• 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 already gearing up for 2020? [W:59]

Cont...

I will never understand the insistence that you do not need something to sell in order to sell it.

Expressed demand is a function of supply. Theoretical demand can spur investors to create supply, but remains useless until it is successfully expressed.

You can no more consume yourself rich than you can increase the food in your larder by eating it all.

You will never have a problem engendering supply to meet demand; if there's money to be made by selling into a market that features demand, it will be made. Supply will rise to meet demand: Apple will produce and sell phones into markets where there is an appetite for their products, and avoid those where there is not, assuming that a profit can be made at the end of the day.

The real problem is ensuring the existence of adequate demand: people who are both willing and able to buy your widgets. Every recession is a case of inadequate demand due to deprivation and/or the servicing of debt, resulting in reduction of supply in a vicious cycle (people spend less because they're not making as much which causes the economy to contract which exasperates the deprivation and causes people to spend less in turn, etc) until some form or another of interdiction where demand recovers (either via government stimulus as the buyer of last resort, or some kind of economic epiphany). I have yet to hear of a recession caused strictly by an absence of supply.

And who are the most likely to invest that money back to where it is most productive.

Meaning, not here, if we are foolish enough to try to jack up taxes on it to 52%. Capital will flee, and it will be wise to.

As stated in my prior posts, encouraging direct, material capital investment is a good thing and should be encouraged; the way to do it is with targeted and specific tax incentives, not with broadbased tax cuts/low taxes.

Further, an economy with an educated and productive populace that has money to spend as a consequence of redistributive policy will always be an attractive place to invest, even if taxes are comparatively high.
 
You seem to be almost intentionally missing the point.

When Trump supporters try to claim that Trump won with the support of the people ... well, no he didn't. He won by the rules, but he didn't win with some sort of mandate. More people voted for not him than him. That is incontrovertible fact. It doesn't make him Not President, but it also doesn't mean the will of the people was realized. Like it or not, states that Hillary won by a lot are still populated by Americans.

Clinton supporters have tried everything they can to keep Trump out of the White House but each attempt has met with failure. The rules have been the same for many years and Trump made sure that he campaign in the states he needed to win. Hillary did not. Trump won but the left and their friends in the media continues their day in and day out campaign of rage against him. The incontrovertible fact is Trump is president until 2020. And if the democrats continue to push the resist nonsense Trump will be president for an additional 4 years.
 
Clinton supporters have tried everything they can to keep Trump out of the White House but each attempt has met with failure. The rules have been the same for many years and Trump made sure that he campaign in the states he needed to win. Hillary did not. Trump won but the left and their friends in the media continues their day in and day out campaign of rage against him. The incontrovertible fact is Trump is president until 2020. And if the democrats continue to push the resist nonsense Trump will be president for an additional 4 years.

They’ve tried everything they can to keep Trump out of the White House? Really? The only person to try a recount was Stein, who was hardly a “Hillary supporter.”
 
First, Pocahontas has to learn how to keep her foot out of her mouth. She as much of a problem as the rest of these clowns, on both sides of the aisle.

I'm really not that crazy about her, but at this point its starting to look like she's the best we've got. :shrug: I'd rather it be her than Biden. If they run Biden it'd be 2016.2
 
I'm really not that crazy about her, but at this point its starting to look like she's the best we've got. :shrug: I'd rather it be her than Biden. If they run Biden it'd be 2016.2

You do understand that Biden is about as establishment as it gets in the Dem party, right?
 
I will bet the Left wants to see run is Michelle Obama before Crazy Bernie (God help us all if that happens).
 
.....Yes?
Why did you draw the exact opposite conclusion than what the post intended?

I blame checking my mobile at work, haha (eyeballed it while on the desk phone); my bad man.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom