Democratic Election Primaries

[Gwazi Magnum]

I'd rather save up the money so my kids can go to school than have it come out of a struggling family's paycheck.

You do realize Bernie's plan is to get rid of the loopholes the Rich use to avoid taxes, therefore practically all of it would come from them right?

Like, I won't pretend we could expect Bernie's plan to work out in four years, Congress would fight it too much.
But stuff like the rich dodging taxes, and too much taxes going to the Military, money that could easily be used to help people? America need's someone to at least push them in that direction, else they're kind of doomed in a "Well, since the pay-off isn't immediate I guess our best option is to continue drowning".

 

[Tarieles]

Aye, people seem to forget that he's not planning on taxing the others any more, he's planning on saying "fuck you" to the rich and getting them to hand over money.

That's the idea anyway. The top 1% *coughcongresscough* will fight tooth and nail to keep their money, so it likely won't actually happen, which is unfortunate. We've turned into an oligarchy, and we can at least try to change our country. I'm part of the millennials. I'm the future of this country (as are the other millennials), and I don't want to grow up and have children in a country that doesn't care about them. I'll move to Iceland before that happens. My babies will come first, government be damned.

But with the current outlook, with Trump being the Republican nominee and Hillary cheating her way to the Dem nominee (Arizona and NY were sketchy af), I will either vote Green Party, Write in Bernie anyway because we have that option, or (don't hurt me) vote Trump. As much as I hate to say, I'd rather have Trump than Hillary. They're both Republicans, I mean come on. It's really going to come down to a RvR race if the two of them go at it. But Trump has lied less than Hillary. He speaks his mind. That, and congress doesn't really like him. He'll likely just be in a stasis of wanting to commit racist atrocities, but mean ol' congress won't let him. That, and his wall idea won't pan out, because you can't force another country to do shit unless you start a war.

Hillary, on the other hand, is adored by congress. They'll let her get away with murder (I mean, they've already let her get away with nigh treason, and y'know, Benghazi), which scares the shit outta me. I am a Democratic voter, always kind of have been even when I couldn't vote, but I will vote red before I will vote for Hillary. At this point, we just need to start seeing a change in small government before we can take on the big government, which is sad, but it's the truth. Thankfully, people are starting to see superdelegates as bullshit.

My final words: This is my first Presidential campaign in which I can vote, and I'm scared for my future.

"People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people." -Alan Moore

 

[Dervish]

 

[MurderDeathKill]

I'm just glad that I'm going to be able to continue the tradition of staying home election day.

Trump has no chance, though. Not without women, minorities, or Muslims.

 

[ᴛᴏᴄᴋᴀ]

You do realize Bernie's plan is to get rid of the loopholes the Rich use to avoid taxes, therefore practically all of it would come from them right?

Like, I won't pretend we could expect Bernie's plan to work out in four years, Congress would fight it too much.
But stuff like the rich dodging taxes, and too much taxes going to the Military, money that could easily be used to help people? America need's someone to at least push them in that direction, else they're kind of doomed in a "Well, since the pay-off isn't immediate I guess our best option is to continue drowning".

So tell me, why is it that the poor are getting more yanked out of their taxes? I understand that it's the whole 'everyone's fair share' thing, but that's not going to cut it for people who are living paycheck to paycheck. $148 and $188 might not sound like much, but when you consider State Taxed, Social Security, Insurance, and other things that are deducted out of a person's check, it can put a serious hurting on a family that has to pinch pennies just to make it. That money could be used to put food on the table, or gas in a person's car so that they can keep their job. And if it's gone?

The entire system, not just taxes for the rich, that's what needs an overhaul. Companies need to be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be someone overseeing them and watching to see if they're paying their employees fair wages, if they're paying out overtime when it's owed. They need to look at the length employees have been with a company to see if they've been given an adequate raise, and they need to face consequences when they don't. I can give you the name of at least three companies off the top of my head that are guilty of most of those practices, to supposedly 'save the company money', but that's not why they do it. They do it because their CEO's are fucking scum. Look up people who have been eligible for retirement with a nice hefty pension, and end up getting fired for mysterious reasons. Look up people who have worked over 40 hours and didn't even bring home a 40 hour paycheck because the company deducts breaks that they didn't take. That's a big chunk of what's wrong, it's not just taxes.

The cost of living is different from state to state, which means the wages are also different. My husband is an electrician with his journeyman's card. In Florida there were jobs that would have started him off at $10 an hour where as in Maryland he'd be starting off double that, and possibly making more in other states. And now with McDonalds talking about paying workers $15 an hour, there are going to be people flipping burgers who make more than someone who's working with live electricity, and people who are working 12 hour shifts as EMTs. The whole system is fucked. I agree that the minimum wage needs to be raised, but when you are paying someone who can't even get an order right more than someone who's gone through training and spent a good chunk of their lives in a field, then there needs to be a serious evolution of what's going on.

Taxing the rich and the poor all across the board isn't going to solve the problem, it's going to make matters worse. Giving the rich tax breaks isn't going to work either. They already tried that, and nothing trickled down but a ton of shit. You can't raise the minimum wage by almost $7 and expect that it's not going to blow out the economy, just like you can't tax the poor the same way you do the rich and not expect there to be some serious problems. We're all doomed until the rich assholes start seeing that they're the fucking problem and stop hoarding money away.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

I wish I didn't need to disclaim this.
But considering the generally heated environment of politic's I feel like I have to.

This isn't a jab at either of you, your views etc.
I'm just expressing my own personal disagreement on the topic.

As much as I hate to say, I'd rather have Trump than Hillary. They're both Republicans, I mean come on.

Not really.

Hillary has certainly been Scummy, that's for sure. But when she has spoken on matters? It's usually been addressing the same issues Bernie found, and proposing alternate ways. I don't think those alternates stand much a chance of working, but they're generally on the same page (in what they say. What we can believe is another matter).

It's really going to come down to a RvR race if the two of them go at it. But Trump has lied less than Hillary. He speaks his mind.

A lot of messed up people in history have 'spoken their mind', people who caused so much trouble on Iwaku as to get banned 'spoke their mind'.
Simply speaking what's on your mind isn't automatically a good thing, it's what's going on inside that head that matters.

That, and congress doesn't really like him.

They don't like him because they can't control/keep a leash on him. That's not an indication he's good, just an indication he and Congress aren't on the same page.

So tell me, why is it that the poor are getting more yanked out of their taxes?

Probably because it's going on assumptions such as this:

Taxing the rich and the poor all across the board isn't going to solve the problem, it's going to make matters worse. Giving the rich tax breaks isn't going to work either. They already tried that, and nothing trickled down but a ton of shit. You can't raise the minimum wage by almost $7 and expect that it's not going to blow out the economy, just like you can't tax the poor the same way you do the rich and not expect there to be some serious problems. We're all doomed until the rich assholes start seeing that they're the fucking problem and stop hoarding money away.

Which... Isn't what's being proposed. Like at all. o_o

In fact it's the complete opposite, it's getting rid of those tax breaks you were complaining about, and prioritizing funding to what could actually help people.
And it's not that everyone will be taxed by the same amount either. There's the practice of taxing a higher percentage according to the wage they're making, so while someone struggling might be taxed 10% (random numbers, I don't know what's America's current rates are) the rich could get 30-40.

The entire system, not just taxes for the rich, that's what needs an overhaul. Companies need to be held accountable for their actions. There needs to be someone overseeing them and watching to see if they're paying their employees fair wages, if they're paying out overtime when it's owed. They need to look at the length employees have been with a company to see if they've been given an adequate raise, and they need to face consequences when they don't. I can give you the name of at least three companies off the top of my head that are guilty of most of those practices, to supposedly 'save the company money', but that's not why they do it. They do it because their CEO's are fucking scum. Look up people who have been eligible for retirement with a nice hefty pension, and end up getting fired for mysterious reasons. Look up people who have worked over 40 hours and didn't even bring home a 40 hour paycheck because the company deducts breaks that they didn't take. That's a big chunk of what's wrong, it's not just taxes.

So stuff like this is actually what's being proposed.

And now with McDonalds talking about paying workers $15 an hour, there are going to be people flipping burgers who make more than someone who's working with live electricity, and people who are working 12 hour shifts as EMTs.

The whole point of minimum wage is that it's a minimum.
If people are McDonalds make $15 an hour, so would the Electricians.

Should Electricians likely get paid more? Definitely.
Should that mean people forced into a minimum wage job can't make enough to support themselves without relying on very sketchy support services? Definitely not.

 

[Brovo]

But stuff like the rich dodging taxes,

he's planning on saying "fuck you" to the rich and getting them to hand over money.

Oh, wow. Uh... Okay. There are so many reasons why "just tax the rich" is not a viable solution and why you should slap anyone who thinks that it's a miracle unlimited pot of honey and rainbows. You can tax the rich more, but only up to a certain point, and it's not going to get you as much money as you think it will. Because math, which I learned over the years from my father, who works in the finance industry. So let's go over the reasons why this is a dumb idea, shall we?

1. Most taxes you can enact on corporations or businesses only has one end result: That cost being passed along to the consumer via an increase in price for goods and services. This also really only hurts small businesses that get by at median price, so anytime you enact or increase a corporate tax, you're killing ma & pa stores and allowing Walmarts to continue their unimpeded takeover of every small town in America.
2. You will earn far, far more in taxes if you do slight increases on the poor & middle class rather than large increases on the rich, which you may not believe, but it's true. If you have a million people and you tax each of them ten dollars, you will earn more money than if you tax a hundred dollars from a thousand people. (10 million versus 100K.) Therefore, whatever social polices you enact (police, firefighters, roadways, medicare, et cetera) the burden will always be shouldered more by middle class and the poor than the rich. If, for no other reason, than that there are far, far less rich people to even tax in the first place.
3. Most taxes target property values or incomes. That's not going to take away the already massive amounts of money the rich possess. Taking the money from the bank accounts of the rich (ex: taxing bank accounts) to try and equalize the playing field, only causes the rich to deposit their money in foreign banks, like Swiss banks, which can't be touched. If you then punish the rich by preventing them from getting their money from those banks to spend in the local economy, their only choice literally becomes to leave... And most rich people would, because they didn't get to be rich by being timid, they got that way by being cutthroat businessmen.
4. Even if, hypothetically speaking, all the above was not true, and increasing taxes on the rich actually did result in making more money... You would lose it in the end. Because, most money the rich have, they... You know... Already have. So if you take away large swathes of their money, that's one influx of cash you get to the treasury that you get to spend. Just one. Then, guess what? They fall a tax bracket, because you just took most of their money. If you spent that money increasing the size of social services, where exactly are you going to find more money once the rich are gone?

There's a few effective taxes on the rich, but they're almost always anti-aristocracy taxes as much as they are taxes on the rich. The Estate Tax for example is just as much used to prevent the rise of aristocratic families owning large swathes of property and creating a serf class, and forces the children of the super rich to be competitive. The original copyright laws lasted only about twenty years, which gave an incentive to inventors and creators to keep putting out content if they wanted to make money.

The greatest ills America has seen with its megacorporations have fallen on laws that have killed the need to compete and created a massive, grotesque government that resembles the obesity epidemic the country is facing. Copyright lasting the lifetime of the creator + 70 years is absurd. The attempts to destroy the estate tax are absurd. The calls to attack the very concept of corporations only causes harm to small businesses that want to be viable competitors to big business are absurd.

This is why I've mentioned previous that Bernie is really just as awful a choice as Hillary and Trump. His social policies are not as bad, but his economic policies are absolutely, mentally insane, and merely demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of economics. You cannot take that which isn't there, and any social programs you wish to enact will be shouldered by the populace. That's why Canada's healthcare is called a public system: We all shoulder the burden of the cost in exchange for the service.

But then, Canada's government doesn't spend several hundred billion on shadow services that nobody gets to see.

Y'all want to fix the US? Audit your shit, get your budget under control, cut your government's size down, let the states manage some aspects locally (that's why they're there in the first place), and end the unlimited funding scheme the pentagon has got going for itself, and lower the amount of non-existent money banks are allowed to borrow. No socialist programs are going to work when the people are already overburdened by the cost of living there. Oh, and fight domestic job loss--the less jobs you have, the greater the strain will be on your social services, and the greater your taxes will need to be to compensate.

You can't build utopia off of nothing. Everything costs something and if it's related to taxes, the middle class will always burden the cost more than anyone else. No matter how good intentioned. Remember that.

 

[Tarieles]

I'm definitely not saying Trump is a good idea. The fact that he speaks his mind is not good per se. However, I would much rather deal with him than a woman who lies her way to the top. But, as it stands, I'll likely vote green party.

Most of her ideas changed specifically for this race. I still don't like her view of gay marriage (which was vehemently against until this race) or her view on POC (basically just calling the black americans criminals).

And yes, taxing the rich more will only get us so far. They aren't a pot of eternal honey, I'm aware of that. But they're also dodging so many taxes. Trump himself was in the Panama Papers. Warren Buffet said that we needed to tax the rich more, because the amount they give right now is nothing.

We need less government, like you said @Brovo We've gone too long with thinking we're the unsinkable ship, and now we're sinking. I definitely don't want a full blown socialist movement, that would be extremely bad for us right now. We also don't want Trumps huge cost items that will cost us more in money and allies.

Would post more but I'm on mobile and was bored so I responded. But there's no way this government is changing unless we get someone with different ideals in small government, and work years to change the top. Congress just wouldn't let it.

 

[ᴛᴏᴄᴋᴀ]

The whole point of minimum wage is that it's a minimum.
If people are McDonalds make $15 an hour, so would the Electricians.

Should Electricians likely get paid more? Definitely.
Should that mean people forced into a minimum wage job can't make enough to support themselves without relying on very sketchy support services? Definitely not.

But that's not what's happening. Just because McDonalds is paying $15 an hour doesn't mean that everyone is getting a bump in pay. That's not the minimum wage. There are some states that are proposing a boost up, but not to $15 an hour.

Each state has its own minimum wage. I think the base minimum wage is Federally mandated, but all that means is that the state has to pay that at the minimum. Some states pay a little more, most only pay what is required. The McDonalds thing is a company mandate, it has nothing to do with state or federal requirements. Companies like Wendy's are looking to eliminate jobs rather than paying their employees the same rate. They're going with kiosks rather than human laborers. As for other fast food companies, it really hasn't been announced. For every other worker though, there is no huge jump in pay. No one else is talking about paying people $15 an hour, and even if it is put to the Senate, chances are they'll vote it down just like they've been voting down all possible increases to minimum wage.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Oh, wow. Uh... Okay. There are so many reasons why "just tax the rich" is not a viable solution

And I never said to just do that and leave it. There was a lot more to my argument (a lot of which you actually proceed to repeat below).

Most taxes you can enact on corporations or businesses only has one end result: That cost being passed along to the consumer via an increase in price for goods and services. This also really only hurts small businesses that get by at median price, so anytime you enact or increase a corporate tax, you're killing ma & pa stores and allowing Walmarts to continue their unimpeded takeover of every small town in America.

Then apply breaks* to more local one's, that way taxing the really rich doesn't then also shoot the low businesses in the foot.
And because the low business can then afford to give lower prices, the bigger ones don't feel as willing to just sit on excess cash cause it means losing customers.

*Ideally/End Goal speaking. I won't presume to know the specifics on what sort of laws would be needed to ensure the bigger one's don't make fake small ones to benefit the same.

Most taxes target property values or incomes. That's not going to take away the already massive amounts of money the rich possess. Taking the money from the bank accounts of the rich (ex: taxing bank accounts) to try and equalize the playing field, only causes the rich to deposit their money in foreign banks, like Swiss banks, which can't be touched. If you then punish the rich by preventing them from getting their money from those banks to spend in the local economy, their only choice literally becomes to leave... And most rich people would, because they didn't get to be rich by being timid, they got that way by being cutthroat businessmen.

I don't know much on the Bank area, so why exactly can't we prevent them from using the Swiss Banks?
Like, let them take their money out, but then afterwards require them to invest locally?

Even if, hypothetically speaking, all the above was not true, and increasing taxes on the rich actually did result in making more money... You would lose it in the end. Because, most money the rich have, they... You know... Already have. So if you take away large swathes of their money, that's one influx of cash you get to the treasury that you get to spend. Just one. Then, guess what? They fall a tax bracket, because you just took most of their money. If you spent that money increasing the size of social services, where exactly are you going to find more money once the rich are gone?
There's a few effective taxes on the rich, but they're almost always anti-aristocracy taxes as much as they are taxes on the rich. The Estate Tax for example is just as much used to prevent the rise of aristocratic families owning large swathes of property and creating a serf class, and forces the children of the super rich to be competitive. The original copyright laws lasted only about twenty years, which gave an incentive to inventors and creators to keep putting out content if they wanted to make money.

Except I'm not suggesting simply walking into their stash and taking it away**, I'm talking strictly taxing according to income or profit. So it will reflect overtime as they succeed or fail, and if it's based on a continuous profit it isn't a 'one time take' because there will be continual profits. And once again, I'm not just suggesting do this end of story, this is part of a multitude of steps.

**I know I said above about business being less incentivized to sit on it. But it'd be a move of their own choice, not something were the law simply comes in and rips it away.

The greatest ills America has seen with its megacorporations have fallen on laws that have killed the need to compete and created a massive, grotesque government that resembles the obesity epidemic the country is facing. Copyright lasting the lifetime of the creator + 70 years is absurd. The attempts to destroy the estate tax are absurd. The calls to attack the very concept of corporations only causes harm to small businesses that want to be viable competitors to big business are absurd.

...

But then, Canada's government doesn't spend several hundred billion on shadow services that nobody gets to see.

Y'all want to fix the US? Audit your shit, get your budget under control, cut your government's size down, let the states manage some aspects locally (that's why they're there in the first place), and end the unlimited funding scheme the pentagon has got going for itself, and lower the amount of non-existent money banks are allowed to borrow. No socialist programs are going to work when the people are already overburdened by the cost of living there. Oh, and fight domestic job loss--the less jobs you have, the greater the strain will be on your social services, and the greater your taxes will need to be to compensate.

And these are all more parts we need to take care of too. Another piece in the big game plan.
Just cause I'm arguing we need to tax the rich more doesn't mean that's the ONLY piece in the picture. :P

 

[Brovo]

Except I'm not suggesting simply walking into their stash and taking it away**, I'm talking strictly taxing according to income or profit. So it will reflect overtime as they succeed or fail, and if it's based on a continuous profit it isn't a 'one time take' because there will be continual profits. And once again, I'm not just suggesting do this end of story, this is part of a multitude of steps.

**I know I said above about business being less incentivized to sit on it. But it'd be a move of their own choice, not something were the law simply comes in and rips it away.

Pigs stop being fat if you take away most of their slop before they get to eat it. The rich stop being rich if you take away most of their money before they get to have it. Plus, the money they already have, they will lock down and spend less of, because they want to stay rich. The only feasible way you could attack the continual income of the rich would be to impose greater taxes on investments, but then, that discourages investment altogether, and that completely fucks the majority of startup bootstrap companies and scientific endeavours...

Taking away pie doesn't give everyone more pie, it just means the guy who was going to eat the pie has less pie, so he's less likely to share what he has because some asshole walked in and took 8/10ths of his pie.

You can tax the rich, just do it when they die. They don't and won't need the money after that. That's what the Estate Tax is for.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

But that's not what's happening. Just because McDonalds is paying $15 an hour doesn't mean that everyone is getting a bump in pay. That's not the minimum wage. There are some states that are proposing a boost up, but not to $15 an hour.

Each state has its own minimum wage. I think the base minimum wage is Federally mandated, but all that means is that the state has to pay that at the minimum. Some states pay a little more, most only pay what is required. The McDonalds thing is a company mandate, it has nothing to do with state or federal requirements. Companies like Wendy's are looking to eliminate jobs rather than paying their employees the same rate. They're going with kiosks rather than human laborers. As for other fast food companies, it really hasn't been announced. For every other worker though, there is no huge jump in pay. No one else is talking about paying people $15 an hour, and even if it is put to the Senate, chances are they'll vote it down just like they've been voting down all possible increases to minimum wage.

And that's a flaw with the current approach, yes. But what you're talking about isn't minimum wage, you're talking about specific companies increasing their wages.
I'm taking a legally required, across the board increase in the minimum wage.

And I will admit that yes this is cutting down on how many jobs fast food places have, being replaced with kiosks.
But in all honesty that was going to happen any ways with technological advancement, that just calls for a need for the country to get better at creating jobs simultaneously with increasing the minimum wage. More and more mundane and manual jobs will get replaced over the years, that's a result of progress. But we also owe it to people that regardless of where they work their wage can be liveable.

 

[Windsong]

I learn so much from these threads.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

You can tax the rich, just do it when they die. They don't and won't need the money after that. That's what the Estate Tax is for.

I'd be up for doing this instead, as long as that money doesn't forever go sitting around doing nothing but looking pretty.

 

[ᴛᴏᴄᴋᴀ]

And that's a flaw with the current approach, yes. But what you're talking about isn't minimum wage, you're talking about specific companies increasing their wages.
I'm taking a legally required, across the board increase in the minimum wage.

And I will admit that yes this is cutting down on how many jobs fast food places have, being replaced with kiosks.
But in all honesty that was going to happen any ways with technological advancement, that just calls for a need for the country to get better at creating jobs simultaneously with increasing the minimum wage. More and more mundane and manual jobs will get replaced over the years, that's a result of progress. But we also owe it to people that regardless of where they work their wage can be liveable.

Yeah, I'm tired. My thoughts are all jumbled. >_<

It doesn't matter if McDonalds pays more or not, all it's going to do is stop other companies from hiring because people are going to expecting $15 or more, and no one is going to pay that unless they're ordered to pay it. People are going to start employees off at the lowest possible amount they can get away with. If Trump gets in office, minimum wage is not going to get increased. He seems to think that American workers get paid too much as it is.

 

[Brovo]

I'd be up for doing this instead, as long as that money doesn't forever go sitting around doing nothing but looking pretty.

If there was some way of combating throwing money overseas I'd be up for that too, but I'm not sure how one can do that in a globalized economy exactly. It's troubling to say the least.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Yeah, I'm tired. My thoughts are all jumbled. >_<

It's fine. Politics itself is jumbled as it is. :P

It doesn't matter if McDonalds pays more or not, all it's going to do is stop other companies from hiring because people are going to expecting $15 or more, and no one is going to pay that unless they're ordered to pay it.

That's part of the reason it needs to be federally enforced. A lot of people aren't going to simply refuse a job because it's not 15, if they see a job they'll take it. Some money is better than no money.

But because of that, actually hoping to get a liveable wage isn't really that feasible if it's up to the companies, that has to be from the Government getting involved.

If Trump gets in office, minimum wage is not going to get increased. He seems to think that American workers get paid too much as it is.

Oh you don't need to convince me about Trump, I already know he's bad news. :P

If there was some way of combating throwing money overseas I'd be up for that too, but I'm not sure how one can do that in a globalized economy exactly. It's troubling to say the least.

This is getting into a much bigger/complex and in the future topic.
But I don't think that's going to be that feasible until we ditch the idea of countries and just unite together as 'Humanity'.

 

[Brovo]

It doesn't matter if McDonalds pays more or not, all it's going to do is stop other companies from hiring because people are going to expecting $15 or more, and no one is going to pay that unless they're ordered to pay it. People are going to start employees off at the lowest possible amount they can get away with. If Trump gets in office, minimum wage is not going to get increased. He seems to think that American workers get paid too much as it is.

You really don't want a minimum wage increase. You really don't. You want a consumer revolt. If everyone gets paid an extra amount per hour by government mandate, every other corporation in the area is going to take advantage and increase their prices. Why wouldn't the grocery store charge more, or the rental agreements increase their prices, if they know tenants have more money on average to spend? Once everything costs more money, your currency will get devalued, decreasing buying power. It also causes the market to close job opportunities to risk assets, such as teenagers and ghetto rats, seeing as how the position becomes too valuable to give away to some kid. It increases the number of part time jobs as opposed to full time jobs, because part time jobs are cheaper, and less people will be hired, with more work expectations being put upon the shoulders of those already employed.

Whereas a consumer revolt just needs to happen once. Get people mad as hell that McDonalds is treating their employees like trash and force McDonalds to increase wages on the threat of losing customers to competitors (like Subway). That'll wake them up and get them to pay out more, without killing small businesses that can't keep up with minimum wage, or destroying the market for part time employment for teenagers and ghetto kids.

Conversely, you can attempt to lower the cost of living in an area if it's too expensive to live there. Fight the costs, not the wages, because costs will always escalate with wages. This is, humorously, where a social program can come in handy, but alas that your country's social programs are about as effective as a man with no arms and legs in the ocean trying to swim...