I understand some of the criticism against him. Because of his pro-feminist policies. But his economic policies, he is against that Wall Street takes millions of Americans' savings and are rewarded with a big paycheck, he is against that the rich pay less tax then ordinary people. He's against the Patriot Act. He was opposed to racism in his college years. He was against the Iraq war. He is neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He was a mayor of a small town and has had the largest march of all the candidates so far.If i could i would vote for him.

Because we aren't consumers on this forum, we actually work to try and make a living. The man's a fucking idiot if he thinks his policies would help the lower classes.

If Bernie Sanders is the answer, it must be a pretty stupid question.

I actually think universal healthcare, free public college education and building many more places to house and feed the chronically homeless and mentally ill would be good for society. There is more than enough tax revenue to pay for this if most tax dollars weren't funneled to the super rich through corporate welfare, the military industrial complex, interest paid to the federal reserve, ect. There is a tendency on this forum to immediately label anything remotely "liberal", no matter what it is, as automatically bad or beta, which I think is pretty dumb.

Edit: I am in no way advocating for more handouts to lazy piles of shit who simply don't want to work.

In response to the OP, I will simply quote Roosh, who summed it up way better than I could:

Quote:Quote:

The two biggest problems with socialism as an ideology is that (1) it takes from the strong to give to the weak, and (2) it makes individuals dependent on the government to survive.

Those who apply effort to obtain benefits deriving from their labor, virtue, or fortunate genetics should be able to keep the bulk of its rewards instead of making forceful donations under the barrel of the state’s gun to those with a lower worth ethic or constitution. Beautiful women are—due to nature’s prescription—more deserving of high value men. Men who are born with a higher level of intelligence are more deserving of advanced jobs that pay more. Anyone who is more willing to trade their labor for income is deserving of a higher income.

We must not allow the poor to starve on the streets, but it is counterproductive to encourage those on the bottom to beg for more benefits instead of lifting up their own station to a suitable job position that can provide for their basic survival needs.

The effects of socialism are even more damaging when it comes to gender relations, because women now seek out the government as a substitute provider to help them survive instead of using the feminine gifts given to her by nature to land a husband. With her survival needs met thanks to a government bending over to bail out her impulsive decisions, she can spend up to two decades pursuing excitement in the males she meets without any worry about her future. She is no longer punished for her mistakes.

It’s no surprise that single motherhood in the United States has exploded in the past few decades. Why should a woman find a good man who she must serve and satisfy when she can fornicate with sexy men and have the government send her monthly checks and crates of food at no cost? The perverse incentives that socialist policies create mean that women are encouraged to treat men as battery-operated sex dildos that can satisfy her present desires instead of carefully evaluating men for their long-term worth. This has decimated the institution of marriage and also created future criminals and emotional man-children of the state who did not have the opportunity to develop strong values in a stable nuclear home that included a father.

People in genuine need can be provided with temporary assistance by the state to help them through rough spots in their lives, but it shouldn’t be the job of the government to enable citizens to make poor decisions by providing permanent assistance with no strings attached. Limiting such aid would bring out the more industrious and hard-working side of those on the lower economic scale while encouraging women not to whore around and have bastard children because they wanted to gratify their boredom by seeking out bad boys who are exciting to pursue.

http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-neomasculinity

I didn't agree with everything Roosh identified as the foundational principles of neomasculinity, but he nailed this one spot on. Quite a few others are really good too.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist. The manosphere, at least this portion of it, is quite skeptical of socialism. There are a few prominent lefties around this forum, but they seem to be the minority.

Quote: (07-21-2015 06:56 PM)Only One Man Wrote:  

I actually think universal healthcare, free public college education and building many more places to house and feed the chronically homeless and mentally ill would be good for society. There is more than enough tax revenue to pay for this if most tax dollars weren't funneled to the super rich through corporate welfare, the military industrial complex, interest paid to the federal reserve, ect. There is a tendency on this forum to immediately label anything remotely "liberal", no matter what it is, as automatically bad or beta, which I think is pretty dumb.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but this man is not the answer.

If the dems had any clue what they were talking about, kucinich would've been their nominee by now.

Bernie Sanders has never had a tough job in his life. He has never had to deal with difficult customers for years on end, made difficult decisions that would effect his family and employees families because of government regulatory idiocy, never gone bankrupt, and never spoken toward the opportunity freedom has produced for those willing to work for it in America.

He has gone to nice restaurants his whole life while living off the American worker and entrepreneur.

His socialism is not the result of a life spent at tough jobs, but the result of his weakness of character and fortitude as a man. His socialism is his rage at being inferior to the builders and producers he so despises, and because of this, Sanders should be escorted straight to Cuba to work for 10 dollars a month with his comrades, not promoted to Commander and Chief.

Sanders is the candidate of the weasel, the male feminists, and the murderous Red. His rhetoric against wall street is not the disgust that an Honest eye doctor like Ran Paul feels for thieves, but calculated bait towards the dim and midwitted into supporting him so he can become the next abysmal failure in the long line of failed Marxist Silver Spooned Revolutionaries who as soon as they take over create hell on earth for the idiots that supported them along with the noble men that stood against them.

I know nothing about him on my day to day here in Florida not one word or Facebook post do I see.

Other than that I'm going to force everyone I know to vote trump and email mech style strategy to his campiagn.

Just imagine a Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump general election. Talk about a divided electorate...

Say what you will...at least he's not a puppet with a master (clinton, bush, walker etc).

Quote: (07-21-2015 06:30 PM)Allhailthemighty Wrote:  

If i could i would vote for him.

Why can't you vote? EDIT:You're from Sweden? I understand your love for a socialist now.

Quote: (07-21-2015 06:30 PM)Allhailthemighty Wrote:  

I understand some of the criticism against him.

What parts do you understand?

Quote: (07-21-2015 07:54 PM)Kaizen Wrote:  

Say what you will...at least he's not a puppet with a master (clinton, bush, walker etc).

Everyone in politics is a puppet. His masters are the labor unions.

In order of contributions:
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union
Teamsters Union
National Education Assn
United Auto Workers
United Food & Commercial Workers Union
Communications Workers of America
Laborers Union
Carpenters & Joiners Union
National Assn of Letter Carriers
American Assn for Justice
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
United Transportation Union
Sheet Metal Workers Union
Operating Engineers Union
Service Employees International Union
UNITE HERE
United Steelworkers
American Postal Workers Union
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union

Quote: (07-21-2015 07:43 PM)Last Parade Wrote:  

Just imagine a Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump general election. Talk about a divided electorate...

It'll be great for popcorn companies

Quote: (07-21-2015 06:30 PM)Allhailthemighty Wrote:  

I understand some of the criticism against him. Because of his pro-feminist policies. But his economic policies, he is against that Wall Street takes millions of Americans' savings and are rewarded with a big paycheck, he is against that the rich pay less tax then ordinary people. He's against the Patriot Act. He was opposed to racism in his college years. He was against the Iraq war. He is neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He was a mayor of a small town and has had the largest march of all the candidates so far.If i could i would vote for him.

Don't like Wall Street? Don't give them your money. Buy a Vanguard index fund when things blow up next year and hold.

The rich don't pay less in taxes. Warren Buffett is a troll, like you. The corporations that the rich own pay taxes, and then the rich have to pay taxes on the money they pull out of those corporations. Don't believe me? Start your own business and incorporate and tell me what that looks like.

All the other things...blah-de-blah.

Few advocate 1950s style "racism" anymore, but many are tired of having the rainbow jackboot of diversity on our neck telling us how to live.

Mayor of a small town? Shee-it. That totally qualifies him to play chicken with Vladimir Putin.

Largest march? Sounds like you're advocating that numbers make right, which is what I was hearing from right wingers twenty years ago. Congratulations, you are Jerry Falwell.

Sweden, huh? That explains a lot.

Quote: (07-21-2015 06:30 PM)Allhailthemighty Wrote:  

I understand some of the criticism against him. Because of his pro-feminist policies. But his economic policies, he is against that Wall Street takes millions of Americans' savings and are rewarded with a big paycheck, he is against that the rich pay less tax then ordinary people. He's against the Patriot Act. He was opposed to racism in his college years. He was against the Iraq war. He is neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He was a mayor of a small town and has had the largest march of all the candidates so far.If i could i would vote for him.

Let's see....because we're MEN, because we actually understand that things have a price tag, that resources are finite. Maybe it's because we can DO MATH, and understand that tax rates on the rich don't need to be higher than on the middle class because, even at the same rate, THEY ALREADY PAY HIGHER TAXES! What part of relative amount vs. nominal amount do you not understand? What part of "percent" implies "the same for rich and poor", when the base that it is applied against is so vastly different?

I suspect the name "Male feminist" may linger for you long after you've had a lot of posts :/

Because socialism doesn't work. It ends up penalizing businesses and the individual while creating a larger, more intrusive government. Anyone who thinks socialism a good idea is either painfully ignorant of history or living in some sort of fairytale.

Bernie Sanders' ideas sound great to people of my generation, those who have grown up with the internet and the widespread SJW clusterfuck. Most of them don't know anything about history or how an economy actually works. Hint: what they teach you in Econ 101 is not how the economy works. Fundamentally, much of my generation has lived through a (fairly) easy time in American history. For many, the realities of the real world, such as war and economic collapse, have never really struck home. Not to race troll, but based on what I see on Facebook, the majority of Sanders supporters are middle class white kids. This is the same group who tend to accept every degenerate thing and believe in some sort of moral relativism (unless you're against the Unholy Trinity of gay marriage, feminism, and "progress").

Fortunately for this country, however, the younger generations (18-25) tend to not vote. Of course, if it were up to me, you'd have to be at least 25 to vote, and you'd have to pass a basic test about electoral issues. This would disenfranchise me, but I feel as though it would be for the greater good.

@Not dead yet

You should look up off-shore tax shelters. Also, stocl compensation is one of the main ways high up executives are paid. Capital gains are taxed less than W2 earnings. Small businesses can't take advantage of this becausw the company needs to be publicly traded to easily offload stock.

Quote: (07-21-2015 08:23 PM)Repo Wrote:  

@Not dead yet

You should look up off-shore tax shelters. Also, stocl compensation is one of the main ways high up executives are paid. Capital gains are taxed less than W2 earnings. Small businesses can't take advantage of this becausw the company needs to be publicly traded to easily offload stock.

Actually, stock granted as compensation is taxed the SAME as ordinary wages. Only after that is it taxed at a capital gains rate. Which makes sense: If I give an executive $100K in cash, after taxes he'll have roughly $60K. If he buys stock with that, he pays capital gains tax on the appreciation. If I give him $100K in stock, he pays the SAME tax rate as if I paid him in cash. So he's left with $60K in stock. And any further appreciation is taxed at a capital gains rate. So he's in the same position if I gave him cash and he used the after tax money to buy shares. In some ways, equity comp has a disadvantage: Many execs are prohibited by SEC rules from selling shares. But if they got cash and then bought shares in a similar comany, they could sell when they wanted.

So that's the facts on equity compensation. Now, which "off shore" tax shelters are you talking about?

@ The Father

Really? I'll have to do more research, I thought that was the case. If you have a source that would be helpful.

As far as off-shore tax shelters, really any business can use these. Set up an off-shore corporation somewhere that the corporate tax is low, charge a "management fee" so that your US corp's profit margin is zero, and then keep the money overseas. Or so that's what I've read. . .I'll butt out, I'm sure I got some of that wrong and someone will correct me. I need to look up the GE case study to see exactly how they did it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articl...50-percent
All I really need to see. It's like 39% under Obama right now. I'm not making the big bucks but even a guy making around six figures will get fucked.

IRS 2015 taxes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillip...-and-more/

Quote: (07-21-2015 06:56 PM)Only One Man Wrote:  

I actually think universal healthcare, free public college education and building many more places to house and feed the chronically homeless and mentally ill would be good for society.

Not all college degrees are created equal. Why on earth should taxpayers foot the bill for degrees in gender studies, ethnic studies, the arts, philosophy, etc. which in most cases will not be a net positive on the economy when you weigh the cost of the education itself. The only sensible proposal I've seen with regards to free tuition is to limit it to STEM degrees only.

Free college is a populist idea that has a lot of traction among millennials, and the reasoning behind it is simple. If someone is going to pay $60,000 for a degree that will leave one unemployed (or forced into a minimum wage job that didn't require the degree at all), why not pass that cost onto somebody else? It certainly seems tempting.

Quote: (07-21-2015 08:59 PM)Collide Wrote:  

Not all college degrees are created equal. Why on earth should taxpayers foot the bill for degrees in gender studies, ethnic studies, the arts, philosophy, etc. which in most cases will not be a net positive on the economy when you weigh the cost of the education itself. The only sensible proposal I've seen with regards to free tuition is to limit it to STEM degrees only.

Free college is a populist idea that has a lot of traction among millennials, and the reasoning behind it is simple. If someone is going to pay $60,000 for a degree that will leave one unemployed (or forced into a minimum wage job that didn't require the degree at all), why not pass that cost onto somebody else? It certainly seems tempting.

You're getting at a good point, but not saying it explicitly: not everyone should go to college. We need to rid society of the belief "you're worthless if you don't go to college." Some people should not have education beyond high school. Everyone should be able to get it, yes. That doesn't mean everyone should go. The issue is everyone feels as though he/she should go to college, and as a result, you get a lot of people graduating from crap colleges with nonsense degrees (e.g. "gender studies," English, etc.).

There's something called a labor market. You need to actually consider what you're going into before you realize "well shit, I have a worthless degree." For example, I can't think of any job (except professional victim/feminist blogger) that requires a "gender studies" degree. Why the hell should the government be forced to subsidize YOUR choice?

Quote: (07-21-2015 06:56 PM)Only One Man Wrote:  

I actually think universal healthcare, free public college education and building many more places to house and feed the chronically homeless and mentally ill would be good for society. There is more than enough tax revenue to pay for this if most tax dollars weren't funneled to the super rich through corporate welfare, the military industrial complex, interest paid to the federal reserve, ect. There is a tendency on this forum to immediately label anything remotely "liberal", no matter what it is, as automatically bad or beta, which I think is pretty dumb.

Edit: I am in no way advocating for more handouts to lazy piles of shit who simply don't want to work.

The fact of the matter is that we don't. If you look at the federal budget the largest expense payouts go to entitlements I.E social security, food stamps, and other "welfare" programs. The military is cheap compared to our social welfare systems.

The fact that Bernie is pro- feminism is enough to hate the guy.

I support what his policy's on college. I don't think college should be free for just anybody, only to those who actually graduate within a reasonable time (bachelors, 4 years).We just need to spend less on military and call these "terroristic" country's bluff.Nobody should be looking at a $80,000 price tag just to have a chance at a respectable white color job.

Quote: (07-21-2015 08:38 PM)Repo Wrote:  

@ The Father

Really? I'll have to do more research, I thought that was the case. If you have a source that would be helpful.

As far as off-shore tax shelters, really any business can use these. Set up an off-shore corporation somewhere that the corporate tax is low, charge a "management fee" so that your US corp's profit margin is zero, and then keep the money overseas. Or so that's what I've read. . .I'll butt out, I'm sure I got some of that wrong and someone will correct me. I need to look up the GE case study to see exactly how they did it.

I don't mean to be rude; you sound very sincere and well intentioned. But there so much more complexity to what you are banging on about. The "mgmt fee" you are talking about is called transfer pricing. And, not surprisingly, the country where the mgmt fee income is being transferred IN to is very happy to get it...but the country who's taxpayer is avoiding taxes investigates it quite heavily. So if you charge mgmt fees into the US you'll be faced with a lot of scrutiny from the IRS, if you charge mgmt fees to lower your UK profits HMRC and Inland Revenue will audit the fuck out of you, etc. I.e., abuse is countered - and even non-abusers spend a fortune on compliance. In short, these rules work in large part exactly as they were intended to work: Reasonable costs are sustained, abusive costs aren't. Setting up a factory in a low-tax country benefits you, but only to the extent you keep the money IN that country ...once you x-fer it back to the U.S., you pay taxes on it. And at the highest corp tax rate in the world.