« prev   random   next »

4
0

Bernie Sanders Bashes Uber, Uses It For All His Taxi Rides

By gsr following x   2015 Nov 4, 11:34pm 21,734 views   54 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


By Blake Neff Just a couple months ago, Bernie Sanders lambasted Uber as an “unregulated” company with “serious problems,” but financial disclosures by the Democratic presidential candidate reveal that whenever his campaign requires a taxi, they literally always turn to Uber.

According to research done by National Journal, 100 percent of Sanders’ spending on taxi and ride-sharing services was spent on Uber. Among 2016 presidential contenders, that’s a distinction Sanders shares with only Bobby Jindal, Martin O’Malley, and the defunct Scott Walker and Rick Perry campaigns.
http://truthinmedia.com/bernie-sanders-uber/
#politics #economics

« First    « Previous    Comments 15 - 54 of 54    Last »

15   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Nov 5, 6:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

tatupu70 says

It is weak sauce. It's not hypocritical to use a product or service that you think needs improvement.

The entire difference between Uber vs. regular cab service is that Uber is not regulated by the taxi commissions. Bernie advocates putting taxi commission regulation on Uber, yet uses Uber himself because it is not regulated by the taxi commission! That is hypocracy writ large. Bernie is proving himself to be just another fraud.

16   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2015 Nov 5, 6:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ironman says

Unfortunately, Bernie doesn't have much money:

Bernie Sanders is one of the poorest presidential candidates,

Bernie Sanders

Net worth: $110,014-$550,999

Bernie Sanders has an average estimated net worth of $330,507, well below other prospective presidential nominees and among the lowest compared with other members of Congress. The Vermont senator, who is the longest-serving independent in U.S. history, is a self-identified socialist.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/08/26/24-7-wall-st-net-worth-presidential-candidates/32409491/

Pretty sad, considering he's been a Senator for like, forever...

What did he do with his money-did he actually give it away or visit Toronto and spent it on Rin's hos?

17   HydroCabron   ignore (1)   2015 Nov 5, 9:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Hey, Stupid, if Bernie were worth $2 million, you'd call him a hypocrite.

18   bob2356   ignore (4)   2015 Nov 6, 12:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ironman says

Pretty sad, considering he's been a Senator for like, forever...

Forever isn't one and a half terms. You really suck at math.

19   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2015 Nov 6, 4:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says

yet uses Uber himself because it is not regulated by the taxi commission!

This is not necessarily true. Uber has many benefits. The two biggest benefits seem to be that you can get an Uber really really quickly and they are cheap. If Uber becomes regulated, it may get more expensive, but it may still be cheaper than taxi cabs. They will still be easier to faster than cabs.

At best, you could mean that he uses Uber b/c it is cheap, which is b/c it is unregulated, but you are out on a limb that is barely tethered to the tree.

Plus, rich people who want a higher tax but don't voluntarily give money to the government are not hypocrites. People who use Uber, but want a level playing field between local cabs and internet based cabs are not hypocrites. Same goes for those who use ecommerce sites, but want a sales tax levied to even that playing field.

20   anonymous   ignore (null)   2015 Nov 6, 4:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

At best, you could mean that he uses Uber b/c it is cheap, which is b/c it is unregulated, but you are out on a limb that is barely tethered to the tree.

Plus, rich people who want a higher tax but don't voluntarily give money to the government are not hypocrites. People who use Uber, but want a level playing field between local cabs and internet based cabs are not hypocrites. Same goes for those who use ecommerce sites, but want a sales tax levied to even that playing field.

----------------

I root for every dishonest moron that thinks like this to die a quick and painful death

21   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2015 Nov 6, 5:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ironman says

Very good question, and none of the Bernie rah-rah's will answer that question. Doesn't anyone see concern that Bernie, being 74 and been in Congress since 1991, has a NET WORTH of approx. $330K?? Where's all his money??

Hell, Vermont has a household median income of $54K, so with Bernie's salary, he should be a 1%er in Vermont.

He hasn't saved anything in a retirement account, personal savings, real estate, other assets, and only has a net worth of $300K at the age of 74??????.. Does he have ANY financial management ability??

Only an idiot would be concerned by that. He lives half the year in Washington DC--not exactly an inexpensive area. Politicians make money when they go into lobbying or write books--not when they are actually serving as a Congressman.

22   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2015 Nov 6, 5:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says

I root for every dishonest moron that thinks like this to die a quick and painful death

Only because you're a moron. It's not hypocritical to follow the current laws, but also desire those laws to be changed.

23   bob2356   ignore (4)   2015 Nov 6, 5:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ironman says

Very good question, and none of the Bernie rah-rah's will answer that question. Doesn't anyone see concern that Bernie, being 74 and been in Congress since 1991, has a NET WORTH of approx. $330K?? Where's all his money??

What money? Bernie didn't even enter politics until he as 40, then he was mayor of Burlington for christ sakes. Certainly a high paying political job, not. He entered the house when he was almost 50. It really bothers you somehow that someone in politics actually lived on their salary?

So your objection to Bernie is he didn't sell out to corporate america to line his pockets while fucking you over. I can see how in your weird distorted alice in wonderland world why that would bother you. Your 1% masters say that's a bad thing they can't buy bernies vote, so it's got to be a bad thing. To bad they don't tell you they are laughing at you all the way to be bank. Good thing for you there are almost unlimited choices on the repug side that are world class experts at lining their pockets while fucking over the 99%.

You really should have listened to your parents when they told you not to sleep with the sheep. They probably should have led by example but that's another issue. Now after a lifetime of buggering syphilitic sheep your brain looks like swiss cheese and is completely non functional. Luckily for you there is so much AM radio to tell you what to think.

24   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2015 Nov 6, 7:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

gsr says

Bernie Sanders Bashes Uber, Uses It For All His Taxi Rides

By Blake Neff Just a couple months ago, Bernie Sanders lambasted Uber as an “unregulated” company with “serious problems,” but financial disclosures by the Democratic presidential candidate reveal that whenever his campaign requires a taxi, they literally always turn to Uber.

So what? I lambast Comcast all the time as a lousy ISP, yet I use it for 100% of my Internet connectivity. The only alternative is AT&T DSL which sucks even worse.

There is no hypocrisy in Sanders' statements because there is no contradiction. Did Sanders' say that Uber should be banned? No, he didn't. He propose there should be some regulation of the company. You may not agree with that position, but your disagreement doesn't make Sanders' use of Uber hypocrisy. The article doesn't even say what regulations Sanders wants, but it does suggest financial and worker protections for uber drivers, which quite frankly makes a hell of a lot of sense. As America continues to transition to a service based economy, it makes moral, ethical and economic sense for laws to protect the powerless, the service workers, in this economy. The owners of Uber and other service companies don't need protection because they have all the power.

Now if you want to debate what kinds of labor laws are needed in the 21st century, that's a good debate to have. But it's bullshit to call Sanders' use of Uber hypocritical as he's not saying such companies or such industries should not exist. He is merely saying that the interests of tens of millions of American service workers should be protected so that those Americans don't become Chinese-style economic slave labor. And if you disagree with that, you just plain hate Americans.

The title of this thread should be Bernie Sanders saves tax payer dollars unlike fat-cat Republicans.

25   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2015 Nov 6, 7:29am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Reality says

The entire difference between Uber vs. regular cab service is that Uber is not regulated by the taxi commissions

No. Uber is cheaper because it's not an oligopoly like most taxi services. I called up three different taxi companies listed in the Yellow Pages to comparison shop and literally the same guy answered all three calls and told me that all taxi numbers go to the same place and they charge the same rates. Free market my ass.

26   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2015 Nov 6, 8:22am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says

I root for every dishonest moron that thinks like this to die a quick and painful death

Well, you might as well kill most people in business. Many business leaders want to do the right thing, but are forced to compete with other businesses who are merely following the law. So, those business people work to develop laws that help set standards that lift the ethical behavior of the whole industry.

27   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2015 Nov 6, 8:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

People in silicon valley are arguing for preferential treatment by claiming that they are partaking in the 'sharing economy.' The fact is, that is just a label that has some truth to it, but that is used to shield commerce from regulations. Should traditional cab companies give up their licenses, put up an internet site for calling a cab, and say that they are now part of the 'sharing economy?' It's nice that there is a time lag between when tech companies start and then become regulated. It gives them a nice cheater boost to gain market share. But, the idea that they are somehow different and get to shirk all other laws is moronic.

The fact is that the internet has made commerce national. I would say it was global, but there are many barriers to buying direct from overseas. Often, you will get slapped with a tariff for instance. Our constitution did not foresee this, and the jurisdictional law is unclear.

28   socal2   ignore (0)   2015 Nov 6, 9:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Dan8267 says

No. Uber is cheaper because it's not an oligopoly like most taxi services. I called up three different taxi companies listed in the Yellow Pages to comparison shop and literally the same guy answered all three calls and told me that all taxi numbers go to the same place and they charge the same rates. Free market my ass.

Free market my ass is right. We are soon getting to the same place with the insurance market thanks to Obamacare. No competition, high prices and poor service.

Progs just need to have government "regulating" every last service on the planet as it provides them more opportunity for graft and corruption. Unionize Uber so they can send their union dues to the Democrat party!

29   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2015 Nov 6, 9:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

socal2 says

Free market my ass is right. We are soon getting to the same place with the insurance market thanks to Obamacare. No competition, high prices and poor service.

Honey, that has nothing to do with Obamacare. Obamacare is just a half-ass effort to make a few reforms to health insurance, but it does not address the real problem and those problems existed long before Obamacare.

There is no market for health insurance. Most people get their health insurance through their employment, which is insanely stupid for many reasons including the fact that you don't get to pick insurance providers. This has nothing to do with Obamacare, yet completely removes any resemblance of a market place, free or otherwise.

Additionally, if insurance companies are allowed to merge, the free market ceases to exist. No market can be free when there are only a few, big players as those players will control the market.

Nor is there any reason to believe, even by staunch capitalist theory, that a free market would be an efficient way to run health insurance. The entire purpose of free markets according to capitalist theory is to
1. Drive down prices by competition.
2. Encourage innovation through strategic risk taking.

Neither of these principles apply to health insurance. Having lots of small competitors would increase costs due to inefficiencies incurred by inconsistent and redundant work. Having a few big competitors also fails because of price leading and other collusion mechanisms. The most cost efficient insurance structure is a single, non-profit organization.

The second principle does not apply because there is absolutely no innovation to be performed in health insurance. A relatively small software system could easily run the entire health insurance, billing, and administrative needs of the entire nation's health care needs. The only innovation would be done by software developers and capitalism and free markets won't reward those engineers.

Even the religious doctrine of capitalism that risks should be rewarded does not apply as their are absolutely no risks in health insurance once your insurance pool reaches a critical size. Risk literally goes down to zero and then stays their as your pool of customers increases 10, 100, and 1000 fold.

But simply, the entire health insurance system should be a profitless, riskless system run entirely by software. Streamlining administrative costs as well would reduce the cost of health care by at least 50% by the most conservative estimates. And this is all without reducing care or doctor pay or even the profits of parasitic executives owning hospitals.

Health insurance is infrastructure, and infrastructure is best done by government, not by capitalism. Capitalism is best at providing luxury goods. As long as we waste resources allowing parasites to profit from infrastructure there will be fewer luxuries for everyone. Which society would you rather live in?
1. A society that has universal, socialize health care and all infrastructures are maintained by government and capitalism is used for luxuries. In this system, 5% of your income goes to health care and you can buy two large houses and a yacht.
2. A society that encourages private enterprise to profit from running infrastructure. In this system, 30% of your income goes to health care and other necessities take the remaining 70% of your income. You can barely afford necessities and owning a yacht or a second house is a pipe dream for you. However, some fat, lazy rich boy who never worked a day in his life has a monthly income greater than the income of your entire life and he owns several yachts. Luckily, you get to keep the fantasy that some day you will be just like him even though the system only supports 0.1% of people living like that and no one in your family has even a remote chance of being part of that 0.1% because those already in that tier have locked it so no one can challenge their financial position.

Put simply, even if your a greedy fuck who only cares about having lots of wealth, you should be a smart greedy fuck and support policies that allow wealth producers, not wealth owners, to accumulate wealth. Otherwise, you're just a fool being taken advantage of by parasites who know you'll nibble at the get-rich-quick fantasies they dangle in front of you. If you are over 30 and you aren't in the 0.1% already, you never ever will be. Like ever. And neither will your children, your grandchildren, or your great-grandchildren. So why not do them a favor and leave them a society where working hard and producing wealth allows people to become at least reasonably wealthy?

30   socal2   ignore (0)   2015 Nov 6, 10:27am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Dan8267 says

Honey, that has nothing to do with Obamacare. Obamacare is just a half-ass effort to make a few reforms to health insurance, but it does not address the real problem and those problems existed long before Obamacare.

Regardless of what you WISHED Obamacare would become now that everyone admits its a turd - it doesn't change the fact that Obamacare regulations have reduced the number of insurance companies, where we have fewer choices of providers ("If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor") thanks to mergers of giant firms.

No different than your cab example once the government decides it needs to regulate it. Big connected firms will form monopolies using government regulations to keep new upstarts like Uber out of the market.

31   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2015 Nov 6, 10:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

socal2 says

Regardless of what you WISHED Obamacare would become now that everyone admits its a turd

Yes, honey, but what kind of a turd it is and what it should be replaced with is the issue at hand. What conservatives argue for is the pre-Obamacare status quo, which is a terrible failure. Conservatives don't want to see the gravy train that enriches big insurance at the expense of the typical American family come to and end, and that is what is wrong. Everything bad about Obamacare comes from what conservatives wanted: the individual mandate (tax), private insurance companies, for-profit-model.

The only thing that the majority of the American people wanted was an end to being denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions, but the mechanism the American people wanted was universal, nationalized health insurance, which would be vastly superior to Obamacare and the prior system, which are pretty much identical except for the individual mandate and pre-existing conditions.

What you conservatives are going to have to accept is that getting rid of Obamacare can only be done one way, by replacing it with something better, namely a fully nationalized health insurance system, if not a fully nationalize health care system.

32   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2015 Nov 6, 10:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

socal2 says

No different than your cab example once the government decides it needs to regulate it.

What you call a regulation is simply another name for law. Government regulates everything. Murder is regulated. You can't just murder anyone you like. You can only kill people who are an immediate threat to your life or someone else's. Land use is regulated. You cannot enter another's person home without permission because of regulations prohibiting that. Clothing is regulated. You cannot walk around in public naked due to clothing regulations. Sex is regulated. It's illegal to have sex in public. It's also illegal to pay for or receive payment for sex. I don't see you bitching and moaning about all these regulations.

Calling a law a regulation does not change the nature of the law or whether or not people should support it. The absence of any law is anarchy and anarchy quickly devolves into tyranny under the law might is right.

So it is ridiculous and laughable whenever somebody complains about laws by calling them "regulations" as if that is an argument in of itself.

The only thing up to debate are what laws should exist and why. However, you are not debating that. In fact, you are not complaining about any actual law Sanders' is proposing, and you don't even know what he's proposing as it's not stated in the article. You are bitching and moaning that a for-profit company should have to obey any laws, and quite frankly, that's dumb. Of course every single person and every single corporation has to obey some laws. If this weren't the case, a corporation could kidnap your daughter and sell her as a sex slave. That's a perfectly legitimate business model if there are no laws. As such, objecting to the very idea that there are laws that corporations must obey is just plain silly.

Now if you want to debate what those laws should be and why, that would be an actually interesting conversation.

33   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2015 Nov 6, 10:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

socal2 says

Big connected firms will form monopolies using government regulations to keep new upstarts like Uber out of the market.

Only when Republicans are in power. The Republican Party has always been the party of big business and has always been the enemy of small businesses and workers.

Just because Republicans do X 100% when in office does not mean that everyone else does X when in office. Republicans argue that government is always bad and cite their own policies as examples that prove this.

34   socal2   ignore (0)   2015 Nov 6, 11:15am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dan8267 says

What you call a regulation is simply another name for law. Government regulates everything. Murder is regulated.

I think that statement encapsulates Progressive/Liberal thinking to a T. Government does NOT need to regulate "everything".

Just because we need a government to regulate crime, government does not need to regulate how humans privately engage with each other to hire people to drive us around.

35   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2015 Nov 6, 11:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (4)   quote   flag        

socal2 says

I think that statement encapsulates Progressive/Liberal thinking to a T.

And once again, you are wrong.

1. The statement government regulates everything does NOT mean the same thing as government needs to regulates everything.
2. There are lots of things that government SHOULD NOT regulate but does because conservatives demand that government regulates these things including prostitution, public nudity and sex, sex between consenting adults, drug usage of adults including everything from weed to crack, alcohol consumption, foul language on public airwaves, music, movie content and ratings, etc.
3. Liberals actual want far less government control over behavior than conservatives do. The difference is that liberals believe that the only legal restrictions on behavior should be ones that prevent one person from violating the rights of another, say by polluting public air or physically harming a person or economically exploiting a person who is powerless to stop that. In contrast, conservatives are always calling for laws that allow one group of people to force their culture onto others, steal the wealth production of others, sexually degrade a person, and otherwise make people powerless over their own lives. Please challenge me on this so I can go into exquisite details.

That said, there should be laws regulating human behavior that harms other human beings. The entire history of the United States has been a story of how a few people with power can effectively enslave, in one form or another, great numbers of other people. Laws regulating what businesses cannot do exist precisely because of all the evil things done by businesses in the past.

It is ridiculous to suggest that capitalists will not harm people when they can legally do so and make a profit. Hell, capitalists routinely commit crimes in the name of profit. It is also ludicrous to suggest that free market will magically ensure that only enterprises that help the world profit. This is empirically false and one needs only to look at the slave trade as an indisputable counter-example.

In fact, conservatives are damn inconsistent about apply the free market principle to businesses. Drug regulations created by Nancy Reagon's War on Drugs stifles small businesses and innovations in the field of recreational drugs. Why aren't free market principles applied to this? Shouldn't the free market determine whether or not children, or at least adults, use what drugs, when, and how much? Oh, that's different. It's always different when the business practice isn't one you want. Well, not every person is going to agree with everyone else on the planet about which businesses should thrive and which should not. The entire idea of the free market is that the market would decide this. So, are you going to accept that entrepreneurs should be allowed to sell crack on school grounds to children?


This is what the free market looks like. This is capitalism without regulations.


This is what an entrepreneur and small business owner looks like.

socal2 says

Just because we need a government to regulate crime

Honey, crime is just what the government decides is crime. There is no such thing as "crime" other than what is declared illegal by mere power of fiat. Make rape legal and selling cars illegal and then rapists are law-biding citizens and GM is an organize crime syndicate.

The adult conversation is about what should be a crime and why. Merely declaring something a crime does not make it evil or a bad for society. One needs only to look at the Fugitive Slave Act or the American Revolution as examples. Some of the greatest heroes in American history were, by definition, felons including Harriet Tubman and George Washington, the terrorist as defined in the USA Patriot Act.

36   socal2   ignore (0)   2015 Nov 6, 11:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dan8267 says

There are lots of things that government SHOULD NOT regulate

You could have just stopped right there and saved alot of pounding on the keyboard.

Last I checked, we are talking about Uber.

Bernie thinks the government needs to regulate how private citizens hire people to drive them around. If you agree with Bernie on Uber (do you?) than what the fuck can't the government regulate?

37   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2015 Nov 6, 12:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

socal2 says

Last I checked, we are talking about Uber.

That's what started the discussion, but you proposed that all laws regarding business practices are inherently bad, and that is clearly not so as evident by the fact that even you are in favor of many regulations such as prohibitions on the sales of drugs and sex.

socal2 says

Bernie thinks the government needs to regulate how private citizens hire people to drive them around.

As do you. I don't see you complaining about businesses, Uber or other, being prohibited from hiring "illegal immigrants". That's a regulation.

The only question that is meaningful is exactly what set of regulations should exist, not whether or not there should be any. You have no idea what Sanders might want to make law because the article does not state that.

What you are arguing, as evident from the above quote, is that there should be no laws regulating "how private citizens hire people to drive them around", but you clearly don't believe that unless you think private citizens should be able to hire illegal immigrants to drive them around, mow their lawn, clean their houses, pick their strawberries, build houses, etc. Somehow I doubt a conservative could bring himself to agree to that.

Furthermore, by the principle you are proposing, private citizens should be able to buy crack from other private citizens. Do you apply your principles here?

Clearly, you have no problem with regulations, and since Sanders has not proposed any specific regulation, it is pure hypocrisy for you to attack him when you accept, nay demand, other regulations on businesses.

Again, it would be one thing to object to specific laws, but to object to the concept of businesses being required to comply to laws while insisting on laws prohibition business practices like drugs sales, prostitution, hiring of immigrants who don't fit under quotas, etc. is utter hypocrisy. It's a direct and indisputable contradiction.

As to whether or not I agree with what laws Sanders' would like to see enacted, there is no possible way I can answer that question before he actually proposes a bill.

38   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2015 Nov 6, 3:59pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Obligatory:

39   socal2   ignore (0)   2015 Nov 6, 4:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Dan8267 says

That's what started the discussion, but you proposed that all laws regarding business practices are inherently bad,

Nope.

40   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2015 Nov 6, 5:53pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Obligatory:

41   Quigley   ignore (0)   2015 Nov 6, 8:28pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Bernie's poverty means just one thing to me: in a pool of criminals and sharks, he's the honest one. A senator must maintain two households, one in spendy DC as well as a quite significant entertaining bill for social occasions. That's tough to do on a senator's salary, even supplemented with SS. But he did it for 35 years and stayed honest and true to his convictions. He also gave more to charity than the grand majority of Americans do at any income level. For most people, when it comes to charity they stop at nothing. ($0)

42   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Nov 6, 11:10pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dan8267 says

So, are you going to accept that entrepreneurs should be allowed to sell crack on school grounds to children?



This is what the free market looks like. This is capitalism without regulations.



This is what an entrepreneur and small business owner looks like.

The criminally high profit of drug dealing (both illegal type and the legal big pharmas) is the result of government regulations on drugs!

Selling cracks on school grounds to children would be no more profitable than selling candies on school grounds to children if cracks were fully legal. Few would find the incentive to go through the trouble to sell either to children with little money to spend.

43   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Nov 6, 11:12pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dan8267 says

The entire difference between Uber vs. regular cab service is that Uber is not regulated by the taxi commissions

No. Uber is cheaper because it's not an oligopoly like most taxi services. I called up three different taxi companies listed in the Yellow Pages to comparison shop and literally the same guy answered all three calls and told me that all taxi numbers go to the same place and they charge the same rates. Free market my ass.

You are too dumb to realize that the taxi oligopoly (and price fixing) is the result of city taxi commission regulations. Uber is an attempt to get around the government taxi commissions. Bernie wants Uber to come under the same taxi commissions, yet uses Uber himself because it is cheaper while not being under the regulations of the taxi commissions.

44   Reality   ignore (5)   2015 Nov 6, 11:20pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

YesYNot says

yet uses Uber himself because it is not regulated by the taxi commission!

This is not necessarily true. Uber has many benefits. The two biggest benefits seem to be that you can get an Uber really really quickly and they are cheap. If Uber becomes regulated, it may get more expensive, but it may still be cheaper than taxi cabs. They will still be easier to faster than cabs.

At best, you could mean that he uses Uber b/c it is cheap, which is b/c it is unregulated, but you are out on a limb that is barely tethered to the tree.

Only to people who are too dumb to realize taxi commissions regulate taxis via medallions, which would make taxi/uber limited in supply, hence expensive and slow / short in supply.

Plus, rich people who want a higher tax but don't voluntarily give money to the government are not hypocrites.

Only to people who are too dumb to realize the rich advocating raising taxes but do not voluntarily give money to government are really advocating their power to spend more of your money --- because they already own the government!

People who use Uber, but want a level playing field between local cabs and internet based cabs are not hypocrites. Same goes for those who use ecommerce sites, but want a sales tax levied to even that playing field.

Only if the advocacy is for abolish the taxi commission and all regulation on taxi, as a way of leveling the field.

How do you think the taxi commissions came about? Organized and paid for by taxi company owners who wanted the government to step in to limit supply, so they can raise prices! Slow response is just a side effect of reduced supply! Duh! What you want free taxis just like free healthcare from Uncle Bernie? When there is no taxi no healthcare for you, it is "free"! LOL

45   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2015 Nov 7, 3:45am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says

Only to people who are too dumb to realize the rich advocating raising taxes but do not voluntarily give money to government are really advocating their power to spend more of your money --- because they already own the government!

Perhaps they just want to pay for the services that they received instead of loaning the government money (buying treasuries) to provide those services.

The first part (that the people who disagree with you are dumb) is a blind assertion and is frankly moronic. The second part is not true. Do you believe that all rich people are motivated purely by greed and self interest? Do you believe that all people are motivated this way? Are you motivated purely by greed and self-interest? Are you just projecting this on other people?

Reality says

How do you think the taxi commissions came about? Organized and paid for by taxi company owners who wanted the government to step in to limit supply, so they can raise prices! Slow response is just a side effect of reduced supply!

I agree that taxis are over-regulated. Getting a cab at O'Hare airport is a 30 minute affair for no reason. It is horrible. To get an Uber, you have to take a train off the airport grounds. Regular cabs are over-regulated, and Uber is underregulated IMO. But all Bernie said is that Uber is unregulated, and that is a problem. Well, they are not unregulated at the moment, but they are skirting laws that affect all other car service / taxi companies. One thing that Uber shows us, and Bernie must see is that something is horribly wrong with the regular taxi service. Uber is the most efficient method of moving people around quickly with a minimum of traffic and parking, which is good for governments who pay for roads and parking in some cases. If Bernie comes out and asks for Uber to limit the number of cars in use, then you have a point. Until then, you're just standing there with your dick in your hand arguing about imaginary boogie men in blue donkey suits. No worries, though. That is a marketable skill. You would make a good Fox News correspondent.

46   bob2356   ignore (4)   2015 Nov 7, 5:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Ironman says

The average person gives $3K a year to charity and the median income is $52K. Bernie makes 4x the median and gives $8K. That doesn't sound like "more", it actually sounds like less, as a percentage of his income.

Oh my the percentage of income argument. Then you must be a strongly in favor of more progressive taxation since many of the 1%'s pay less as a percentage of income than many of the middle class. Oh right hypocrisy doesn't exist for right wingnuts, I forgot.

Funny how no one can come up with a transcript of the actual interview to see what the quote really was and in what context. You would think bloomberg would release the interview rather than their summary of it, but no not happening. Very curious, I wonder why not. There is only the right wingnut echo chamber endlessly bouncing back and forth what bloomberg says bernie said. Of course for the average brain dead right wingnut idiot having another brain dead right wingnut idiot blog it on the internet is the gold standard of proof.

47   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2015 Nov 7, 7:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

A transcript would be a help. It seemed to be an off hand comment in relation to a question about minimum wage for servers who also get tips: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-06/bernie-sanders-takes-on-clinton-welfare-legacy-as-he-woos-iowa-unions

It's hard to find any reasonable articles on it, b/c there are so many hits of right wing sites giving 'gotcha journalism' their best effort.

48   Tenpoundbass   ignore (15)   2015 Nov 7, 8:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

That's just Liberal 101 do as we say.

49   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2015 Nov 7, 10:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag        

Reality says

You are too dumb to realize that the taxi oligopoly (and price fixing) is the result of city taxi commission regulations.

No, I'm well aware that oligopolies have used government power to ensure their stability. You are too dumb to realize that nothing I said implies this isn't so.

You are also too dumb to realize that oligopolies and monopolies will always form in the absence of anti-trust laws. For example, De Beers. The fool most responsible for monopolies and oligopolies destroying the free market is Ronald Reagan, who effectively ended anti-trust enforcement. You want a free market? Then never vote Republican.

50   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2015 Nov 7, 10:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

zzyzzx says

Spicoli was no liberal. Using him as a liberal icon illustrates your deep misunderstanding of what liberalism is.

That said, when an entertainer or a professional athlete makes millions of dollars, he isn't ass fucking your family over. You choose whether or not to buy that movie ticket or that baseball game ticket. No one is forcing you to buy it or coercing you in any way. You can easily choose not to participate. One can make the point that Americans value entertainment way more than they should, but that's a value judgement.

What's important is that when that CEO takes in tens of millions of dollars for producing little to no wealth, he is ass fucking your family. He's playing a zero-sum game that you cannot choose not to participate in. His ludicrous income isn't coming from millions of dollars of entertainment value he's created; it's coming directly from the wealth you, your spouse, and your children create in their jobs. That's a big mother-fucking difference.

No CEO is generating tens of millions of dollars a year. He's just siphoning tens of millions of dollars of wealth produced by thousand to tens of thousands of hard-working people. So yes, being pissed off at that is justified. When Britney Spears licks a hammer in her underwear, the money she makes doesn't come out of my pocket against my will. When a CEO lowers the salaries of thousands of employees so he can buy a massive yacht with the wealth those employees produced, that's fucking greed. When hard-working, honest American families lose their breadwinner's job because Goldman Sachs played zero-sum games that wretched the economy, that's fucking greed.

51   John Bailo   ignore (2)   2015 Nov 7, 1:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Just ask yourself...how many stockbrokers have farmhouses in Vermont...after 20 years of "Bern Socialism"

52   bob2356   ignore (4)   2015 Nov 7, 4:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ironman says

bob2356 says

Funny...

...how, once again, you can't defend the un-defendable with Bernie, so you just pound away at the keyboard with lines of bullshit.... What happened, you forgot to include fucking farm animals again in your reply, maybe you need to go back to the Dan School of Insults to "bone up"!

I take it that you are in favor of more progressive taxation then.

53   bob2356   ignore (4)   2015 Nov 7, 5:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

YesYNot says

A transcript would be a help. It seemed to be an off hand comment in relation to a question about minimum wage for servers who also get tips

No one has any idea what the comment was or in response to what. You only have what bloomberg says it was.

54   bob2356   ignore (4)   2015 Nov 7, 5:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

John Bailo says

Just ask yourself...how many stockbrokers have farmhouses in Vermont...after 20 years of "Bern Socialism"

This makes less sense than an ironman comment and that's a very very low bar.

« First    « Previous    Comments 15 - 54 of 54    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions