Tesla CEO Elon Musk said he supports Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang

Rob Roy said:

Hegemony of the US dollar will eventually be a thing of the past, but the woods will get much darker before the light of competing currencies shines thru.

Ever notice how the "bad countries" are the ones who want to use alternatives to the US dollar?

Click to expand...

Idk, I am guessing most people on this site is not unused to seeing a few stacks of $50's from time to time.

The American dollar is still king, until there is a government who has less governmental control over their currency while still backing it like we do, it will still be the most stable. Every other currency is a competitor though, and it is good to have that competition.

abandonconflict said:

Harris proposed a middle class tax cut. $500 monthly for everyone making under 100k. This makes more sense than ubi to me.

Click to expand...

that's cuz u r not poor....

abandonconflict said:

If the economy necessitates handouts, it's not working and it can't be fixed. Tax cuts. Middle and lower class tax cuts, let the tax cuts for the rich expire.

Click to expand...

again...because you are not poor.

doublejj said:

that's cuz u r not poor....

Click to expand...

I made 32k in 2018 and paid income tax even though I live abroad. No doubt I could use an extra 1k per month but I'd rather have dollars that are worth something. It's not as terrible an idea as Bernie's M4A, that's for sure. I'm not vehemently opposed, I just don't think holding my breath for free money is a good use of my time.

Besides that, isn't unemployment really low? I thought the whole point of UBI was to address the loss of jobs to automation. Is it to be paid for by taxation or debt? Robots can't do my job yet, so I will clearly be one of the ones paying for it. How much will I have to pay? Will they give me a hundred dollars and take back 99?

You might be able to convince me, but I assure you, I value what little I earn.

abandonconflict said:

...
Besides that, isn't unemployment really low? ...

Click to expand...

Nope. Not at all.

Oh, the unemployment stats are low, all right, so that is what you're going by. But the actual job situation is poor. Fully one-third of those employed are using gig-economy jobs to get by, and others are making a little with other self-employed jobs.

So all of those people are not included in the official unemployed stats, even though they've been looking for a job for years. Also, the republicans have changed the formula for calculating the jobs number, to make it look more attractive.

It's all another government facade. Don't be fooled.

@abandonconflict
"...The Harris who was cracking jokes during the Monday morning interview is basically unrecognizable compared with the Harris of just a few years ago.

In 2010, while Harris was San Fransisco district attorney and running for state attorney general, she came out in opposition to Proposition 19. The measure would have legalized marijuana in California, and in a statement shared with The New York Times, Harris said Prop 19 would encourage “driving while high” and drug use in the workplace.

As CBS reported at the time, both Harris and her Republican opponent, then-Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, refused to give a straight answer during a debate when they were asked whether they’d defend Prop 19 if it passed.

Prop 19 ultimately did not pass, with 53.5 percent of California voters voting no on the measure. California voters put Harris in the Attorney General’s office that year, as well.

Four years later, Harris was up for re-election, and her Republican opponent Ron Gold made legalizing recreational marijuana part of his platform. When a local news reporter asked Harris what she thought of Gold’s position, Harris said, “He’s entitled to his opinion,” before bursting into laughter.

Harris first announced her support for legalizing marijuana just last year, long after her home state and several others around the country legalized its use. In a book released last month, she called for legalizing and regulating the drug, as well as expunging nonviolent marijuana-related offenses “from the records of millions of people who have been arrested and incarcerated so they can get on with their lives.”

Harris’s pivot comes amidst increased scrutiny of her prosecutorial record. ..."

https://thinkprogress.org/harris-record-weed-history-ce37afd239ce/


^^^ all that's just on weed, look into her for her other stuff and you can see where I'm coming from. Gage, Larsen, Baca, Cooper, doesn't look good to me.

@abandonconflict , here's a more reputable source, saying the same thing... These type of things, trying to champion like you're for the underdog, or for the common man, very phony when I look at her record..

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

Maybe you'll give me a bit of credit in my reasoning now...

ChiefRunningPhist said:

@abandonconflict , here's a more reputable source, saying the same thing... These type of things, trying to champion like you're for the underdog, or for the common man, very phony when I look at her record..

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

Maybe you'll give me a bit of credit in my reasoning now...

Click to expand...

turn her loose on thrump.....lock him up

doublejj said:

turn her loose on thrump.....lock him up

Click to expand...

Lol but after Old balls gets a piece hahaha



Lol somebody call Dana White!!

100% if Biden beat Tump at a UFC, tump losses election, they'll be discussing bidens single leg and his striking ability ect ... lol policy? What's that?

ChiefRunningPhist said:

@abandonconflict
"...The Harris who was cracking jokes during the Monday morning interview is basically unrecognizable compared with the Harris of just a few years ago.

In 2010, while Harris was San Fransisco district attorney and running for state attorney general, she came out in opposition to Proposition 19. The measure would have legalized marijuana in California, and in a statement shared with The New York Times, Harris said Prop 19 would encourage “driving while high” and drug use in the workplace.

As CBS reported at the time, both Harris and her Republican opponent, then-Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, refused to give a straight answer during a debate when they were asked whether they’d defend Prop 19 if it passed.

Prop 19 ultimately did not pass, with 53.5 percent of California voters voting no on the measure. California voters put Harris in the Attorney General’s office that year, as well.

Four years later, Harris was up for re-election, and her Republican opponent Ron Gold made legalizing recreational marijuana part of his platform. When a local news reporter asked Harris what she thought of Gold’s position, Harris said, “He’s entitled to his opinion,” before bursting into laughter.

Harris first announced her support for legalizing marijuana just last year, long after her home state and several others around the country legalized its use. In a book released last month, she called for legalizing and regulating the drug, as well as expunging nonviolent marijuana-related offenses “from the records of millions of people who have been arrested and incarcerated so they can get on with their lives.”

Harris’s pivot comes amidst increased scrutiny of her prosecutorial record. ..."
View attachment 4378199
https://thinkprogress.org/harris-record-weed-history-ce37afd239ce/

^^^ all that's just on weed, look into her for her other stuff and you can see where I'm coming from. Gage, Larsen, Baca, Cooper, doesn't look good to me.

Click to expand...

I opposed prop 19 also. It was a poorly written bad idea. It would have placed too high of a tax burden on us. A lot of growers opposed it. California opposed it in 2010. That tells all you need to know about it. That's a whole lot just to remind us that she opposed it too.

Cooper, yeah. He's alive still. He hasn't been proven innocent. If you dig hard enough on someone and are willing to cherry pick, you can find what you want to find on anyone. You have pretty much doubled down. Nothing you mentioned matters. In fact, if that's all, she looks fantastic.

Ready to hear about how terrible Sanders is?

abandonconflict said:

I opposed prop 19 also. It was a poorly written bad idea. It would have placed too high of a tax burden on us. A lot of growers opposed it. California opposed it in 2010. That tells all you need to know about it. That's a whole lot just to remind us that she opposed it too.

Cooper, yeah. He's alive still. He hasn't been proven innocent. If you dig hard enough on someone and are willing to cherry pick, you can find what you want to find on anyone. You have pretty much doubled down. Nothing you mentioned matters. In fact, if that's all, she looks fantastic.

Ready to hear about how terrible Sanders is?

Click to expand...

Lol sure, lay it on me..

Ny times is saying epstein had something to do with tesla. No proof on it. Just food for thought

rollitup said:

Nope. Not at all.

Oh, the unemployment stats are low, all right, so that is what you're going by. But the actual job situation is poor. Fully one-third of those employed are using gig-economy jobs to get by, and others are making a little with other self-employed jobs.

So all of those people are not included in the official unemployed stats, even though they've been looking for a job for years. Also, the republicans have changed the formula for calculating the jobs number, to make it look more attractive.

It's all another government facade. Don't be fooled.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a reason for better wages. Doesn't sound like an effect of automation. What you're saying sounds like it is likely true but look at the context in which I asked a bunch of questions. You took one and you did answer it well.

Therefore a thousand bucks a month to every ass hole? I don't think that it addresses the underlying problem.

Adding 3t per year to the economy has to either come from debt or tax. In other words it has to be paid for by some means. A huge amount of taxes, it might be a small benefit in the sense that it would create a poverty floor and that’s great aside from the increased demand causing prices to rise for all commodities.

I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to want to just print an extra 3t per year even though inflation is too low as it is. That would bring a slough of economic problems that would among other affects actually reduce purchasing power of most people.

This idea has been floated for a long time and even tested in a few places like Kuwait. The thing is, when they made a small ubi there of about 4k per year they simultaneously were increasing the amount of wealth created in the system by a corresponding amount. Same in Alaska where people are paid just to live there. It's oil money.

Back to the jobs question. How is watering down the beverage going to get us all drunker?

ChiefRunningPhist said:

Lol sure, lay it on me..

Click to expand...

He has been in congress 3 decades and passed 3 bills in all that time. 2 of them to name new post offices. The other one, great, veterans got an extra 28 bucks a month. Less if they were under 100% service connected.

He had toxic waste dumped in Latino communities.

He had antiwar protesters arrested when they staged a sit in hoping to talk to him. They had faith that he would address their concerns and they were tossed in jail overnight like drunks. This was what turned me against him.

He opted to shield weapons manufacturers from liability for the harm they profit on.

He only very recently began to pay his employees $15 per hour and only because he was forced to do so.

The biggest issue that I have with him is one that most people support him for. They support him because they do not know the price tag. This Medicare for all is an important debate that needs to occur objectively. Leave emotional leanings aside and assume we are not debating with Trumptards who want millions of uninsured people.

I'm vehemently opposed to the huge tax hikes that will accompany his version of the Medicare for all. I'm generally opposed to all forms of M4A because I'm one of the few who actually prefers my private insurance, for me but I could support a version of M4A that costs considerably less than bernie's plan which would cost me a third of my earnings per year. It's a staggering cost.

He wants to force everyone (including immigrants) into full comprehensive coverage with no co-pays and no deductibles. This nationalization of health care would cost 5-7 times the military budget while eliminating more than 700k jobs and giving doctors a pay cut.

He says that taxing everyone making over 30k by 10k will save us money since we each pay 20k per year for health care but it's the average family of 4 that pays 20k per year in health care costs. It's true that the government pays more money to Healthcare than anything else but the answer to this to find ways to reduce costs, not put the burden on the taxpayers while increasing the cost.

This would be the biggest middle class tax hike in history by far. He says that a single payer system would allow the government to negotiate better prices. What a complete crock. The government could simply set prices or tax the fuck out the drug companies and every other company that profits from poor health.

I bid you, genuinely to go look in earnest for everything you can find on his plan regarding how he plans to funds his version of M4A because he's right that it's the most important issue to be talking about. What you will find is very little about the price tag.

Everyone who sees the price tag changes their mind, immediately. This includes the bills cosponsors and signers. Watch him talk about it on the Joe Rogan podcast from last week. Sounds great? That's because he doesn't talk about the price.

I want a 120 meter yacht but shit costs money bro.

Continued after I refill my coffee cup.

I actually very much support the universal health care. I'm arguing against Medicare for all until costs come down. I don't want to pay an additional 10k per year in taxes. That would leave me with less than half of my earnings. If you make less than 30k it would cost you considerably less. I would have every reason to ask my employer to pay me less.

Usually when people argue in favor of Bernie's healthcare plan, they paint all opposition with the same broad brush strokes. For example, if I oppose huge tax hikes it must obviously be because I want poor people to die in the streets with no coverage. This is the most common sort of argument but usually presented in softer words. If the best defense for something is a dishonest argument, it's probably shit.

Another common argument is that "well Canada has universal single payer, why can't we?". This ignores so much nuance it makes my head spin. In order to understand the difference, we have to look at what each country actually has killing its population and making it sick. You have to look at how each country's regulatory system safeguards the health of its population.

In the United States, metabolic ailments like diabetes create the biggest draw on our health and on the costs of providing care. In other words, health care costs so much for us because we're fat and don't exercise enough. We eat processed sugary garbage and subsidize sugar. We drink Coca-Cola and hand out opioid like candy.

Canadians have effective regulatory bodies and a generally much healthier population as a result. They still pay a fortune for health care but it's manageable.

So comparing our system to theirs is a terrible stretch. We have 27 million uninsured people. We have the most profitable drug companies. We have the most morbidly obese population in the world. This is why the mainstream dems we love to hate almost without exceptions have gone from supporting M4A to changing step and saying that we need to do it incrementally. Let's get everyone covered. Then expand Medicare. Then reduce costs. Then M4A.

Let's not lightly pass the biggest middle class tax hikes in history.

srh88 said:

Ny times is saying epstein had something to do with tesla. No proof on it. Just food for thought

Click to expand...

Shitcoin too. In order to be a billionaire you have to have a finger in every pie. Apparently even the really young ones.

abandonconflict said:

He has been in congress 3 decades and passed 3 bills in all that time. 2 of them to name new post offices. The other one, great, veterans got an extra 28 bucks a month. Less if they were under 100% service connected.

He had toxic waste dumped in Latino communities.

He had antiwar protesters arrested when they staged a sit in hoping to talk to him. They had faith that he would address their concerns and they were tossed in jail overnight like drunks. This was what turned me against him.

He opted to shield weapons manufacturers from liability for the harm they profit on.

He only very recently began to pay his employees $15 per hour and only because he was forced to do so.

The biggest issue that I have with him is one that most people support him for. They support him because they do not know the price tag. This Medicare for all is an important debate that needs to occur objectively. Leave emotional leanings aside and assume we are not debating with Trumptards who want millions of uninsured people.

I'm vehemently opposed to the huge tax hikes that will accompany his version of the Medicare for all. I'm generally opposed to all forms of M4A because I'm one of the few who actually prefers my private insurance, for me but I could support a version of M4A that costs considerably less than bernie's plan which would cost me a third of my earnings per year. It's a staggering cost.

He wants to force everyone (including immigrants) into full comprehensive coverage with no co-pays and no deductibles. This nationalization of health care would cost 5-7 times the military budget while eliminating more than 700k jobs and giving doctors a pay cut.

He says that taxing everyone making over 30k by 10k will save us money since we each pay 20k per year for health care but it's the average family of 4 that pays 20k per year in health care costs. It's true that the government pays more money to Healthcare than anything else but the answer to this to find ways to reduce costs, not put the burden on the taxpayers while increasing the cost.

This would be the biggest middle class tax hike in history by far. He says that a single payer system would allow the government to negotiate better prices. What a complete crock. The government could simply set prices or tax the fuck out the drug companies and every other company that profits from poor health.

I bid you, genuinely to go look in earnest for everything you can find on his plan regarding how he plans to funds his version of M4A because he's right that it's the most important issue to be talking about. What you will find is very little about the price tag.

Everyone who sees the price tag changes their mind, immediately. This includes the bills cosponsors and signers. Watch him talk about it on the Joe Rogan podcast from last week. Sounds great? That's because he doesn't talk about the price.

I want a 120 meter yacht but shit costs money bro.

Continued after I refill my coffee cup.

Click to expand...

Its the cost the 10% bear when they make their success off the backs of the 90%. It's the cost of a majority capatalist economy and pretty unregulated wall street.

Look at the historical data, you guys (yes you, the only one that wouldn't want free health care and to keep their private insurance would be someone that would be negatively impacted by the move, ie higher tax rate) have it so good these days..

https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates#in-any-event-in-the-early-1980s-ronald-reagan-came-along-and-he-started-cutting-taxes-in-1982-the-top-marginal-rate-dropped-to-50-23

All you gotta do is cut 3.6t + 0.7t of the 19.6t GDP, right off the top and make the rich pay for it (include epa, national parks, all the benefits that should be free for someone making under 100k). Increase capital gains, increase corporate tax and nail em on the import if they move off shore, increase income, increase inheritance. Start to put an AI tax at an incredible clip. As soon as energy = free, the cost of production due to AI will be 0/(over time). Develop tidal energy capture, use solar, use up Nat gas, quit subsidizing coal ect.. Allow the menial job people the chance to get free education, they'd have time, now that they aren't trying to ensure bezos qtr projection. All that extra creative due to freedom = innovation, spurs technology, spurs human race forward, research isn't based on how much money can be made, more discovery can happen because all the essentials needed to exist are accounted for, were adding the brilliant minds that had to work at McDonald's to raise the little sister because moms a drug addict, ect...

Who paying for tax cut rn? The Wal-Mart shoppers, just continuing to re-distribute in the wrong way..

Chief2020 lol

EDIT:
You could literally make a poster board showing what we start with, what we value, and who's guna pay, it is literally algebra, +'s and -'s, I'm sure ppl would get it real easy. Why doesn't this happen? Special interests? Lobbyists? Super PACs?

ChiefRunningPhist said:

Its the cost the 10% bear when they make their success off the backs of the 90%. It's the cost of a majority capatalist economy and pretty unregulated wall street.

Look at the historical data, you guys (yes you, the only one that wouldn't want free health care and to keep their private insurance would be someone that would be negatively impacted by the move, ie higher tax rate) have it so good these days..

https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates#in-any-event-in-the-early-1980s-ronald-reagan-came-along-and-he-started-cutting-taxes-in-1982-the-top-marginal-rate-dropped-to-50-23

All you gotta do is cut 3.6t + 0.7t of the 19.6t GDP, right off the top and make the rich pay for it (include epa, national parks, all the benefits that should be free for someone making under 100k). Increase capital gains, increase corporate tax and nail em on the import if they move off shore, increase income, increase inheritance. Start to put an AI tax at an incredible clip. As soon as energy = free, the cost of production due to AI will be 0/(over time). Develop tidal energy capture, use solar, use up Nat gas, quit subsidizing coal ect.. Allow the menial job people the chance to get free education, they'd have time, now that they aren't trying to ensure bezos qtr projection. All that extra creative due to freedom = innovation, spurs technology, spurs human race forward, research isn't based on how much money can be made, more discovery can happen because all the essentials needed to exist are accounted for, were adding the brilliant minds that had to work at McDonald's to raise the little sister because moms a drug addict, ect...

Who paying for tax cut rn? The Wal-Mart shoppers, just continuing to re-distribute in the wrong way..

Chief2020 lol

EDIT:
You could literally make a poster board showing what we start with, what we value, and who's guna pay, it is literally algebra, + and -, I'm sure ppl would get it real easy. Why doesn't this happen? Special interests? Lobbyists? Super PACs?

Click to expand...

No. I'm among the vast super majority of the 100% that loves free shit.

But nothing is free.

All of the things that you mentioned are accounted for and still pay less than half of the total costs of M4A. But that's if you accept Bernie's estimate of its cost. For the sake of argument, let's agree that it will cost 32 trillion dollars for the first 10 years as he says and not the 49 trillion dollars estimated by industry experts. They may be experts but they also may be biased. It's probably somewhere in between. Anyway, even with his numbers, you would still see a 10k annual tax hike on every tax payer making over 30k. Someone making $15 and working 40 hours per week grosses $31,200 annually. So get used to his economics. Please do your homework on him. Don't assume I'm biased against the leftist.

Bernie has repeated for years that he would raise taxes to the middle class. That's what democratic socialism means. Yes, 32 trillion is that big of a number.

On the other hand, Obama has done more than anyone else in history to expand health care coverage. Getting more people on plans reduces premiums. Expanding Medicare to the poor will cover the gap so that every single person is covered. ACA is the best way forward.

When confronted with a 10,000 dollar tax hike, I am very willing to pay a deductible. I'm not every person though. I concede that. I'm in good shape. I eat very well and avoid sugar. I don't drink alcohol. I'm a technical diver and as a result, I'm fit and athletic. I avoid unhealthy habits like sedentary living or excessive masturbation. I eat different kinds of mushrooms every day and lots of green plants like bitter gourd, broccoli, asparagus and leafy vegetables. I am in above average health. So yes, I am one of the minority who would save money by opting for a private plan as opposed to M4A with a massive tax hike.

My minority is not that small. We deserve the right to choose. Give it to us and I will support Bernie. I'm not asking for so much.

He won't even hear it. His fat head is unwilling to entertain any notion against his view of what is best for everyone. That's my main problem with this man in his 80s.