Bernie Sanders for President

mrussel1

The 12th amendment effectively rules out a three party system. Can't work without everything going to the House like the 1824 election.

Jearlpam0925

It's almost as if it wasn't for Bernie supporters Bernie might have had a chance...

PJ_Soul said:

Just going to leave this here.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/a_letter_to_a_bernie_or_bust_voter.html?utm_source=web&utm_medium=twitter

Great article, by the way.

i_lov_it

Bernie hardly gets a mention on the News over here...it seems to be only about Hillary and Trump...

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

HA...."nearly crushed the Canadian spirit". Could be the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards.

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

HA...."nearly crushed the Canadian spirit". Could be the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards.

Er, glad I could make you laugh. It was more a figure of speech (thought that would be obvious), but there is still some meaning behind it. Didn't you notice the immediate change among most Canadians the day Harper left office and ever since? Most people did and do, from what I've heard and read and felt and observed. It is very palpable.

lukin2006

mrussel1 said:

The

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Billy Corgan criticizes Sanders and his supporters:

http://www.alternativenation.net/billy-corgan-criticizes-bernie-sanders-socialism/

I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.

Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.

i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...

in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...

It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.

Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?

It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.

Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.

You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.

Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.

In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

HA...."nearly crushed the Canadian spirit". Could be the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards.

Er, glad I could make you laugh. It was more a figure of speech (thought that would be obvious), but there is still some meaning behind it. Didn't you notice the immediate change among most Canadians the day Harper left office and ever since? Most people did and do, from what I've heard and read and felt and observed. It is very palpable.

We must travel in a very different circle of Canadian friends.

mrussel1

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

The

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Billy Corgan criticizes Sanders and his supporters:

http://www.alternativenation.net/billy-corgan-criticizes-bernie-sanders-socialism/

I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.

Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.

i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...

in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...

It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.

Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?

It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.

Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.

You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.

Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.

In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.

I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.

benjs

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

HA...."nearly crushed the Canadian spirit". Could be the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards.

Er, glad I could make you laugh. It was more a figure of speech (thought that would be obvious), but there is still some meaning behind it. Didn't you notice the immediate change among most Canadians the day Harper left office and ever since? Most people did and do, from what I've heard and read and felt and observed. It is very palpable.

We must travel in a very different circle of Canadian friends.

I'm with PJ_Soul on this one.

lukin2006

mrussel1 said:

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

The

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Billy Corgan criticizes Sanders and his supporters:

http://www.alternativenation.net/billy-corgan-criticizes-bernie-sanders-socialism/

I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.

Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.

i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...

in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...

It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.

Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?

It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.

Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.

You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.

Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.

In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.

I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.

We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.

mrussel1

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

The

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Billy Corgan criticizes Sanders and his supporters:

http://www.alternativenation.net/billy-corgan-criticizes-bernie-sanders-socialism/

I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.

Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.

i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...

in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...

It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.

Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?

It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.

Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.

You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.

Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.

In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.

I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.

We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.

I said earlier that three+ relevant parties will not happen. And what you are recommending is a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers expressly created a system to avoid that.

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

HA...."nearly crushed the Canadian spirit". Could be the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards.

Er, glad I could make you laugh. It was more a figure of speech (thought that would be obvious), but there is still some meaning behind it. Didn't you notice the immediate change among most Canadians the day Harper left office and ever since? Most people did and do, from what I've heard and read and felt and observed. It is very palpable.

We must travel in a very different circle of Canadian friends.

Well duh. But my entire family is right wing, and they are willing to admit the difference as well. But also look at all the opinion polls and everything too. I don't just go off of what my friends happen to say.

PJ_Soul

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

The

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Billy Corgan criticizes Sanders and his supporters:

http://www.alternativenation.net/billy-corgan-criticizes-bernie-sanders-socialism/

I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.

Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.

i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...

in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...

It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.

Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?

It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.

Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.

You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.

Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.

In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.

I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.

We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.

Not if they have anything to do with civil or human rights.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

The

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Billy Corgan criticizes Sanders and his supporters:

http://www.alternativenation.net/billy-corgan-criticizes-bernie-sanders-socialism/

I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.

Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.

i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...

in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...

It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.

Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?

It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.

Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.

You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.

Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.

In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.

I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.

We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.

Not if they have anything to do with civil or human rights.

Excellent point. When Loving vs VA was decided, 80% of Americans were against inter racial marriage

jeffbr

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

The

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Billy Corgan criticizes Sanders and his supporters:

http://www.alternativenation.net/billy-corgan-criticizes-bernie-sanders-socialism/

I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.

Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.

i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...

in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...

It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.

Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?

It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.

Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.

You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.

Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.

In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.

I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.

We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.

Not if they have anything to do with civil or human rights.

Excellent point. When Loving vs VA was decided, 80% of Americans were against inter racial marriage

I won't be a proponent of direct democracy until we're rid of religion, bigotry and stupidity.

mrussel1

jeffbr said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

The

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Billy Corgan criticizes Sanders and his supporters:

http://www.alternativenation.net/billy-corgan-criticizes-bernie-sanders-socialism/

I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.

Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.

i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...

in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...

It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.

Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?

It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.

Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.

You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.

Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.

In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.

I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.

We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.

Not if they have anything to do with civil or human rights.

Excellent point. When Loving vs VA was decided, 80% of Americans were against inter racial marriage

I won't be a proponent of direct democracy until we're rid of religion, bigotry and stupidity.

A Trump administration should solve all three, so get ready.

jeffbr

mrussel1 said:

jeffbr said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

The

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Billy Corgan criticizes Sanders and his supporters:

http://www.alternativenation.net/billy-corgan-criticizes-bernie-sanders-socialism/

I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.

Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.

i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...

in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...

It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.

Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?

It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.

Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.

You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.

Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.

In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.

I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.

We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.

Not if they have anything to do with civil or human rights.

Excellent point. When Loving vs VA was decided, 80% of Americans were against inter racial marriage

I won't be a proponent of direct democracy until we're rid of religion, bigotry and stupidity.

A Trump administration should solve all three, so get ready.

i_lov_it

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

The

lukin2006 said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Billy Corgan criticizes Sanders and his supporters:

http://www.alternativenation.net/billy-corgan-criticizes-bernie-sanders-socialism/

I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.

Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.

i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...

in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...

It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.

Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?

It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.

Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.

You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.

Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.

In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.

I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.

We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.

Not if they have anything to do with civil or human rights.

Well those privileged Politicians are our Representatives...

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

HA...."nearly crushed the Canadian spirit". Could be the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards.

Er, glad I could make you laugh. It was more a figure of speech (thought that would be obvious), but there is still some meaning behind it. Didn't you notice the immediate change among most Canadians the day Harper left office and ever since? Most people did and do, from what I've heard and read and felt and observed. It is very palpable.

We must travel in a very different circle of Canadian friends.

Well duh. But my entire family is right wing, and they are willing to admit the difference as well. But also look at all the opinion polls and everything too. I don't just go off of what my friends happen to say.

I don't know...maybe I'm just surrounded by a bunch of "do'ers". We tend to not live or die by who our leader is because on the whole we take responsibility for how our lives play out for us and our families. I guess if you depend on your government to determine your self-worth I can see how the last election prevented your Canadian spirit from being crushed.

i_lov_it

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.

HA...."nearly crushed the Canadian spirit". Could be the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards.

Er, glad I could make you laugh. It was more a figure of speech (thought that would be obvious), but there is still some meaning behind it. Didn't you notice the immediate change among most Canadians the day Harper left office and ever since? Most people did and do, from what I've heard and read and felt and observed. It is very palpable.

We must travel in a very different circle of Canadian friends.

Well duh. But my entire family is right wing, and they are willing to admit the difference as well. But also look at all the opinion polls and everything too. I don't just go off of what my friends happen to say.

I don't know...maybe I'm just surrounded by a bunch of "do'ers". We tend to not live or die by who our leader is because on the whole we take responsibility for how our lives play out for us and our families. I guess if you depend on your government to determine your self-worth I can see how the last election prevented your Canadian spirit from being crushed.

Actually this reminded me of something I saw recently...how People or Society in general want to have an Authority figure...hence Presidents...Prime Ministers...Kings and Queens...

I mean the perception of this could be wrong and it could be simply viewed as just wanting a representative of Society...just a thought...