Top issues for 2016 Presidential election (1 Viewer)

[IC FBGCav]

Forget left or right. What is right or wrong. List 1 thru 3 what issues are most important to you. Just the issue not the side you fall on of it, if possible. I am just interested to see what people here put value into.

 

[fantasycurse42]

1,2, & 3:

Robots

 

[sbonomo]

Deficit, doing away with Obama care and then the deficit

 

[IC FBGCav]

Deficit, doing away with Obama care and then the deficit

Yeah, deficit doesn't seem upfront as much, but I am not a hard core news guy.

 

[skol asylum]

1) campaign finance reform and removal of persoonhood status from corporations and free speech being equated to money

2) debt & structural tax and spending reform

3) alternative energy manhattan project

4) trade agreements

5) redefining US military role and clear strategy for eliminating new and emerging threats like radical islam

Nothing happens without #1.

 

[IC FBGCav]

1. Not having a bush or clinton in office. There are better options then members of a family that already served that position. Yes, I voted for both and maybe old Bush too. I was dumb.

2. Healthcare

3. Banking

 

[IC FBGCav]

1) campaign finance reform and removal of persoonhood status from corporations and free speech being equatwd to money

2) debt & structural tax and spending reform

3) alternative energy manhattan project

4) trade agreements

5) redefining US military role and clear strategy for eliminating new and emerging threats like radical islam

Nothing happens without #1.

I posted and this was the first thing I saw. That is a great one.

 

[John Bender]

1. replacing government programs that aren't terrific, with things that are terrific.

2. shutting down political threads at FBGs, or giving them their own forum.

3. making a national holiday for yoga pants

 

[joffer]

1) campaign finance reform and removal of persoonhood status from corporations and free speech being equated to money

2) debt & structural tax and spending reform

3) alternative energy manhattan project

4) trade agreements

5) redefining US military role and clear strategy for eliminating new and emerging threats like radical islam

Nothing happens without #1.

nice list. I'll replace 4. with marijuana legalization and keep the rest.

 

[Jobber]

Marijuana legalization is my issue. Someone who supports this is more likely to have a good grasp of other important issues.

 

[joffer]

Marijuana legalization is my issue. Someone who supports this is more likely to have a good grasp of other important issues.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Marijuana legalization is my issue. Someone who supports this is more likely to have a good grasp of other important issues.

Jim Webb: Democrat’s Best Cannabis Candidate?

Just an fyi. - Hopefully he runs as an independent.

 

[Bucky86]

Have Republicans mentioned how exactly they'll fix healthcare besides repealing Obamacare?

 

[IC FBGCav]

Marijuana legalization is my issue. Someone who supports this is more likely to have a good grasp of other important issues.

I don't smoke and support you on this issue but you can still do it without it being addressed.

Plus like my personal issue, internet poker, it has gone the way of the states.

 

[joffer]

Marijuana legalization is my issue. Someone who supports this is more likely to have a good grasp of other important issues.

Jim Webb: Democrat’s Best Cannabis Candidate?

Just an fyi. - Hopefully he runs as an independent.

assuming he runs, I think Gary Johnson is even better on it.

 

[cubd8]

1) Terrorism - The Obama administration doesn't know how to deal with it, and the President hasn't taken ISIS as seriously as he should have. The Republicans are offering up tougher rhetoric, some nuance, but hoping at least a leader emerges in our war against ISIS.

2) Economy - Democrats are supporting a nanny state, Republican tax plans obviously favor the top 1%. Will anything change?

3) Legalization of gambling would be nice. Tax it.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Potential nominations to the Supreme Court.

Warfare and other military actions.

Taxation.

 

[IC FBGCav]

1) Terrorism - The Obama administration doesn't know how to deal with it, and the President hasn't taken ISIS as seriously as he should have. The Republicans are offering up tougher rhetoric, some nuance, but hoping at least a leader emerges in our war against ISIS.

2) Economy - Democrats are supporting a nanny state, Republican tax plans obviously favor the top 1%. Will anything change?

3) Legalization of gambling would be nice. Tax it.

I am so torn on this. Almost started a debate on this but that is not what this thread is about.

 

[skol asylum]

Marijuana legalization is my issue. Someone who supports this is more likely to have a good grasp of other important issues.

Jim Webb: Democrats Best Cannabis Candidate?

Just an fyi. - Hopefully he runs as an independent.

assuming he runs, I think Gary Johnson is even better on it.

I saw him on TV a while back and he was most definitely on it.

I think he was selling it too.

 

[bud29]

1) campaign finance reform and removal of persoonhood status from corporations and free speech being equated to money

2) debt & structural tax and spending reform

3) alternative energy manhattan project

4) trade agreements

5) redefining US military role and clear strategy for eliminating new and emerging threats like radical islam

Nothing happens without #1.

nice list. I'll replace 4. with marijuana legalization and keep the rest.

 

[JuniorNB]

Deficit, doing away with Obama care and then the deficit

the deficit is very low on the list of issues they average voter cares about. National security and the economy are what they care about. Also, they aren't getting rid of the Healthcare act and taking insurance away from millions of people. Obama care is far from perfect, but someone finally did something about our horrible system. The Healthcare Act will be tweaked for 50 years and, even then, not everyone will be happy with it. But it's never going back to the way it was. Thank God.

 

[timschochet]

1. Climate change/energy Manhattan project

2. Free trade

3. Immigration (amnesty for illegals and more immigration)

4. War in Syria/ISIS

5. Supreme Court appointments

6. Economic growth

7. Protect/improve Obamacare

8. Prevent domestic terrorism

9. Fight institutionalized racism

10. A national championship for UCLA in football

 

[McGarnicle]

Well, we have to end apartheid for one. And slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Deficit, doing away with Obama care and then the deficit

the deficit is very low on the list of issues they average voter cares about. National security and the economy are what they care about.Also, they aren't getting rid of the Healthcare act and taking insurance away from millions of people. Obama care is far from perfect, but someone finally did something about our horrible system. The Healthcare Act will be tweaked for 50 years and, even then, not everyone will be happy with it. But it's never going back to the way it was. Thank God.

Yeah, you didn't read the OP.

 

[IC FBGCav]

1. Climate change/energy Manhattan project

2. Free trade

3. Immigration (amnesty for illegals and more immigration)

4. War in Syria/ISIS

5. Supreme Court appointments

6. Economic growth

7. Protect/improve Obamacare

8. Prevent domestic terrorism

9. Fight institutionalized racism

10. A national championship for UCLA in football

You didn't either.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Well, we have to end apartheid for one. And slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people.

Damn this country is in trouble.

 

[IC FBGCav]

1. Reading Comprehension.

 

[Softballguy]

Well, we have to end apartheid for one. And slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people.

Damn this country is in trouble.

You may want to watch American Psycho.

 

[timschochet]

Well, we have to end apartheid for one.

That can only happen if Nelson Mandela is let out of prison.

 

[Gopher State]

Terrorism

Taxes

Social security

Don,t like sanders position on the above

 

[Sinn Fein]

1. Economic inequality

2. Climate Change

3. Healthcare reform

 

[McGarnicle]

Well, we have to end apartheid for one.

That can only happen if Nelson Mandela is let out of prison.

Morgan Freeman is in prison??

 

[timschochet]

1. Economic inequality

2. Climate Change

3. Healthcare reform

Why is economic inequality so important to progressives? Why not economic opportunity? I've never understood this. If I'm making enough to feed my family, live safely and enjoy life, why should I care if someone is 30 times richer than I am? More power to him! Why is that unfair?

I want everyone to have the chance to succeed. I want a safety net so nobody starves. But the hell with worrying about what a billionaire makes.

 

[IC FBGCav]

1. Economic inequality

2. Climate Change

3. Healthcare reform

Why is economic inequality so important to progressives? Why not economic opportunity? I've never understood this. If I'm making enough to feed my family, live safely and enjoy life, why should I care if someone is 30 times richer than I am? More power to him! Why is that unfair?

I want everyone to have the chance to succeed. I want a safety net so nobody starves. But the hell with worrying about what a billionaire makes.

This is not a debate thread. This one just might not be for you. There was a thread that someone never leaves...hmm.

 

[Sinn Fein]

1. Economic inequality

2. Climate Change

3. Healthcare reform

Why is economic inequality so important to progressives? Why not economic opportunity?I've never understood this. If I'm making enough to feed my family, live safely and enjoy life, why should I care if someone is 30 times richer than I am? More power to him! Why is that unfair?

I want everyone to have the chance to succeed. I want a safety net so nobody starves. But the hell with worrying about what a billionaire makes.

For me its part of a larger economic/tax policy issues that must move away from overly emphasizing shareholder value over employee value. We used to have a healthy mix - but the game has favored shareholders over employees for too long.

As a consequence - there has been a huge transfer of wealth from the vast majority of Americans to the very few. If the gap continues to widen, it will eventually lead to bigger societal issues - they time to fix that is now, before it is too late.

People are working harder, and more efficiently than ever - yet the real average income is down over $4000/year since 1999. Meanwhile, the country's wealth continues to grow - if the average worker is losing wages - where is that wealth going? And, why? Is there a legitimate economic reason to favor shareholders over employees? I don't think so - i think these are policies put in place by the ultra-wealthy, to protect the ultra-wealthy - and con people into thinking this is in their best interests.

Lets say I go out and buy 1000 shares of Apple stock - and Apple has a tremendous year - doubling income. Who created that wealth? Me, the shareholder, or Joe IT Guy who built a killer product at Apple (and all the people at Apple who had a part in that product)? I contributed nothing to Apple's success, yet, I will be rewarded both in economic policy of increasing shareholder value, and in tax policy by taxing my earnings as capital gains when I sell the stock. Instead, we should be favoring economic and tax policies that reward labor as much as, or more, than mere shareholders.

Same thing with these "free trade" agreements that promote companies to send jobs overseas because labor is cheaper - which means more corporate profits for shareholders, at the expense of American employees.

So, when the scales are tipped in favor of a certain class - by the laws and policies of this country, I think we need to re-evaluate, and I think those that have benefited from these policies need to pay a bigger share of their "profits" to support the infrastructure that makes their profits possible in the first place.

 

[The Commish]

1. Healthcare. Since that has yet to be addressed

2. National deficit

3. Tax reform

 

[The Commish]

1. Healthcare. Since that has yet to be addressed

2. National deficit

3. Tax reform

there's a larger theme of the govt being beholden to big business instead of us but not sure how to fit that in this sort of format since it's so pervasive

 

[Sand]

1) campaign finance reform and removal of persoonhood status from corporations and free speech being equated to money

As long as this includes unions I'm all for it.

People are working harder, and more efficiently than ever - yet the real average income is down over $4000/year since 1999. Meanwhile, the country's wealth continues to grow - if the average worker is losing wages - where is that wealth going? And, why? Is there a legitimate economic reason to favor shareholders over employees? I don't think so - i think these are policies put in place by the ultra-wealthy, to protect the ultra-wealthy - and con people into thinking this is in their best interests.

1. ZIRP giving the ultra wealthy access to zero cost money. Supported by the current administration.

2. Low skill immigrants creating supply at the bottom end that has eroded earnings capability. Wildly supported by this administration.

3. Total compensation rising (somewhat), but sucked up by healthcare costs to companies.

 

[timschochet]

1. Economic inequality

2. Climate Change

3. Healthcare reform

Why is economic inequality so important to progressives? Why not economic opportunity?I've never understood this. If I'm making enough to feed my family, live safely and enjoy life, why should I care if someone is 30 times richer than I am? More power to him! Why is that unfair?

I want everyone to have the chance to succeed. I want a safety net so nobody starves. But the hell with worrying about what a billionaire makes.

For me its part of a larger economic/tax policy issues that must move away from overly emphasizing shareholder value over employee value. We used to have a healthy mix - but the game has favored shareholders over employees for too long.

As a consequence - there has been a huge transfer of wealth from the vast majority of Americans to the very few. If the gap continues to widen, it will eventually lead to bigger societal issues - they time to fix that is now, before it is too late.

People are working harder, and more efficiently than ever - yet the real average income is down over $4000/year since 1999. Meanwhile, the country's wealth continues to grow - if the average worker is losing wages - where is that wealth going? And, why? Is there a legitimate economic reason to favor shareholders over employees? I don't think so - i think these are policies put in place by the ultra-wealthy, to protect the ultra-wealthy - and con people into thinking this is in their best interests.

Lets say I go out and buy 1000 shares of Apple stock - and Apple has a tremendous year - doubling income. Who created that wealth? Me, the shareholder, or Joe IT Guy who built a killer product at Apple (and all the people at Apple who had a part in that product)? I contributed nothing to Apple's success, yet, I will be rewarded both in economic policy of increasing shareholder value, and in tax policy by taxing my earnings as capital gains when I sell the stock. Instead, we should be favoring economic and tax policies that reward labor as much as, or more, than mere shareholders.

Same thing with these "free trade" agreements that promote companies to send jobs overseas because labor is cheaper - which means more corporate profits for shareholders, at the expense of American employees.

So, when the scales are tipped in favor of a certain class - by the laws and policies of this country, I think we need to re-evaluate, and I think those that have benefited from these policies need to pay a bigger share of their "profits" to support the infrastructure that makes their profits possible in the first place.

Thanks for the comprehensive answer. Yeah, we really do disagree on this. If Joe IT guy is responsible for wealth creation, he should be able to earn his value in the marketplace- if Apple isn't paying him enough, then he can take his services elsewhere. How much money any investor (or in fact, millions of investors) earn by purchasing Apple stock has nothing to do with what Joe IT guy earns. They're not stealing from Joe IT guy. The idea that the government should get involved in this and make things equal is nonsensical to me.

Yes, sometimes free trade can lead to jobs being sent overseas. But this only happens if wages here are inflated, which in effect is a tax on the consumer. You can't protect these jobs through tariffs- if you try, all you end up doing is eventually make the wages earned worth less- no different from printing money.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

1

Potential nominations to the Supreme Court.

2

campaign finance reform and removal of persoonhood status from corporations and free speech being equated to money

In that order.

3

Followed by increased money to the day-to-day workers of America.

(As Sinn Fein stated: Economic inequality)

 

[IC FBGCav]

1) campaign finance reform and removal of persoonhood status from corporations and free speech being equated to money

As long as this includes unions I'm all for it.

People are working harder, and more efficiently than ever - yet the real average income is down over $4000/year since 1999. Meanwhile, the country's wealth continues to grow - if the average worker is losing wages - where is that wealth going? And, why? Is there a legitimate economic reason to favor shareholders over employees? I don't think so - i think these are policies put in place by the ultra-wealthy, to protect the ultra-wealthy - and con people into thinking this is in their best interests.

1. ZIRP giving the ultra wealthy access to zero cost money. Supported by the current administration.

2. Low skill immigrants creating supply at the bottom end that has eroded earnings capability. Wildly supported by this administration.

3. Total compensation rising (somewhat), but sucked up by healthcare costs to companies.

I think that is fair but if well organized not enforceable. but same for superpaks.

 

[IC FBGCav]

1. Economic inequality

2. Climate Change

3. Healthcare reform

Why is economic inequality so important to progressives? Why not economic opportunity?I've never understood this. If I'm making enough to feed my family, live safely and enjoy life, why should I care if someone is 30 times richer than I am? More power to him! Why is that unfair?

I want everyone to have the chance to succeed. I want a safety net so nobody starves. But the hell with worrying about what a billionaire makes.

For me its part of a larger economic/tax policy issues that must move away from overly emphasizing shareholder value over employee value. We used to have a healthy mix - but the game has favored shareholders over employees for too long.

As a consequence - there has been a huge transfer of wealth from the vast majority of Americans to the very few. If the gap continues to widen, it will eventually lead to bigger societal issues - they time to fix that is now, before it is too late.

People are working harder, and more efficiently than ever - yet the real average income is down over $4000/year since 1999. Meanwhile, the country's wealth continues to grow - if the average worker is losing wages - where is that wealth going? And, why? Is there a legitimate economic reason to favor shareholders over employees? I don't think so - i think these are policies put in place by the ultra-wealthy, to protect the ultra-wealthy - and con people into thinking this is in their best interests.

Lets say I go out and buy 1000 shares of Apple stock - and Apple has a tremendous year - doubling income. Who created that wealth? Me, the shareholder, or Joe IT Guy who built a killer product at Apple (and all the people at Apple who had a part in that product)? I contributed nothing to Apple's success, yet, I will be rewarded both in economic policy of increasing shareholder value, and in tax policy by taxing my earnings as capital gains when I sell the stock. Instead, we should be favoring economic and tax policies that reward labor as much as, or more, than mere shareholders.

Same thing with these "free trade" agreements that promote companies to send jobs overseas because labor is cheaper - which means more corporate profits for shareholders, at the expense of American employees.

So, when the scales are tipped in favor of a certain class - by the laws and policies of this country, I think we need to re-evaluate, and I think those that have benefited from these policies need to pay a bigger share of their "profits" to support the infrastructure that makes their profits possible in the first place.

Thanks for the comprehensive answer. Yeah, we really do disagree on this. If Joe IT guy is responsible for wealth creation, he should be able to earn his value in the marketplace- if Apple isn't paying him enough, then he can take his services elsewhere. How much money any investor (or in fact, millions of investors) earn by purchasing Apple stock has nothing to do with what Joe IT guy earns. They're not stealing from Joe IT guy. The idea that the government should get involved in this and make things equal is nonsensical to me.

Yes, sometimes free trade can lead to jobs being sent overseas. But this only happens if wages here are inflated, which in effect is a tax on the consumer. You can't protect these jobs through tariffs- if you try, all you end up doing is eventually make the wages earned worth less- no different from printing money.

Love you guys are having a productive conversation..........just move it out of here. Start a topic for a more indepth conversation.........so we can keep things flowing here and not bogged down by one or two things.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Terrorism

That is #1? Really?

 

[Sinn Fein]

1. Economic inequality

2. Climate Change

3. Healthcare reform

Why is economic inequality so important to progressives? Why not economic opportunity?I've never understood this. If I'm making enough to feed my family, live safely and enjoy life, why should I care if someone is 30 times richer than I am? More power to him! Why is that unfair?

I want everyone to have the chance to succeed. I want a safety net so nobody starves. But the hell with worrying about what a billionaire makes.

For me its part of a larger economic/tax policy issues that must move away from overly emphasizing shareholder value over employee value. We used to have a healthy mix - but the game has favored shareholders over employees for too long.

As a consequence - there has been a huge transfer of wealth from the vast majority of Americans to the very few. If the gap continues to widen, it will eventually lead to bigger societal issues - they time to fix that is now, before it is too late.

People are working harder, and more efficiently than ever - yet the real average income is down over $4000/year since 1999. Meanwhile, the country's wealth continues to grow - if the average worker is losing wages - where is that wealth going? And, why? Is there a legitimate economic reason to favor shareholders over employees? I don't think so - i think these are policies put in place by the ultra-wealthy, to protect the ultra-wealthy - and con people into thinking this is in their best interests.

Lets say I go out and buy 1000 shares of Apple stock - and Apple has a tremendous year - doubling income. Who created that wealth? Me, the shareholder, or Joe IT Guy who built a killer product at Apple (and all the people at Apple who had a part in that product)? I contributed nothing to Apple's success, yet, I will be rewarded both in economic policy of increasing shareholder value, and in tax policy by taxing my earnings as capital gains when I sell the stock. Instead, we should be favoring economic and tax policies that reward labor as much as, or more, than mere shareholders.

Same thing with these "free trade" agreements that promote companies to send jobs overseas because labor is cheaper - which means more corporate profits for shareholders, at the expense of American employees.

So, when the scales are tipped in favor of a certain class - by the laws and policies of this country, I think we need to re-evaluate, and I think those that have benefited from these policies need to pay a bigger share of their "profits" to support the infrastructure that makes their profits possible in the first place.

Thanks for the comprehensive answer. Yeah, we really do disagree on this. If Joe IT guy is responsible for wealth creation, he should be able to earn his value in the marketplace- if Apple isn't paying him enough, then he can take his services elsewhere. How much money any investor (or in fact, millions of investors) earn by purchasing Apple stock has nothing to do with what Joe IT guy earns. They're not stealing from Joe IT guy. The idea that the government should get involved in this and make things equal is nonsensical to me.

Yes, sometimes free trade can lead to jobs being sent overseas. But this only happens if wages here are inflated, which in effect is a tax on the consumer. You can't protect these jobs through tariffs- if you try, all you end up doing is eventually make the wages earned worth less- no different from printing money.

See - this is what most people don't understand - the government is already involved with the economic and tax policies that favor shareholder value over labor value. Its not a question of government involvement, its a matter of how the government tips the scale. Right now it tips the scale in favor of those that write the policies and tax laws - in favor of the few, at the expense of the many.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Amen to that Sinn Fein.

 

[Sand]

1) campaign finance reform and removal of persoonhood status from corporations and free speech being equated to money

As long as this includes unions I'm all for it.

People are working harder, and more efficiently than ever - yet the real average income is down over $4000/year since 1999. Meanwhile, the country's wealth continues to grow - if the average worker is losing wages - where is that wealth going? And, why? Is there a legitimate economic reason to favor shareholders over employees? I don't think so - i think these are policies put in place by the ultra-wealthy, to protect the ultra-wealthy - and con people into thinking this is in their best interests.

1. ZIRP giving the ultra wealthy access to zero cost money. Supported by the current administration.

2. Low skill immigrants creating supply at the bottom end that has eroded earnings capability. Wildly supported by this administration.

3. Total compensation rising (somewhat), but sucked up by healthcare costs to companies.

I think that is fair but if well organized not enforceable. but same for superpaks.

Even now if you look at contributors, with all the screaming about corporations throwing around huge money in elections ad nauseum, the numbers are starkly different than popular (i.e. liberal) opinion.

List of top contributors. The top 20, the ones that really dominate the influence swaying, are massively, overwhelmingly democratic leaning union contributors. 82% of the money of the top 20 contributors are democratic monies. And we're worried about corporations? Sorry - doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. Unions completely dominate this landscape.

And, to add insult to injury, a decent percentage are public sector unions. So publicly funded reach around to huge effect. If we want to rail about money in politics we must start here. This is where the primary problems lie.

 

[The Commish]

1. Economic inequality

2. Climate Change

3. Healthcare reform

Why is economic inequality so important to progressives? Why not economic opportunity?I've never understood this. If I'm making enough to feed my family, live safely and enjoy life, why should I care if someone is 30 times richer than I am? More power to him! Why is that unfair?

I want everyone to have the chance to succeed. I want a safety net so nobody starves. But the hell with worrying about what a billionaire makes.

For me its part of a larger economic/tax policy issues that must move away from overly emphasizing shareholder value over employee value. We used to have a healthy mix - but the game has favored shareholders over employees for too long.

As a consequence - there has been a huge transfer of wealth from the vast majority of Americans to the very few. If the gap continues to widen, it will eventually lead to bigger societal issues - they time to fix that is now, before it is too late.

People are working harder, and more efficiently than ever - yet the real average income is down over $4000/year since 1999. Meanwhile, the country's wealth continues to grow - if the average worker is losing wages - where is that wealth going? And, why? Is there a legitimate economic reason to favor shareholders over employees? I don't think so - i think these are policies put in place by the ultra-wealthy, to protect the ultra-wealthy - and con people into thinking this is in their best interests.

Lets say I go out and buy 1000 shares of Apple stock - and Apple has a tremendous year - doubling income. Who created that wealth? Me, the shareholder, or Joe IT Guy who built a killer product at Apple (and all the people at Apple who had a part in that product)? I contributed nothing to Apple's success, yet, I will be rewarded both in economic policy of increasing shareholder value, and in tax policy by taxing my earnings as capital gains when I sell the stock. Instead, we should be favoring economic and tax policies that reward labor as much as, or more, than mere shareholders.

Same thing with these "free trade" agreements that promote companies to send jobs overseas because labor is cheaper - which means more corporate profits for shareholders, at the expense of American employees.

So, when the scales are tipped in favor of a certain class - by the laws and policies of this country, I think we need to re-evaluate, and I think those that have benefited from these policies need to pay a bigger share of their "profits" to support the infrastructure that makes their profits possible in the first place.

Thanks for the comprehensive answer. Yeah, we really do disagree on this. If Joe IT guy is responsible for wealth creation, he should be able to earn his value in the marketplace- if Apple isn't paying him enough, then he can take his services elsewhere. How much money any investor (or in fact, millions of investors) earn by purchasing Apple stock has nothing to do with what Joe IT guy earns. They're not stealing from Joe IT guy. The idea that the government should get involved in this and make things equal is nonsensical to me. Yes, sometimes free trade can lead to jobs being sent overseas. But this only happens if wages here are inflated, which in effect is a tax on the consumer. You can't protect these jobs through tariffs- if you try, all you end up doing is eventually make the wages earned worth less- no different from printing money.

See - this is what most people don't understand - the government is already involved with the economic and tax policies that favor shareholder value over labor value. Its not a question of government involvement, its a matter of how the government tips the scale. Right now it tips the scale in favor of those that write the policies and tax laws - in favor of the few, at the expense of the many.

What's nonsensical is thinking the govt isn't already involved.

 

[IC FBGCav]

1. Economic inequality

2. Climate Change

3. Healthcare reform

Why is economic inequality so important to progressives? Why not economic opportunity?I've never understood this. If I'm making enough to feed my family, live safely and enjoy life, why should I care if someone is 30 times richer than I am? More power to him! Why is that unfair?

I want everyone to have the chance to succeed. I want a safety net so nobody starves. But the hell with worrying about what a billionaire makes.

For me its part of a larger economic/tax policy issues that must move away from overly emphasizing shareholder value over employee value. We used to have a healthy mix - but the game has favored shareholders over employees for too long.

As a consequence - there has been a huge transfer of wealth from the vast majority of Americans to the very few. If the gap continues to widen, it will eventually lead to bigger societal issues - they time to fix that is now, before it is too late.

People are working harder, and more efficiently than ever - yet the real average income is down over $4000/year since 1999. Meanwhile, the country's wealth continues to grow - if the average worker is losing wages - where is that wealth going? And, why? Is there a legitimate economic reason to favor shareholders over employees? I don't think so - i think these are policies put in place by the ultra-wealthy, to protect the ultra-wealthy - and con people into thinking this is in their best interests.

Lets say I go out and buy 1000 shares of Apple stock - and Apple has a tremendous year - doubling income. Who created that wealth? Me, the shareholder, or Joe IT Guy who built a killer product at Apple (and all the people at Apple who had a part in that product)? I contributed nothing to Apple's success, yet, I will be rewarded both in economic policy of increasing shareholder value, and in tax policy by taxing my earnings as capital gains when I sell the stock. Instead, we should be favoring economic and tax policies that reward labor as much as, or more, than mere shareholders.

Same thing with these "free trade" agreements that promote companies to send jobs overseas because labor is cheaper - which means more corporate profits for shareholders, at the expense of American employees.

So, when the scales are tipped in favor of a certain class - by the laws and policies of this country, I think we need to re-evaluate, and I think those that have benefited from these policies need to pay a bigger share of their "profits" to support the infrastructure that makes their profits possible in the first place.

Thanks for the comprehensive answer. Yeah, we really do disagree on this. If Joe IT guy is responsible for wealth creation, he should be able to earn his value in the marketplace- if Apple isn't paying him enough, then he can take his services elsewhere. How much money any investor (or in fact, millions of investors) earn by purchasing Apple stock has nothing to do with what Joe IT guy earns. They're not stealing from Joe IT guy. The idea that the government should get involved in this and make things equal is nonsensical to me. Yes, sometimes free trade can lead to jobs being sent overseas. But this only happens if wages here are inflated, which in effect is a tax on the consumer. You can't protect these jobs through tariffs- if you try, all you end up doing is eventually make the wages earned worth less- no different from printing money.

See - this is what most people don't understand - the government is already involved with the economic and tax policies that favor shareholder value over labor value. Its not a question of government involvement, its a matter of how the government tips the scale. Right now it tips the scale in favor of those that write the policies and tax laws - in favor of the few, at the expense of the many.

What's nonsensical is thinking the govt isn't already involved.

The system is broke and influenced by money, everyone who wants to know, knows this. The fix is what matters. Money wins 90% the rare gem win 5%.......other 5 is a mixed of luck and timing.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

1) campaign finance reform and removal of persoonhood status from corporations and free speech being equated to money

As long as this includes unions I'm all for it.

People are working harder, and more efficiently than ever - yet the real average income is down over $4000/year since 1999. Meanwhile, the country's wealth continues to grow - if the average worker is losing wages - where is that wealth going? And, why? Is there a legitimate economic reason to favor shareholders over employees? I don't think so - i think these are policies put in place by the ultra-wealthy, to protect the ultra-wealthy - and con people into thinking this is in their best interests.

1. ZIRP giving the ultra wealthy access to zero cost money. Supported by the current administration.

2. Low skill immigrants creating supply at the bottom end that has eroded earnings capability. Wildly supported by this administration.

3. Total compensation rising (somewhat), but sucked up by healthcare costs to companies.

I think that is fair but if well organized not enforceable. but same for superpaks.

Even now if you look at contributors, with all the screaming about corporations throwing around huge money in elections ad nauseum, the numbers are starkly different than popular (i.e. liberal) opinion.

List of top contributors. The top 20, the ones that really dominate the influence swaying, are massively, overwhelmingly democratic leaning union contributors. 82% of the money of the top 20 contributors are democratic monies. And we're worried about corporations? Sorry - doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. Unions completely dominate this landscape.

And, to add insult to injury, a decent percentage are public sector unions. So publicly funded reach around to huge effect. If we want to rail about money in politics we must start here. This is where the primary problems lie.

Looking at the top UNION listings...

SEIU is 1.9 million workers. That's right at $100 per worker.

NEA is 2.9 million workers. Thats right at $30 per worker.

Carpenters and Joiners 600k. $108 per worker.

Realtors at 1.1 million worker. $26 per worker.

IB of Electricians. 700k. $91 per worker.

 

[Sand]

1) campaign finance reform and removal of persoonhood status from corporations and free speech being equated to money

As long as this includes unions I'm all for it.

People are working harder, and more efficiently than ever - yet the real average income is down over $4000/year since 1999. Meanwhile, the country's wealth continues to grow - if the average worker is losing wages - where is that wealth going? And, why? Is there a legitimate economic reason to favor shareholders over employees? I don't think so - i think these are policies put in place by the ultra-wealthy, to protect the ultra-wealthy - and con people into thinking this is in their best interests.

1. ZIRP giving the ultra wealthy access to zero cost money. Supported by the current administration.

2. Low skill immigrants creating supply at the bottom end that has eroded earnings capability. Wildly supported by this administration.

3. Total compensation rising (somewhat), but sucked up by healthcare costs to companies.

I think that is fair but if well organized not enforceable. but same for superpaks.

Even now if you look at contributors, with all the screaming about corporations throwing around huge money in elections ad nauseum, the numbers are starkly different than popular (i.e. liberal) opinion.

List of top contributors. The top 20, the ones that really dominate the influence swaying, are massively, overwhelmingly democratic leaning union contributors. 82% of the money of the top 20 contributors are democratic monies. And we're worried about corporations? Sorry - doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. Unions completely dominate this landscape.

And, to add insult to injury, a decent percentage are public sector unions. So publicly funded reach around to huge effect. If we want to rail about money in politics we must start here. This is where the primary problems lie.

Looking at the top UNION listings...

SEIU is 1.9 million workers. That's right at 100$ per worker.

NEA is 2.9 million workers. Thats right at $30 per worker.

Carpenters and Joiners 600k. 108$ per worker.

Realtors at 1.1 million worker. 26$ per worker.

Just because it's a little bit of taxpayer monies per capita rerouted to democratic politicos that makes it ok. But corporations are still evil and need to be cut out of the process. Got it.