, even the IMF, after decades of squeezing and choking other nations during their most dire times of need by forcing them to liberalize and privatize (and eventually destabilize) their economies in exchange for financial assistance, is now eating humble pie tacitly acknowledging capital controls (when properly implemented) as a viable tool for averting financial and economic crises after witnessing the success of such policies in Chile, Malaysia, Spain and Iceland, among many others.

The average voter might not know this, but some of the most deeply-held beliefs and assumptions of classical Western laissez-faire capitalism about how economies work and interact with each other have either been successfully challenged or in some cases, outright debunked altogether. And this is starting to reflect in graduate-level study of economics, finance and business around the world. It is the outdated understanding of the old guard and the general population about the subject that is acting as inertia to a paradigm shift here.

How is it a dumb argument? Capital flight is real, go ask France. You blasted Milton Friedman earlier, but without monetarism this could have easily been a depression. While too much faith was put into markets which helped lead to the recession let's not go crazy and throw the whole thing out.

Bernanke was practically a disciple of Friedman and he pretty much led the recovery with little help from Congress and the President. That and the fact that free trade across the world helped lessen the economic downturn. He was proven right on so many counts and with little action from the US government it was monetarism, free trade and free markets that were the drivers for our economic recovery.

 

[herakles]

I don't know is this is redundant. I have a question to all the liberals here. What do you feel about Hilary to using a noted feminist and a female icon to pull the gender card to pander for female votes.

I don't recall Obama ever pulling the race card while I do know people who voted for him simply so we could have a Black President.

I find what Hilary is doing here to be extremely insulting to the Presidency.

Your thoughts?

 

[kedrell]

Apparently if you're a woman and vote for Sanders you're a gender traitor.

I'm 100% anti-Bernie and even I think that's crap.

 

[herakles]

Apparently if you're a woman and vote for Sanders you're a gender traitor.

I'm 100% anti-Bernie and even I think that's crap.

Will this BS change your vote?

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

I don't know is this is redundant. I have a question to all the liberals here. What do you feel about Hilary to using a noted feminist and a female icon to pull the gender card to pander for female votes.

I don't recall Obama ever pulling the race card while I do know people who voted for him simply so we could have a Black President.

I find what Hilary is doing here to be extremely insulting to the Presidency.

Your thoughts?

I have no issue with it because it's actually germane to the election whereas Obama's race really wasn't. Republican policies typically seek to infringe on women's reproductive rights, they foster the gender gap in income, and try to uphold stricter parental leave policies, etc.

Frankly, I've never understood why any woman would vote Republican?

 

[herakles]

I have no issue with it because it's actually germane to the election. Republican policies typically seek to infringe on women's reproductive rights, they foster the gender gap in income, and try to uphold stricter parental leave policies, etc.

Frankly, I've never understood why any woman would vote Republican?

Bernie is a Democrat. These people were saying Women belong in hell if they vote for Bernie and not Hilary. Remember Hilary has been bashing all the women who her husband has sexually harassed over the years.


Also you think it is ok to use the race/gender/sexual orientation card for anything? I feel that only weak people use these things to gain an edge they would not have with out it.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

Bernie is a Democrat. These people were saying Women belong in hell if they vote for Bernie and not Hilary. Remember Hilary has been bashing all the women who her husband has sexually harassed over the years.

I didn't see that. I'm OK with her using it as a point against Repubs since their policies typically have a negative impact on women. Using it against Bernie makes little sense, since he generally supports the same things she does regarding those areas. If she's trying to start a "boys vs girls" thing with Bernie just for the sake of it, then it's dumb.

Also you think it is ok to use the race/gender/sexual orientation card for anything? I feel that only weak people use these things to gain an edge they would not have with out it.

As I said, if it's actually germane to the election and the other party has policies that negatively impact those groups, then yes it's OK because your basically appealing to a constituency on an issue that can impact them. Saying "I'm a woman and understand your struggles and will work to address our issues of A, B, and C if you vote for me" is fine.

However if it's merely, "I have a vagina, and so do you, so vote for me!" then it's stupid and pandering.

 

[herakles]

I didn't see that. I'm OK with her using it as a point against Repubs since their policies typically have a negative impact on women. Using it against Bernie makes little sense, since he generally supports the same things she does regarding those areas. If she's trying to start a "boys vs girls" thing with Bernie just for the sake of it, then it's dumb.



As I said, if it's actually germane to the election and the other party has policies that negatively impact those groups, then yes it's OK because your basically appealing to a constituency on an issue that can impact them. Saying "I'm a woman and understand your struggles and will work to address our issues of A, B, and C if you vote for me" is fine.

However if it's merely, "I have a vagina, and so do you, so vote for me!" then it's stupid and pandering.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016...men-for-not-supporting-Clinton/3461454854190/

Both women scolded women who would dare vote against Hilary in favor of Bernie.

Hilary is scared she is going to get her ass kicked again. She will do anything including pulling "I am a woman too so vote me ladies" card

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I don't know is this is redundant. I have a question to all the liberals here. What do you feel about Hilary to using a noted feminist and a female icon to pull the gender card to pander for female votes.

I don't recall Obama ever pulling the race card while I do know people who voted for him simply so we could have a Black President.

I find what Hilary is doing here to be extremely insulting to the Presidency.

Your thoughts?

(Disclaimer, 24 yr old male, pro-Bernie, anti-establishment).

I think its complete horse-****. Been keeping my opinion pretty close to the chest on this one though. Males who support Bernie already have enough of a stigma. Besides, I am very proud of my fellow Bernie supporters (who are females of all ages) in their reaction/outrage. I'm happy to sit back and watch Hillary destroy her own campaign all by herself.

She tried the same with "Obama boys" in 2008 though:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...ers-created-the-sexist-Obama-boy-No-seriously

 

[herakles]

(Disclaimer, 24 yr old male, pro-Bernie, anti-establishment).

I think its complete horse-****. Been keeping my opinion pretty close to the chest on this one though. Males who support Bernie already have enough of a stigma. Besides, I am very proud of my fellow Bernie supporters (who are females of all ages) in their reaction/outrage. I'm happy to sit back and watch Hillary destroy her own campaign all by herself.

She tried the same with "Obama boys" in 2008 though:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...ers-created-the-sexist-Obama-boy-No-seriously

I personally think Hilary is VERY scared of Bernie! She is so scared that she is tugged HARD on the Feminist/Female cord!

 

[kedrell]

Will this BS change your vote?

No, I was never going to vote Democrat. All the guys like Webb and O'Malley that I might have been able to stomach have dropped out so I'm either voting GOP or 3rd party depending on how things shape up from here. But I'm 100% anti-Hillary as well.

That said, the argument her people are making regarding gender is pure BS and smacks of desperation.

 

[Fenrir]

How is it a dumb argument? Capital flight is real, go ask France. You blasted Milton Friedman earlier, but without monetarism this could have easily been a depression. While too much faith was put into markets which helped lead to the recession let's not go crazy and throw the whole thing out.

Capital flight and corporate tax avoidance are two very different things. Capital flight is when you have overseas investors in your country transferring their wealth to other destinations for a better rate of return. In such cases, governments should rightfully not impose any restrictions on capital flows as the capital wasn't theirs to begin with. This same principle does not apply to corporations like Google and Apple.

And don't even get me started about Friedman and the financial crisis. It was precisely his idea to let markets run amok that the global financial infrastructure imploded in 2007-2009 (and many times before too in other countries and in the U.S, but just on not as big a scale). Talk of deregulation and letting the market have its way was rampant and everyone was turning a blind eye to the massive conflicts of interest between financial institutions, ratings agencies and government regulators.

Finally, people have blown the effectiveness of monetarism out of proportion. There have been countless research papers till date that have refuted many of Milton's standard arguments such as the efficient markets hypothesis and the suggestion that monetary policy is the main determinant of economic growth. It is staggering that the biggest beneficiaries of a SOCIALIZED government bailout are the biggest proponents of government non-interventionism and nobody calls them out on the blatant and sickening hypocrisy.

Bernanke was practically a disciple of Friedman and he pretty much led the recovery with little help from Congress and the President. That and the fact that free trade across the world helped lessen the economic downturn. He was proven right on so many counts and with little action from the US government it was monetarism, free trade and free markets that were the drivers for our economic recovery.

Ah, Bernanke. The U.S would have been in much better shape if he hadn't initiated his ******ed quantitative easing program that ultimately ended up primarily financing the emerging markets boom instead of reviving the comatose U.S economy. He should have implement negative interest rates (up to -3 to -4%) that many eminent economists such as Mankiw and Krugman were calling for at the time that would have mobilized capital and resulted in a much speedier and robust recovery. Even now, more than 6 years after the financial crisis corporations are literally sitting on trillions of dollars worth of idle cash and instead of making investments, they are engaging in share buybacks to boost their stock price and leveraged buyouts.

Do yourself a favor and read up on the history of financial and economic crashes of the past 50 years. That alone would be sufficient to dispel any misplaced notions about the boons of unrestricted capitalism.

 

[summerteeth]

Capital flight and corporate tax avoidance are two very different things. Capital flight is when you have overseas investors in your country transferring their wealth to other destinations for a better rate of return. In such cases, governments should rightfully not impose any restrictions on capital flows as the capital wasn't theirs to begin with. This same principle does not apply to corporations like Google and Apple.

Well, Chaseater was just talking about increasing taxes not tax avoidance. Overseas investors choosing other countries is one type of capital flight, but wealthy individuals leaving would also be a form of capital flight.

[And don't even get me started about Friedman and the financial crisis. It was precisely his idea to let markets run amok that the global financial infrastructure imploded in 2007-2009 (and many times before too in other countries and in the U.S, but just on not as big a scale). Talk of deregulation and letting the market have its way was rampant and everyone was turning a blind eye to the massive conflicts of interest between financial institutions, ratings agencies and government regulators.

Finally, people have blown the effectiveness of monetarism out of proportion. There have been countless research papers till date that have refuted many of Milton's standard arguments such as the efficient markets hypothesis and the suggestion that monetary policy is the main determinant of economic growth. It is staggering that the biggest beneficiaries of a SOCIALIZED government bailout are the biggest proponents of government non-interventionism and nobody calls them out on the blatant and sickening hypocrisy.



Ah, Bernanke. The U.S would have been in much better shape if he hadn't initiated his ******ed quantitative easing program that ultimately ended up primarily financing the emerging markets boom instead of reviving the comatose U.S economy. He should have implement negative interest rates (up to -3 to -4%) that many eminent economists such as Mankiw and Krugman were calling for at the time that would have mobilized capital and resulted in a much speedier and robust recovery. Even now, more than 6 years after the financial crisis corporations are literally sitting on trillions of dollars worth of idle cash and instead of making investments, they are engaging in share buybacks to boost their stock price and leveraged buyouts.

Do yourself a favor and read up on the history of financial and economic crashes of the past 50 years. That alone would be sufficient to dispel any misplaced notions about the boons of unrestricted capitalism.

It was mainly after QE2 that went to emerging markets and while it wasn't as successful as QE1 it still did its part. I don't see how you can argue against QE1 it had a tremendous impact on the recovery. It's no surprise that the US and the UK had two of the strongest recoveries and were the some of the first to implement quantitative easing. I'm curious as to what you think led to the recovery than considering you are so down on QE and free markets.

Please, I am well aware of economic crashes over the years.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Watching Hillary attempt to hijack Bernie's message last night was cringe worthy to say the least.

 

[AnneFan]

Watching Hillary attempt to hijack Bernie's message last night was cringe worthy to say the least.

She's a joke.

 

[kedrell]

There's a reason she lost the trustworthiness vote by 9 to 1.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I don't know is this is redundant. I have a question to all the liberals here. What do you feel about Hilary to using a noted feminist and a female icon to pull the gender card to pander for female votes.

I don't recall Obama ever pulling the race card while I do know people who voted for him simply so we could have a Black President.

I find what Hilary is doing here to be extremely insulting to the Presidency.

Your thoughts?

I think what she's doing by playing the gender card is absolutely garbage. I'm not opposed whatsoever to a woman president. I'm just opposed to this one. My vote for Bernie has nothing to do with gender. It has everything to do with his policies and who he is.

 

[herakles]

No, I was never going to vote Democrat. All the guys like Webb and O'Malley that I might have been able to stomach have dropped out so I'm either voting GOP or 3rd party depending on how things shape up from here. But I'm 100% anti-Hillary as well.

That said, the argument her people are making regarding gender is pure BS and smacks of desperation.

LOL. I thought you were because my question was geared towards Democrats.