The Democratic Presidential Debates

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

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.

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... 

But anyways. Where do you get this information about not surviving financially with him as president?

When I did the calculator on Sanders page just for health care, my family would pay an additional $6000/year in taxes.  Yippeeeeee

Go to hell Bernie...but not just for that.  

So your family makes at LEAST 150,000/year. I prefer expropriation over taxes, but in the meantime, yeah, you should pay more. 

I pay plenty. Plenty. 

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. 

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Nothing wrong with adding some cooperatively owned businesses, a flair of syndicalism etc to freshen things up.

Cooperative between what entities?

What do you mean?

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?  

I mean like the swedish supermarket chain "COOP", owned by its members/costumers: 

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 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.  

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".

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.

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

150k family income a year isn't exactly rich if you live in an urban area.  

This would be true. 150k ain’t shit. 

It's a lot more than I make. Haha.

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.  

Swedes don't marry. We just live together. "Samboförhållande", as in living together but not married.


But yeah, obviously sharing rent and all costs related to living makes you financially more free. But you can also end up in hell.

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

150k family income a year isn't exactly rich if you live in an urban area.  

This would be true. 150k ain’t shit. 

No. $30,000 ain’t shit. $150,000  is far more than shit. Skewed sense of priorities. 

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.  

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

150k family income a year isn't exactly rich if you live in an urban area.  

This would be true. 150k ain’t shit. 

No. $30,000 ain’t shit. $150,000  is far more than shit. Skewed sense of priorities. 

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.  

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Nothing wrong with adding some cooperatively owned businesses, a flair of syndicalism etc to freshen things up.

Cooperative between what entities?

What do you mean?

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?  

I mean like the swedish supermarket chain "COOP", owned by its members/costumers: 

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 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.  

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".

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.

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:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

150k family income a year isn't exactly rich if you live in an urban area.  

This would be true. 150k ain’t shit. 

It's a lot more than I make. Haha.

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.  

Swedes don't marry. We just live together. "Samboförhållande", as in living together but not married.

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.

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. 

Yes. People buy houses and flats. 

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?

Yes, having more disposable income.  Obviously your utilities are essentially cut in half, automobile, gas, everything.  You get better scale.  

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

150k family income a year isn't exactly rich if you live in an urban area.  

This would be true. 150k ain’t shit. 

It's a lot more than I make. Haha.

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.  

Swedes don't marry. We just live together. "Samboförhållande", as in living together but not married.

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.

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. 

Yes. People buy houses and flats. 

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?

Yes, having more disposable income.  Obviously your utilities are essentially cut in half, automobile, gas, everything.  You get better scale.  

This is why I need to tinder the shit out of my phone while queuing up for Pearl jam in the summer.

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.  

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. 

Well isn't that the whole concept?  The gov't decides how much is enough for you.