Bloomberg can't win the guy doesn't seem presidential at all.

First off he's part of the problem guy has 50 billion dollars in his bank account. Think how many people we can get on health insurance / send kids to college / and pay a higher min wage / help homeless get section 8 with some of this money that he doesn't need or want to spend.

His company is based on stock market and hes friends with the banks that got bailed out and told people we can't let things change with a Warren or Sanders in office who he can't bribe.

The dude was a republican for a very long time and invested in republican candidates to do his bidding said you have to treat politicians like children and only give them an allowance if they clean their rooms etc. THIS GUY ISn'T EVEN HIDING IT hes open and up front about it like holy hell man what is your problem?

THIS GUY IS CORRUPT as hell literally this person is immoral basically.

We need someone who is for the people the average american. Who is not corrupting things for his own benefit like Trump and Bloomberg.

He treated blacks like criminals in new york with stop and frisk.

He tried to limit the amount of soda you could buy in NYC acting like he knows whats best for you.

He's got NDA's with female employees who didn't like his "awful sexist jokes"

He hasn't been strong at any debate yet.

Why is this guy running he can't win and hes awful? Step aside sir.

Trump would mop the floor with this guy it wouldn't even be close. We need someone else. Someone incorruptible who is for the 99% and attacks the 1%. Folks you know who we need in the office.

If you took every dime Bloomberg has to his name, and left him penniless, it wouldn't be enough to fund those programs for a month. You're never going to pay for any of that by declaring war on "the rich."

There is nothing Republican about Bloomberg. If superficial letters makes a difference to you, then you're about as "low information" as a voter can be. There isn't as much difference between the two as you may think.

And passing laws because those in office feel they know what's best for you is pretty par for the course. The majority of any ideas I've heard from the left in any debates is some multi-millionare pretending to know what is best for you.

And to your last point. Trump would mop the floor against any of them, so at this point it doesn't really matter. You say we need someone who attacks the 1%. Why? What has the 1% done to you? And before you comment, look up who fits into the 1%. It's virtually every small business owner, even Bernie is part of the 1%. So tell me what crime it is you think this 1% should be punished for.

@eoten: maybe not but we gotta go after all the billionaires. I would say give em all 999 million dollars and tell them billionaires are extinct in the USA. :| ... but thats just me I know some people disagree hell some even in poor and middle class disagree with it.

Don't you think bloomberg can't win vs trump though with all the skeletons in his closet?

Are you doing a thing where you are actually saying all the things people said about trump, to prove Bloomberg is a valid candidate?

They are basically the same person.

Except Bloomberg doesn't look like a clown and is actually wealthy

Why do we have to go after billionaires, have they committed a crime that you are aware of and can prove? Why do you have so much hate for a group of people I seriously doubt you know personally. Are you convinced they are all somehow evil because they have money? Do you blame them for your own failings in life? Because Bernie does say all your problems are their fault. AOC claims that nobody makes a billion, but steals it from everyone else. There isn't this finite source of "wealth" that the evil rich people are hogging so you can't have any. It's hateful, intolerant, and divisive for the sake of being these things. I bet you agree with this?

@eoten: I don't hate em i just think 999 million dollars is enough to live out the rest of your life in peace, don't see the need for over a billion dollars in money. Millionaires are fine imo.

@ProtossRushX: what if you start a company that grows into being worth over a billion dollars, should the company no longer be able to grow? Are you suggesting its given over to the government if it is that level of success?

Should google or amazon not be allowed to be worth over a billion $s?

People like Bloomberg probably allready own congress. He did say he bought them in the debate.

Sounds like trump TBH...….

@ProtossRushX: So what I'm hearing is you want to steal 49 billion dollars from Bloomberg?

so what happens if i have 999,999,999.99 and some of my stocks pay me a dividend that pushes me over 1,000,000,000? am i forced at gunpoint to go buy a yacht to get back under your cap? speaking of yachts, do assets like that count towards my cap or is it just things like cash, stocks? and if so, will the gov't be sending appraisers around to everyone's mansions to evaluate how much their art or watch collection is worth to see if they're over the legal wealth limit?

you can see this gets stupid pretty fast...

You may say that now. But once billionaires are eliminated, the rich-haters will focus their anger on the next highest level of rich people. Next it'll be "nobody should have over $100 million dollars." Then it'll be $10 million, then $1 million, until you've legislated private business ownership out, and have nothing but a fully government owned economy, and you become Venezuela while people like Bernie, and AOC who would need to remain in office, and given more power would become filthy rich, while you and your family suffer in ways you never thought imaginable.

That is what Communists like Bernie does. They promise you crap, make you think you have a right to things you don't, tell you all your problems are the cause of someone elses and the only way to establish "equality" is to destroy that upper class, of which they become, and you end up with nothing but more oppression and authoritarianism then you'd ever thought possible. And do you know how it was done in these other countries? Through elections, by dividing people, and instigating class warfare against those who had more power than the instigators who wanted it.

Now, if someone committed some kind of crime to get to that position, or evaded taxes, embezzled, laundered, etc. Then they should be charged for it and held accountable. But they should not be persecuted and treated like shit purely for success, and once anybody starts putting caps on how successful someone can be in this country, you have a bigger problem on your hands.

I'm not going to argue that their shouldn't be billionaires, but I do think modern corporations pay out too much at the executive level. Executive pay has risen something like 940% since the 80's, while working class wages have gone up around 15%. Are CEO's working ten times harder now than they used to be? No, of course not. Worker productivity has gone up, and the extra cash coming in from that is flowing upward. Also, pensions used to be a thing.

Look, Jeff Bezos started Amazon, and he deserves to be fabulously wealthy for it. But he didn't build that company by himself, thousands of people were involved. More of his money should have gone to them, and more should have been reinvested into Amazon itself.

A dollar a second and it takes you almost 32 years to earn a billion dollars. It is a shit load of money.

i'm not arguing that a billion dollars isn't a fuckton of money. i'm trying to understand what mechanism would be in place to limit an individual's wealth to a billion dollars

A much more progressive tax system would help.

It would matter less though if money didn't have the level of influence it had

How are you not banned?

Why should stating that no one really needs a billion dollars or more warrant a ban?

look at his statement and tell me that's not straight trolling

I don't trust obscenely rich people.

Maybe so but shouldn't that decision be up to the stock holders and such? Regardless how you look at it, ANYONE can go into Amazon and package goods into a box and label it but the same people would not be able to run a billion dollar company successfully. Rather than just crying about pay disparity, understand why it exists.

If I were to widen the scope for what I could call trolling to include this, I would have to ban a lot of people here.

But then we wouldn't get to talk anymore :(

Mhm :(

Given some of the precedence(that's the wrong word, right) that Trump has made, electing Bloomberg means electing someone with their own(ed) propaganda outlet. I don't think that is a good idea.

Bloomberg is a total fakeboy making sure the other members of the group don't stand out, by spamming garbage for attention.

So basically Bloomberg is equal to the TC of this thread.

in amazon's defense it's really only been raking in lots of cash over the past few years. they were notorious for investing back into the company to grow it rather than just paying out profits.




https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/net-income

Mmmhmm, and it took people with billions a considerably long time to raise that much. Yet you, and other Bernie bros think they're going to fund entitlements for people who do not feel like working. You do realize that even if you taxed billionaires 100% of all their money, millionaires too, that medicare for all program of Bernies would be funded at tops, a few months. Who do you think pays for the programs after that period?

It doesn't matter if it's a shit load of money or not. Nothing stops you from earning your own if you're willing to start the financial risk of starting a business, and have the skill to succeed at it.

Clint Eastwood and Bloomberg look like long-last brothers.

Bloomberg is literally Trump 2.0. He can just form a complete sentence and is genuinely wealthy.

He spent most of his life as a registered Republican. He switches parties whenever it's convenient for him to do so. His term as mayor in New York was horrifying from a civil rights perspective.

I understand why the pay disparity exists, my issue is I think it's self-destructive long term.

Let's start with the why. I mentioned worker productivity already. Then there is globalization which enables a company to expand it's market by going into more and more countries, while also picking out the cheapest places to find labor and purchase raw materials. At the same time, more and more CEO's are getting paid with stock or stock options instead of a salary. This makes sense because it ties their earnings to performance encouraging them to do what is best for their shareholders.

The problem is that when too few people control too much wealth, all it takes is one or two stupid ideas catching on among them to wreck the whole economy. In 2007 we saw this with credit default swaps. They broke the housing market with this one idea, and suddenly all these big-shot hard work and boot straps types turned on a dime into a bunch of crying socialists begging for government assistance. And if we continue down our current path of CEOs and Shareholders too focused on short term quarterly reports and stock prices, we are going to end up there again and again. And at some point the government may not even be big enough to bail them all out.

Aah, that theory that people "control the wealth" like it's a finite resource only a few hoard so nobody else can have any and that's why you're not rich as well. At some point, people need to start realizing their problems are their own machinations, not this collective of evil rich people stealing all your money and success.

Spoken like someone with no understanding.