"A 2017 survey from Fidelity Investments found that 88 percent of millionaires are self-made."

That's interesting. The Book "The Millionaire Next Door," published in 2000, had around 80% of millionaires being self-made.

It could be different criteria, or it could be that family fortunes as a whole are on the decline. And we do know that even amongst the wealthiest families, 90% of them reach extinction within three generations. The fortunes, of course. not the families themselves.

Wealth is a quantifiable form of social feedback...at least for most. The wealthier you are, the more valuable you are to society.

It's not that much different than verbal feedback for having done a good job-only words are free, whereas money is given at the expense of the person providing it.

People who are born rich generally don't view wealth and income as a form of social feedback, because it's just a given. Which is why many people who are born wealthy get into politics. Because it's basically a popularity contest. And votes are similar to money, in that you only have one to give.

I feel like SurveyUSA is probably operated by the Republicans...

Antifa are a bunch of --------- who have maturity issues and resent that their lives are likely going to be spent behind a fry cooker.

...but they are not murderers. If you go back and review the history of left-wing violence-Antifa, black bloc, whatever; you need to go back pretty far (like the Weather Underground) to find leftists who were engaging in terrorism.

I'm no fan of Antifa, but I hardly view them as an organized threat in the same way that right-wing extremists and neo-nazis have shown themselves to be. I honestly think it's more of a hobby for Antifa, versus a lifestyle choice for the neo Nazis.

"Sounds like the restriction would be on how you choose to pay, not on the services you receive."

Absolutely not. If that turned out to be the case, I don't think anyone would care. But people would care if they were paying more or the same for their healthcare while receiving a lower quality product.

"You do have one thing right though. Assuming Republicans run the government 50% of the time, government-run healthcare will never work in America."

The government is terrible at virtually everything it does. Healthcare would be no different. Which is why even in places like Sweden that are known for socialized medicine, you have private healthcare providers working with the government to provide services, or offering them directly to consumers.

"Sorry, but I don't understand. How does this right currently manifest, and what is lost?"

Right now I can choose how I want my healthcare provided. I can purchase a health plan that suits my needs, maybe choose one my employer provides, or even just pay for it out of pocket.

The Bernie plan eliminates any plan that would compete with the one ordered by the government. That's a bit nebulous, admittedly, but there's no question the result would be restricted choices for patients. And based on the language, it could be interpreted to restrict all choice...other than going to another country for care.

"Such simplicity has no place in our Byzantine tax code."

To put it in perspective, a 19% VAT on the sale of vehicles would result in ~$12.34 billion each year. And that's just on cars. That doesn't take into account every other consumer good purchased with a VAT rate of 19%. This of course doesn't take into account the change in consumer behavior resulting from higher taxes, which would be very difficult to calculate.

Currently, the US spends about $13T per quarter on consumer goods. You can see where a VAT would likely be the best way to fund everyone's pet projects...provided that the taxpayers wanted to fund them.

"How do you defend the "state" if the "enemy" has helicopters, stealth bombers and fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons? With your AR-15?"

Afghan peasants have done it over and over again...to the world's greatest superpowers. Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and Now the US.

And they're doing it with far less sophisticated weapons than AR-15s. When the Mujahedeen first began attacking the Soviet troops, they were doing so with Lee Enfield rifles their great, great, great grandparents had taken off the bodies of dead British Soldiers.

"You know, the people with the most power in our government who have shown unending willingness to allow their taxes to be high or raised."

It makes me wonder whether or not people want socialized healthcare or simply want someone else to pay for it.

VATs affect consumers equally across society. If you go out and buy a new vacuum or a TV, you don't get a lower price because you make less money.

I don't think a VAT would stand a chance in the US.

"What about his policies are you seeing as unappealing?"

For healthcare, it is the elimination of the patient's right to choose how they receive healthcare. You get what the government is willing to offer, or get it outside the US. That's a very extreme position to hold, and one that's not been replicated anywhere else. Maybe Canada, depending on who you ask, but certainly nowhere else in the developed world.

And then there is how that healthcare is paid for. Many, many people would pay more, far more even, to have their options removed and replaced by something of a much lower quality. And like I mentioned, it wouldn't be paid for the way Europe does, but he would attempt to shift the burden to higher income earners. Which is a shift proposition, given that you can't collect taxes when people aren't willing to pay it.

Bernie is an old school, unelightened progressive. That plays well with the far left...but between us girls, that's the only area he plays well. As of 2017, 75% of USans considered themselves conservative or moderate, with only 25% calling themselves liberal. Bernie has staked out his territory on the far left...with no room (or even inclination) to shift back towards the center. And it seems very unliekly to me that his polcies are going to appeal to many moderates, given that his policies don't even resonate with a large swath of the Democratic party, inclduing the current front runner.

They spend their money to make sure they're citizens have good lives.

Those citizens also pay far more in taxes. And not just high income earners...all of them.

VATs are not deferred for low income earners.

"Like whateever it takes to make people feel like a bad twist of fate could leave them homeless or imprisoned."

If Bernie proposed a European style VAT in order to fund his initiatives...it would be very clear to voters that the free stuff he was offering...wasn't really free. And that would be the last you heard of Bernie Sanders.

In fact I've never heard one proponent of European style "socialism" propose European style funding to make it happen.

The swiss model would also require adopting full blown socialism with all it's costs and benefits."

Like the VAT?

The one thing I don't think USans understand is that much of Europe funds operations through Value added taxes. Think sales taxes, but instead of 5-10%, it's 18-20%. Or more.

That's European "socialism." I've never heard any US socialists advocate for anything similar. And you and I both know that, if they did, they would be done.

Personally, I think the Swiss model would be a great compromise. Not sure if it would pass constitutional muster or not, but it wouldn't restrict access to types of firearms readily available, would ensure shooters received training, and would do so within the context of the defense of the state.

"To recap the 2nd amendment is not about fighting the government, it is about creating a force to SUPPRESS people who would fight the government, (insurrection)"

OK.

What's your point?

The 2nd amendment doesn't provide for the right for the militia to keep and bear arms, it's the right of "the people."

And "the people" are explicitly mentioned elsewhere as well. When the founders mentioned "the people" in those amendments, did they really mean "the well regulated militia?"

In legal context, words have meaning.

"Of course it does. It makes asylum seekers seems to be aggressive enemy combatants."

The US is lucky. The vast majority of those wanting to sneak across the southern approach aren't bad people.

I live in Europe now, where all the immigrants are coming from North Africa and the Levant. The majority of them are good people too. But a lot are ISIS supporters/sympathizers who realize they overplayed their hand in the middle east, and will die if they stay. Western Europe give them the opportunity to conduct a tactical withdrawal and carry on the fight at a later date.

"Yes and encouraging your representatives and fellow citizens to pursue impeachment."

Even though you know it's not going to make it through the Senate?

"You're trying to look for underlying causes of the fatalities when everyone else keeps screaming to just ban the damn automobile."

To be fair, I absolutely believed that if you banned the sale of all guns and forcibly confiscated all of those in private hands, the number of what we generally refer to as "mass shootings" would decline.

I think violent crime would skyrocket though. Gun laws also serve as OSHA for criminals...ensuring that they don't have a peer counterpart that could stand against them.

There would still be mass shootings...they would just occur in the course of robberies or other criminal activity, as opposed to some worthless loser killing people because they had no friends or no one liked them. Or the White supremacist who had nothing else to hand their hat on other than skin color.

"I would propose banning semi-auto handguns and exempt revolvers."

You can get some sick revolvers...magazine-fed pistols are generally of low caliber.

I used to carry a .454 up in Griz country...it would stop a Griz. I've heard it would stop a water buffalo if need be.

I ask, because I suspect that you're a supporter of the left flank of the Democrat party, and you're trying hard to get Warren or Sanders nominated. But not Biden, Bullock or Delany. Given Warren's thoughtful positions, she may have a slight chance in the general election. Bernie is a lost cause, due to the fact that he has staked out the far left, with no room to move back to the center.

if you have done this, then you've likely done more than any republican to ensure that Trump gets re-elected.

"If you're not actively trying to get rid of trump, you are supporting trump."

How do you "get rid of Trump?"

I'm assuming you mean work towards electing someone else in his place, the next time the opportunity presents itself?

Also worth mentioning that vechiles have a defininte advantage over vehicles when it comes to mass casualty attacks. 86 killed in the Nice attack, with another 458 injured.

"What a terrible whataboutism."

If only because one is protected by the constitution, the other is not.

I own guns. They have never killed anyone.

Are they defective?

"One big difference between guns and autos, autos transport people and things to places they need to or want to go. Guns just kill people. That you can't see the difference isn't surprising cuz you only see what you want to see. Delusional, get back on your meds."

The bigger difference is that the right to keep and bear arms is ensconced in the second amendment of the constitution.

There is no similar protection provided for private ownership or access to vehicles.

"They are dumbfounded by our inability to regulate guns. And they are blown away at how easy it is for a 21 year old kid to get his hands on a semi automatic weapon."

I work with FVEY partners all the time. Generally, the one thing they really liked about the US was the access to firearms that their home countries lacked.

They thought we were crazy for not adopting their healthcare systems, but made it a point to go shoot big guns any time they came to the US.