Bernie Sanders Thread

[volinbham]

I don't see wealth redistribution having grown. Since the mid '70s, workers have generally been paid less or about the same, and top executives are generally paid more (adjusted for inflation).

Now if you're talking about government welfare programs of redistribution growing, I can understand that. I don't want a welfare state anymore than you guys, I want people to work (if they're capable) and I want them depending less on government handouts.

I feel like this can be achieved if the wealth of a company is less weighted at the top, and more evenly distributed to other parts. That being said, of course CEOs deserve more pay than the lowest level employee, but upwards of 300:1 ratios? The less employees are paid, particularly the bottom ranks, the more they must depend on government redistribution. If the working class has more income, they spend more, often at the place they work, which increases wealth for the top. It isn't a zero-sum game, both can benefit when wealth is grown and not hoarded so much at the top.

I am talking about government wealth redistribution since that is what Sanders is advocating. It has significantly grown along with the general safety net and any number of direct and indirect benefits. It is higher than ever yet the worker predicament is worse than ever (at least according to some of the Sanders crowd).

So, if increasing government benefits and wealth redistribution works why have things gotten worse while the government has done more?

In the last paragraph you bring up dependency but I'd argue a chicken and egg problem here. How would increasing government benefits (Sanders platform) address this dependency issue?

What is the logic for more and when is enough, enough?

 

[Ttucke11]

I think you're going to be very wrong regarding the debates.

Agreed. Bernie might come off as loony to some, but he won't shove his foot down his own throat like Trump.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

I am talking about government wealth redistribution since that is what Sanders is advocating. It has significantly grown along with the general safety net and any number of direct and indirect benefits. It is higher than ever yet the worker predicament is worse than ever (at least according to some of the Sanders crowd).

So, if increasing government benefits and wealth redistribution works why have things gotten worse while the government has done more?

In the last paragraph you bring up dependency but I'd argue a chicken and egg problem here. How would increasing government benefits (Sanders platform) address this dependency issue?

What is the logic for more and when is enough, enough?

Bernie Sanders on Welfare & Poverty

Bernie Sanders on the issues of welfare and poverty.

He supports WIC, low-income housing, EITC, school breakfasts for low-income students, and an increase in the minimum wage. He also supports the continued funding of other safety nets like SS and Medicare. I don't see his stances on welfare being much different than other candidates in Democratic party (and some Republicans)

He's concerned with workers losing their jobs to overseas workers and low-skilled immigrants, and workers not getting pay gains on par with their productivity over the past few decades or on par with executives. He believed the bail outs were "socialism for the rich" while many Americans were losing their homes and received no bailouts.

I agree that the whole political system has been corrupted on both sides with power and money. But like I said, I think that is why people like Bernie and people like Ron Paul. Two guys who haven't sacrificed their values.

 

[Ttucke11]

Bernie Sanders on Welfare & Poverty

Bernie Sanders on the issues of welfare and poverty.

He supports WIC, low-income housing, EITC, school breakfasts for low-income students, and an increase in the minimum wage. He also supports the continued funding of other safety nets like SS and Medicare. I don't see his stances on welfare being much different than other candidates in Democratic party (and some Republicans)

He's concerned with workers losing their jobs to overseas workers and low-skilled immigrants, and workers not getting pay gains on par with their productivity over the past few decades or on par with executives. He believed the bail outs were "socialism for the rich" while many Americans were losing their homes and received no bailouts.

I agree that the whole political system has been corrupted on both sides with power and money. But like I said, I think that is why people like Bernie and people like Ron Paul. Two guys who haven't sacrificed their values.

Oh, you're absolutely correct. But if you aren't a full-blooded Rep on this board, you're "an insane, lazy, liberal". I'll be voting Bernie, even if it's a write-in.

 

[volinbham]

Bernie Sanders on Welfare & Poverty

Bernie Sanders on the issues of welfare and poverty.

He supports WIC, low-income housing, EITC, school breakfasts for low-income students, and an increase in the minimum wage. He also supports the continued funding of other safety nets like SS and Medicare. I don't see his stances on welfare being much different than other candidates in Democratic party (and some Republicans)

He's concerned with workers losing their jobs to overseas workers and low-skilled immigrants, and workers not getting pay gains on par with their productivity over the past few decades or on par with executives. He believed the bail outs were "socialism for the rich" while many Americans were losing their homes and received no bailouts.

I agree that the whole political system has been corrupted on both sides with power and money. But like I said, I think that is why people like Bernie and people like Ron Paul. Two guys who haven't sacrificed their values.

He's advocating increases in direct and indirect benefits ("free" college for example) and confiscatory tax levels (90%+ at the top marginal rate). It's more than status quo.

He wants increased regulatory restrictions on businesses.

Yes corruption abounds and neither party is innocent. Even I believe Sanders is as pure as the driven snow what he's advocating creates the conditions for more corruption.

On a side note it's interesting that he voted against allowing religious organizations to receive the same funding that other NGOs get to help the poor etc. If he cares about helping so much why not get all hands on board?

 

[1972 Grad]

Oh, you're absolutely correct. But if you aren't a full-blooded Rep on this board, you're "an insane, lazy, liberal". I'll be voting Bernie, even if it's a write-in.

Better start sharpening your pencil.

 

[volinbham]

Oh, you're absolutely correct. But if you aren't a full-blooded Rep on this board, you're "an insane, lazy, liberal". I'll be voting Bernie, even if it's a write-in.

not true at all but go ahead and play the victim card rather than debating the issue.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

He's advocating increases in direct and indirect benefits ("free" college for example) and confiscatory tax levels (90%+ at the top marginal rate). It's more than status quo.

He wants increased regulatory restrictions on businesses.

Yes corruption abounds and neither party is innocent. Even I believe Sanders is as pure as the driven snow what he's advocating creates the conditions for more corruption.

On a side note it's interesting that he voted against allowing religious organizations to receive the same funding that other NGOs get to help the poor etc. If he cares about helping so much why not get all hands on board?

"Free" or near "free" college is where we are headed, particularly in Tennessee with the new Tennessee Promise. I'd rather have an educated and trained population than one that isn't, so offering post-secondary education to young people doesn't bother me much.

I agree that 90% marginal tax rates would be excessive, especially if it weren't defined at where it begins. Is it for people earning 100,000,000+ a year or 1,000,000+? We've had 90% marginal tax rates before (under Eisenhower) but of course nobody effectively paid that much. But it isn't unreasonable, in my opinion, for the super rich to not be able to exploit loopholes to effectively pay a smaller tax rates than some of their employees.

I also agree that religious organizations should be treated similarly to NGOs, we need private charity for sure.

 

[Obsessed]

He is no different than the rest

Sen. Bernie Sanders Greece Is In "Midst Of Great Depression," Needs Federal Reserve Bailout | Video | RealClearPolitics




Ron Paul says Bernie Sanders 'sold out' on Fed amendment | TheHill

 

[Ttucke11]

not true at all but go ahead and play the victim card rather than debating the issue.

Come on man. I read a lot in the politics forum but rarely post. I'm not playing the victim card. Every non conservative gets blasted on this board. That's fine. It's a conservative base. You're a sensible poster, you recognize this.

 

[volinbham]

Come on man. I read a lot in the politics forum but rarely post. I'm not playing the victim card. Every non conservative gets blasted on this board. That's fine. It's a conservative base. You're a sensible poster, you recognize this.

if you are going to post why do it to complain about how you'll be treated rather than contribute your analysis or view on the opinion?

plenty of people get blasted but plenty of people have discussions. In my experience the more you stick to policy discussions the more you get a discussion. When one starts with "GOP sucks" or is trolling they get hammered on it.

It's definitely a slanted board but its definitely not all GOP.

 

[hog88]

Come on man. I read a lot in the politics forum but rarely post. I'm not playing the victim card. Every non conservative gets blasted on this board. That's fine. It's a conservative base. You're a sensible poster, you recognize this.

Not true. Liberals who present their points without resorting to childish antics are welcome. Sadly they are as scarce as a virgin in a whore house.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

if you are going to post why do it to complain about how you'll be treated rather than contribute your analysis or view on the opinion?

plenty of people get blasted but plenty of people have discussions. In my experience the more you stick to policy discussions the more you get a discussion. When one starts with "GOP sucks" or is trolling they get hammered on it.

It's definitely a slanted board but its definitely not all GOP.

This is true, it rarely gets ugly unless someone goes demagogue.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

Not true. Liberals who present their points without resorting to childish antics are welcome. Sadly they are as scarce as a virgin in a whore house.

am I chopped liver??

 

[1972 Grad]

Not true. Liberals who present their points without resorting to childish antics are welcome. Sadly they are as scarce as a virgin in a whore house.

Not true! There's uh.....uh Volprof.....nah, uh....8188....nah, uh....orangeluvr....nah, uh....Volsportsfan.....nah, uh.....

 

[1972 Grad]

uh......uh LG.....nah, uh

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Not true! There's uh.....uh Volprof.....nah, uh....8188....nah, uh....orangeluvr....nah, uh....Volsportsfan.....nah, uh.....

How old are you?

And why am I not surprised you're one of the window-lickers that automatically labels anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% a "liberal"?

 

[Mtntrout]

He's advocating increases in direct and indirect benefits ("free" college for example) and confiscatory tax levels (90%+ at the top marginal rate). It's more than status quo.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 90%+ top marginal rate is not without historical precedent in this country, and actually was in existence for a good chunk of the middle of the 20th century. Maybe not "status quo" by the standards of the Reagan era and beyond, but not unprecedented either.

And I'm not sure "free" college is going to be more costly than either a less educated population going forward as costs increase or with many adults defaulting or being shackled with overwhelming debt. Those effects are not free either. If anything, "free" college may help get costs under control at larger universities who have felt pressure to expand offerings and enrollment to meet the shortfall from states cutting off funding.

These are both more complex issues than your post seemed to me to imply.

 

[hog88]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 90%+ top marginal rate is not without historical precedent in this country, and actually was in existence for a good chunk of the middle of the 20th century. Maybe not "status quo" by the standards of the Reagan era and beyond, but not unprecedented either.

And I'm not sure "free" college is going to be more costly than either a less educated population going forward as costs increase or with many adults defaulting or being shackled with overwhelming debt. Those effects are not free either. If anything, "free" college may help get costs under control at larger universities who have felt pressure to expand offerings and enrollment to meet the shortfall from states cutting off funding.

These are both more complex issues than your post seemed to me to imply.

When the top marginal rate was 90% you could write off and deduct dam near anything.

 

[volinbham]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 90%+ top marginal rate is not without historical precedent in this country, and actually was in existence for a good chunk of the middle of the 20th century. Maybe not "status quo" by the standards of the Reagan era and beyond, but not unprecedented either.

And I'm not sure "free" college is going to be more costly than either a less educated population going forward as costs increase or with many adults defaulting or being shackled with overwhelming debt. Those effects are not free either. If anything, "free" college may help get costs under control at larger universities who have felt pressure to expand offerings and enrollment to meet the shortfall from states cutting off funding.

These are both more complex issues than your post seemed to me to imply.

Yes they are complex - just as saying it was 90% before so there is precedent greatly understates the complexity of the issue.

I'm not saying that government benefits aren't well intentioned or may not yield net benefits.

What I am saying is that Sanders is advocating for more benefits (with college being one of them) and as you increase benefits you also increase the potential for dependency, corruption and other unintended consequences. Likewise ramping up the regulatory framework has the same issues.

All of this I'm putting in the context of "why do we expect this to solve the problem when we've been increasing benefits and regulatory scope for decades and the problems (according to Sander's supporters) are getting worse.

Why the faith that if we just take more out of the pockets of some and give it to others and tighten the rules for the "exploiters" the problems will be solved?

 

[FLVOL_79]

Shot way over par today at the golf course. I decided to blame the CEO's of Nike and Taylormade! Makes way more sense than blaming myself and lack of golf skill. I'm on the LoonyBern Hype Train!!

 

[FLVOL_79]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 90%+ top marginal rate is not without historical precedent in this country, and actually was in existence for a good chunk of the middle of the 20th century. Maybe not "status quo" by the standards of the Reagan era and beyond, but not unprecedented either.

And I'm not sure "free" college is going to be more costly than either a less educated population going forward as costs increase or with many adults defaulting or being shackled with overwhelming debt. Those effects are not free either. If anything, "free" college may help get costs under control at larger universities who have felt pressure to expand offerings and enrollment to meet the shortfall from states cutting off funding.

These are both more complex issues than your post seemed to me to imply.

Do you know how many "Educated" people are actually dumb as a bag of wet hammers? (hint:lots).

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

Do you know how many "Educated" people are actually dumb as a bag of wet hammers? (hint:lots).

I'd wager more uneducated people are.

 

[Mtntrout]

Yes they are complex - just as saying it was 90% before so there is precedent greatly understates the complexity of the issue.

I'm not saying that government benefits aren't well intentioned or may not yield net benefits.

What I am saying is that Sanders is advocating for more benefits (with college being one of them) and as you increase benefits you also increase the potential for dependency, corruption and other unintended consequences. Likewise ramping up the regulatory framework has the same issues.

All of this I'm putting in the context of "why do we expect this to solve the problem when we've been increasing benefits and regulatory scope for decades and the problems (according to Sander's supporters) are getting worse.

Why the faith that if we just take more out of the pockets of some and give it to others and tighten the rules for the "exploiters" the problems will be solved?

I don't see it as "faith," so much as a course of action worth exploring. We've been doing "trickle down" and deregulation for 15 years and don't have anything overwhelmingly positive to show for it (and some negatives). Obama didn't really do anything to change it in a meaningful way.

 

[Mtntrout]

Do you know how many "Educated" people are actually dumb as a bag of wet hammers? (hint:lots).

Yes, many people of all stripes are dumb. Especially in groups. I don't really know what that has to do with anything. It's a given we live with in all things. If everyone were reasonable, intelligent agents in all their dealings then politics would be moot. Things would just "work," no matter the system type.