The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
If you'd play "plenty" I say society should be a lot more Berniefied than it is, like the objectively plenty-paying parts of the world. Or you really need to scale back on those military expenses and presidential golf trips.cincybearcat said:
I pay plenty. Plenty.ecdanc said:
So your family makes at LEAST 150,000/year. I prefer expropriation over taxes, but in the meantime, yeah, you should pay more.cincybearcat said:
When I did the calculator on Sanders page just for health care, my family would pay an additional $6000/year in taxes. YippeeeeeeSpiritual_Chaos said:
Calling someone wanting to help people, and actually having ideals and a view of a better future "horrible" (and instead voting for someone who doesn't even touch climate change in times like these) is... yeah...And yes I think Sanders is horrible. His policies would cost me a hell of a lot of money to the point where I would actual question whether or not I would be able to pay my current bills and live in my house. I realize you only have to worry about you but I have an entire family to take care of.
But anyways. Where do you get this information about not surviving financially with him as president?
Go to hell Bernie...but not just for that.Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
I like those, and it's similar to the GB Packers. There are utility cooperatives today (here's a list, there are close to a hundred in the US it seems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_utility_cooperatives) and also insurance cooperatives. When claims are lower than expected, it is paid back to the members. That's a very rough explanation, but they exist all over the country.Spiritual_Chaos said:
I mean like the swedish supermarket chain "COOP", owned by its members/costumers:mrussel1 said:
You said cooperatively owned businesses. Are you referring to a public/private ownership, such as when the Obama administration bought millions of shares of GM? Or do you mean some sort of VC type government investment (which they do here in the States) or what?Spiritual_Chaos said:
What do you mean?mrussel1 said:
Cooperative between what entities?Spiritual_Chaos said:Nothing wrong with adding some cooperatively owned businesses, a flair of syndicalism etc to freshen things up.KF (Swedish: Kooperativa Förbundet, "Swedish Co-operative Union") is a federation of consumer co-operatives in Sweden[1] and a retail group, with groceries as its core business.
Or the bank/insurance company "Länsförsäkringar", also owned by its members/customers:Länsförsäkringar, or literally County Insurance, is a Swedish group of customer owned insurance companies. The group consists of 23 independent companies, one in each of the counties of Sweden (pre 1998 division), that cooperate under a common brand name. Länsförsäkringar Bank, is a bank which was started in the 1990s and is operated by the group.
A consumers' co-operative is an enterprise owned by consumers and managed democratically which aims at fulfilling the needs and aspirations of their members.[1] They operate within the market system, independently of the state, as a form of mutual aid, oriented toward service rather than pecuniary profit.[2] Consumers' cooperatives often take the form of retail outlets owned and operated by their consumers, such as food co-ops.[3] However, there are many types of consumers' cooperatives, operating in areas such as health care, insurance, housing, utilities and personal finance (including credit unions).
Or as another example, kindergardens that are owned/run by the parents.Parent cooperatives are a form of operation between private and public, for schools, leisure homes and preschools. The opportunity for parents to run schools and day care centers with state or municipal grants became more common in Sweden during the 1980s.
During the 1980s, there was an extensive political debate about whether nurseries could be run in corporation/Stock company form, or only in the form of parent cooperatives
0 -
Yes. I get money back from Länsföräkringar (mentioned above) every year. And historically the supermarket COOP (mentioned above) has been better than the private moneypiling competitors when it comes to wages, employer terms, they were a lot quicker with bringing in eco- and vegetarian products etc. Because the members could directly affect the business. And the business could be run with other values than "increase profit".mrussel1 said:
I like those, and it's similar to the GB Packers. There are utility cooperatives today (here's a list, there are close to a hundred in the US it seems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_utility_cooperatives) and also insurance cooperatives. When claims are lower than expected, it is paid back to the members. That's a very rough explanation, but they exist all over the country.Spiritual_Chaos said:
I mean like the swedish supermarket chain "COOP", owned by its members/costumers:mrussel1 said:
You said cooperatively owned businesses. Are you referring to a public/private ownership, such as when the Obama administration bought millions of shares of GM? Or do you mean some sort of VC type government investment (which they do here in the States) or what?Spiritual_Chaos said:
What do you mean?mrussel1 said:
Cooperative between what entities?Spiritual_Chaos said:Nothing wrong with adding some cooperatively owned businesses, a flair of syndicalism etc to freshen things up.KF (Swedish: Kooperativa Förbundet, "Swedish Co-operative Union") is a federation of consumer co-operatives in Sweden[1] and a retail group, with groceries as its core business.
Or the bank/insurance company "Länsförsäkringar", also owned by its members/customers:Länsförsäkringar, or literally County Insurance, is a Swedish group of customer owned insurance companies. The group consists of 23 independent companies, one in each of the counties of Sweden (pre 1998 division), that cooperate under a common brand name. Länsförsäkringar Bank, is a bank which was started in the 1990s and is operated by the group.
A consumers' co-operative is an enterprise owned by consumers and managed democratically which aims at fulfilling the needs and aspirations of their members.[1] They operate within the market system, independently of the state, as a form of mutual aid, oriented toward service rather than pecuniary profit.[2] Consumers' cooperatives often take the form of retail outlets owned and operated by their consumers, such as food co-ops.[3] However, there are many types of consumers' cooperatives, operating in areas such as health care, insurance, housing, utilities and personal finance (including credit unions).
Or as another example, kindergardens that are owned/run by the parents.Parent cooperatives are a form of operation between private and public, for schools, leisure homes and preschools. The opportunity for parents to run schools and day care centers with state or municipal grants became more common in Sweden during the 1980s.
During the 1980s, there was an extensive political debate about whether nurseries could be run in corporation/Stock company form, or only in the form of parent cooperatives
I think it is a neat option for a business structure. One that is in its core more just and aren't all about stockholders and the top getting rich and fat. Not to sound like a Marx-reading college student.
So more of that in my society. And less communism and capitalistic greed.Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Well you're not married right? I actually think that this is the big difference where Millenials are 'falling behind' in the economic curve. I believe they are marrying later or not marrying at all, in a way that is much different than X's or Boomers. I bought my first house at 28, and I was married. I can assure you that I would have never been able to buy a house if I was single. Marriage and joint income creates the scale that really allows people to accelerate up the economic ladder. While I'm not advocating marrying for economic reasons, there is certainly an extra benefit financially to do so.Spiritual_Chaos said:0 -
Swedes don't marry. We just live together. "Samboförhållande", as in living together but not married.mrussel1 said:
Well you're not married right? I actually think that this is the big difference where Millenials are 'falling behind' in the economic curve. I believe they are marrying later or not marrying at all, in a way that is much different than X's or Boomers. I bought my first house at 28, and I was married. I can assure you that I would have never been able to buy a house if I was single. Marriage and joint income creates the scale that really allows people to accelerate up the economic ladder. While I'm not advocating marrying for economic reasons, there is certainly an extra benefit financially to do so.Spiritual_Chaos said:Samboförhållande are very common in the Nordic countries and in some other European countries. In 2016, more than half of all newborn children had unmarried parents, and in Sweden every year since 1993, more children have been born to unmarried parents than to married parents.
But yeah, obviously sharing rent and all costs related to living makes you financially more free. But you can also end up in hell.Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Fair enough, but you guys do buy houses together, right? That's more my point, that joint income affords the ability to move up economically, and many Millenials are starting that process later in life, or not at all in the US.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Swedes don't marry. We just live together. "Samboförhållande", as in living together but not married.mrussel1 said:
Well you're not married right? I actually think that this is the big difference where Millenials are 'falling behind' in the economic curve. I believe they are marrying later or not marrying at all, in a way that is much different than X's or Boomers. I bought my first house at 28, and I was married. I can assure you that I would have never been able to buy a house if I was single. Marriage and joint income creates the scale that really allows people to accelerate up the economic ladder. While I'm not advocating marrying for economic reasons, there is certainly an extra benefit financially to do so.Spiritual_Chaos said:Samboförhållande are very common in the Nordic countries and in some other European countries. In 2016, more than half of all newborn children had unmarried parents, and in Sweden every year since 1993, more children have been born to unmarried parents than to married parents.
But yeah, obviously sharing rent and all costs related to living makes you financially more free. But you can also end up in hell.0 -
150k combined really isn’t a lot when you have kids. And yes captain, it is more thank 30k. Actually it is 120,000k more.oftenreading said:I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
We can all add, and subtract too! That wasn’t the point.mcgruff10 said:
150k combined really isn’t a lot when you have kids. And yes captain, it is more thank 30k. Actually it is 120,000k more.oftenreading said:my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
mcgruff10 said:
150k combined really isn’t a lot when you have kids. And yes captain, it is more thank 30k. Actually it is 120,000k more.oftenreading said:
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Yes. People buy houses and flats.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but you guys do buy houses together, right? That's more my point, that joint income affords the ability to move up economically, and many Millenials are starting that process later in life, or not at all in the US.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Swedes don't marry. We just live together. "Samboförhållande", as in living together but not married.mrussel1 said:
Well you're not married right? I actually think that this is the big difference where Millenials are 'falling behind' in the economic curve. I believe they are marrying later or not marrying at all, in a way that is much different than X's or Boomers. I bought my first house at 28, and I was married. I can assure you that I would have never been able to buy a house if I was single. Marriage and joint income creates the scale that really allows people to accelerate up the economic ladder. While I'm not advocating marrying for economic reasons, there is certainly an extra benefit financially to do so.Spiritual_Chaos said:Samboförhållande are very common in the Nordic countries and in some other European countries. In 2016, more than half of all newborn children had unmarried parents, and in Sweden every year since 1993, more children have been born to unmarried parents than to married parents.
But yeah, obviously sharing rent and all costs related to living makes you financially more free. But you can also end up in hell.
What do you mean by "move up economically", just in the sense of having more money left after all the bills are paid, or in some other more intricate/specific economic theory-way?Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Yes, 150k combined is a lot even when you have kids.mcgruff10 said:
150k combined really isn’t a lot when you have kids. And yes captain, it is more thank 30k. Actually it is 120,000k more.oftenreading said:
0 -
Maybe in Kansas but definitely not New Jersey.ecdanc said:
Yes, 150k combined is a lot even when you have kids.mcgruff10 said:
150k combined really isn’t a lot when you have kids. And yes captain, it is more thank 30k. Actually it is 120,000k more.oftenreading said:I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
I really like client co-op structures, and agree about the values enforcement side of things. If I start my own consulting firm though, I've long figured I'd probably do it employee-owned; client-owned just seems too difficult logistically to be worth it. Like you mentioned, the challenge is then figuring out how to assure a structure that promotes governance by a set of strong values and principles.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Yes. I get money back from Länsföräkringar (mentioned above) every year. And historically the supermarket COOP (mentioned above) has been better than the private moneypiling competitors when it comes to wages, employer terms, they were a lot quicker with bringing in eco- and vegetarian products etc. Because the members could directly affect the business. And the business could be run with other values than "increase profit".mrussel1 said:
I like those, and it's similar to the GB Packers. There are utility cooperatives today (here's a list, there are close to a hundred in the US it seems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_utility_cooperatives) and also insurance cooperatives. When claims are lower than expected, it is paid back to the members. That's a very rough explanation, but they exist all over the country.Spiritual_Chaos said:
I mean like the swedish supermarket chain "COOP", owned by its members/costumers:mrussel1 said:
You said cooperatively owned businesses. Are you referring to a public/private ownership, such as when the Obama administration bought millions of shares of GM? Or do you mean some sort of VC type government investment (which they do here in the States) or what?Spiritual_Chaos said:
What do you mean?mrussel1 said:
Cooperative between what entities?Spiritual_Chaos said:Nothing wrong with adding some cooperatively owned businesses, a flair of syndicalism etc to freshen things up.KF (Swedish: Kooperativa Förbundet, "Swedish Co-operative Union") is a federation of consumer co-operatives in Sweden[1] and a retail group, with groceries as its core business.
Or the bank/insurance company "Länsförsäkringar", also owned by its members/customers:Länsförsäkringar, or literally County Insurance, is a Swedish group of customer owned insurance companies. The group consists of 23 independent companies, one in each of the counties of Sweden (pre 1998 division), that cooperate under a common brand name. Länsförsäkringar Bank, is a bank which was started in the 1990s and is operated by the group.
A consumers' co-operative is an enterprise owned by consumers and managed democratically which aims at fulfilling the needs and aspirations of their members.[1] They operate within the market system, independently of the state, as a form of mutual aid, oriented toward service rather than pecuniary profit.[2] Consumers' cooperatives often take the form of retail outlets owned and operated by their consumers, such as food co-ops.[3] However, there are many types of consumers' cooperatives, operating in areas such as health care, insurance, housing, utilities and personal finance (including credit unions).
Or as another example, kindergardens that are owned/run by the parents.Parent cooperatives are a form of operation between private and public, for schools, leisure homes and preschools. The opportunity for parents to run schools and day care centers with state or municipal grants became more common in Sweden during the 1980s.
During the 1980s, there was an extensive political debate about whether nurseries could be run in corporation/Stock company form, or only in the form of parent cooperatives
I think it is a neat option for a business structure. One that is in its core more just and aren't all about stockholders and the top getting rich and fat. Not to sound like a Marx-reading college student.
So more of that in my society. And less communism and capitalistic greed.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
It’d be a goddamn fortune in Kansas. It’s still a lot in New Jersey.mcgruff10 said:
Maybe in Kansas but definitely not New Jersey.ecdanc said:
Yes, 150k combined is a lot even when you have kids.mcgruff10 said:
150k combined really isn’t a lot when you have kids. And yes captain, it is more thank 30k. Actually it is 120,000k more.oftenreading said:
0 -
Yes, having more disposable income. Obviously your utilities are essentially cut in half, automobile, gas, everything. You get better scale.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Yes. People buy houses and flats.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but you guys do buy houses together, right? That's more my point, that joint income affords the ability to move up economically, and many Millenials are starting that process later in life, or not at all in the US.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Swedes don't marry. We just live together. "Samboförhållande", as in living together but not married.mrussel1 said:
Well you're not married right? I actually think that this is the big difference where Millenials are 'falling behind' in the economic curve. I believe they are marrying later or not marrying at all, in a way that is much different than X's or Boomers. I bought my first house at 28, and I was married. I can assure you that I would have never been able to buy a house if I was single. Marriage and joint income creates the scale that really allows people to accelerate up the economic ladder. While I'm not advocating marrying for economic reasons, there is certainly an extra benefit financially to do so.Spiritual_Chaos said:Samboförhållande are very common in the Nordic countries and in some other European countries. In 2016, more than half of all newborn children had unmarried parents, and in Sweden every year since 1993, more children have been born to unmarried parents than to married parents.
But yeah, obviously sharing rent and all costs related to living makes you financially more free. But you can also end up in hell.
What do you mean by "move up economically", just in the sense of having more money left after all the bills are paid, or in some other more intricate/specific economic theory-way?0 -
This is why I need to tinder the shit out of my phone while queuing up for Pearl jam in the summer.mrussel1 said:
Yes, having more disposable income. Obviously your utilities are essentially cut in half, automobile, gas, everything. You get better scale.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Yes. People buy houses and flats.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but you guys do buy houses together, right? That's more my point, that joint income affords the ability to move up economically, and many Millenials are starting that process later in life, or not at all in the US.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Swedes don't marry. We just live together. "Samboförhållande", as in living together but not married.mrussel1 said:
Well you're not married right? I actually think that this is the big difference where Millenials are 'falling behind' in the economic curve. I believe they are marrying later or not marrying at all, in a way that is much different than X's or Boomers. I bought my first house at 28, and I was married. I can assure you that I would have never been able to buy a house if I was single. Marriage and joint income creates the scale that really allows people to accelerate up the economic ladder. While I'm not advocating marrying for economic reasons, there is certainly an extra benefit financially to do so.Spiritual_Chaos said:Samboförhållande are very common in the Nordic countries and in some other European countries. In 2016, more than half of all newborn children had unmarried parents, and in Sweden every year since 1993, more children have been born to unmarried parents than to married parents.
But yeah, obviously sharing rent and all costs related to living makes you financially more free. But you can also end up in hell.
What do you mean by "move up economically", just in the sense of having more money left after all the bills are paid, or in some other more intricate/specific economic theory-way?"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Now just hang on a minute.. that's the ass end of the equation. Now you have to buy an extra ticket for your partner and such. Got to find that sweet middle. I had it for a long time, where my wife didn't like to go to shows so I would only have to buy for me. But then my son turned into a fanatic and now I'm screwed.Spiritual_Chaos said:
This is why I need to tinder the shit out of my phone while queuing up for Pearl jam in the summer.mrussel1 said:
Yes, having more disposable income. Obviously your utilities are essentially cut in half, automobile, gas, everything. You get better scale.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Yes. People buy houses and flats.mrussel1 said:
Fair enough, but you guys do buy houses together, right? That's more my point, that joint income affords the ability to move up economically, and many Millenials are starting that process later in life, or not at all in the US.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Swedes don't marry. We just live together. "Samboförhållande", as in living together but not married.mrussel1 said:
Well you're not married right? I actually think that this is the big difference where Millenials are 'falling behind' in the economic curve. I believe they are marrying later or not marrying at all, in a way that is much different than X's or Boomers. I bought my first house at 28, and I was married. I can assure you that I would have never been able to buy a house if I was single. Marriage and joint income creates the scale that really allows people to accelerate up the economic ladder. While I'm not advocating marrying for economic reasons, there is certainly an extra benefit financially to do so.Spiritual_Chaos said:Samboförhållande are very common in the Nordic countries and in some other European countries. In 2016, more than half of all newborn children had unmarried parents, and in Sweden every year since 1993, more children have been born to unmarried parents than to married parents.
But yeah, obviously sharing rent and all costs related to living makes you financially more free. But you can also end up in hell.
What do you mean by "move up economically", just in the sense of having more money left after all the bills are paid, or in some other more intricate/specific economic theory-way?0 -
all you trying to nail down what’s enough and what’s ok for someone based on a number. You have no idea how anyone got there. It’s ducking sickening.hippiemom = goodness0
-
Well isn't that the whole concept? The gov't decides how much is enough for you.cincybearcat said:all you trying to nail down what’s enough and what’s ok for someone based on a number. You have no idea how anyone got there. It’s ducking sickening.0 -
Don’t care how you got there.cincybearcat said:all you trying to nail down what’s enough and what’s ok for someone based on a number. You have no idea how anyone got there. It’s ducking sickening.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help