• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Sanders Raises $3 Million In Four Days

Bergslagstroll said:
More equale countries with higher taxes like my country Sweden, have more social mobility
Click to expand...

That depends on whether you are measuring in a zero sum fashion or not. It's not so much that America has less social mobility, it's that our high performers earn way more, and so our top brackets are far higher. We also have more freedom of movement.

so you instead could say that countries like USA with lower taxes forestall competition by making it harder for children with low income to succeed.
Click to expand...

....no, you couldn't. There is no connection between my uncle's tax rates and my kids' performance in school.

That at the same time Sweden have a lot of sucessfull companies from old ones like Volvo and H & M to new tech company like Skype who Microsoft bought, Minecraft and Spotify, so we also do pretty well on the global market.
Click to expand...

Sure, Sweden's done well with a few items.
 
cpwill said:
That depends on whether you are measuring in a zero sum fashion or not. It's not so much that America has less social mobility, it's that our high performers earn way more, and so our top brackets are far higher. We also have more freedom of movement.
Click to expand...

Well you also have to look at minimum wage and their USA only comes at 13:th place and that excluding the Scandinavian countries that have a higher lowest wage from collective agreements. Also an average of 93000 a year salary for an CEO in Sweden (including small companies) maybee little compare to USA. But still you can live a pretty good life for that kind of money so maybee changes for more children to become CEO is more important when an even more luxurus life. Sweden also of course also have very successful people that becomes billionaires.

http://www.ecotripsos.com/highestminimumwage/

cpwill said:
....no, you couldn't. There is no connection between my uncle's tax rates and my kids' performance in school.
Click to expand...


Of course it is if you not wealthy and can't pay for private school for your children, when you are dependent on that people is willing to pay enough taxes so that public school is good. Also your children didn't chooes you as their parents so they will be hurt by something they can't control if you earn to little money and society will not provide good school.

It is also a big diffrence bewteen a poor kids and a rich kids changes between USA and Sweden. In USA a poor kid maybee have enough good grade to get into to university but no money from parents so she therefore will not be able to go to university or atleast have a disadvandage to other kids. For example she can both have to work a lot so she doesn't have the same amount of time to study and also have to take a huge financial risk with huge student loans. While the rich kids don't have enough good grades but thanks to her parents donation she can get in to a good university and also can solely focuse on her studies. While in Sweden University is free and you entrance to university is solely based on your merits. In Sweden we have also have studentloan and grants for all students so it's only necissary to work during summer time to afford housing, food etc.
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
Bernie Sanders is seventy some years old and his ideas are even older.
Click to expand...

Ever hear the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?"

The economy was broken during the 1930 crash and the root cause was immediately addressed. Everything was going swimmingly well until Reaganomics. Unfortuntely, nothing trickled down. It was the beginning of the wealth gap that has kept on getting bigger year after year. This is undisputed fact. The economy was not broken until Reagan fiddled with it (and since then, there has been more fiddling).

Bernie wants to take the US back to times of prosperity for Americans. Today's GOP* is still on it's knees catering to Wall Street and big banks. They do not give one flying **** about you. Shame that you cannot see that.


* I am speaking about party lines. I am fully aware than many Democrats cater to WS and big banks.
 
US Conservative said:
The problem is what feels good the left is often so demonstrably bad for the nation.
Click to expand...

...and its opposite, what feels good for the right is demonstrably bad for the nation.

And its bipartisan sum, what feels good for Congress is demonstrably bad for the nation.
 
Middleground said:
Ever hear the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?"

The economy was broken during the 1930 crash and the root cause was immediately addressed. Everything was going swimmingly well until Reaganomics. Unfortuntely, nothing trickled down. It was the beginning of the wealth gap that has kept on getting bigger year after year. This is undisputed fact. The economy was not broken until Reagan fiddled with it (and since then, there has been more fiddling).

Bernie wants to take the US back to times of prosperity for Americans. Today's GOP* is still on it's knees catering to Wall Street and big banks. They do not give one flying **** about you. Shame that you cannot see that.


* I am speaking about party lines. I am fully aware than many Democrats cater to WS and big banks.
Click to expand...

There is substantial evidence that FDR's policies prolonged the great depression, read some Hayek.
 
Anomalism said:
It's sad when your success as a politician depends on how much money you have access to.
Click to expand...

Not really. That's essentially how it has always worked. Money worked hand in hand with talent, vision, and being the right person for the moment's attitude.

Keep in mind also that a decade ago we developed a mechanism to increase the likelihood of small donations to Presidential candidates. We didn't change the formula regarding big donors (perhaps to some extent accelerated it), but we did increase the participation and money flow for those with less means. It also helped tip the balance for one candidate over the other in a Party's primary while being a more modest presence in the general election (given the number of other influences in the mix).
 
Last edited:
US Conservative said:
Perhaps this is another tactic of the left to push the far and away front runner-Hillary more to the right, as with Elizabeth Warren.
Click to expand...

Youre saying the left ants Hillary, the likely nominee, to b mor to the right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom