"Feel the Bern": The BERNIE SANDERS Thread

[Kahran Ramsus]

The winner of the election in November will very likely be whatever party wins over the suburban whites of the Rust Belt.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The winner of the election in November will very likely be whatever party wins over the suburban whites of the Rust Belt.

I would go beyond just the Rust Belt, I would say suburbs in general and would include the more suburban areas in Virginia (Hampton Roads and NOVA), surrounding Denver, Des Moines, Philadelphia, Orlando, etc.

 

[kedrell]

How much of it is hard work? How much is raw intellect? How much of it is the right connections? How much of it is luck?

Do you really think Martin Shkreli worked harder than 95% of the US population who will never be millionaires?

You can always find some exception to the rule. None of this is 100% one way or the other. But the vast majority of people who made their fortunes(this obviously excludes people who just inherited it) had to work hard as well as be savvy and creative and also had to delay gratification so they could actually build something.

 

[kedrell]

The myth of meritocracy. That is what the Republicans love to preach.

The game is rigged. Most people will never be wealthy. Acknowledge that, and govern accordingly.

It's not a myth. My grandparents were born poor but worked hard all their lives in blue collar jobs and saved and invested their money wisely and by the time they died they were millionaires. It may not be sexy or what the young folk want to hear but it does work.

Though I will agree there is a certain amount of rigging to the system in the last couple of decades, no question. I'm a free market capitalist but crony capitalism that we see right now isn't really all that much better than disastrous ideas like socialism. Of course some changes and reform have to be implemented.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's not a myth. My grandparents were born poor but worked hard all their lives in blue collar jobs and saved and invested their money wisely and by the time they died they were millionaires. It may not be sexy or what the young folk want to hear but it does work.

Though I will agree there is a certain amount of rigging to the system in the last couple of decades, no question. I'm a free market capitalist but crony capitalism that we see right now isn't really all that much better than disastrous ideas like socialism. Of course some changes and reform have to be implemented.

Let's assume that's true. Your grandparents, I'm guessing probably had more opportunities. Times have changed, and not for the better. But they also had their share of luck. I know people who work two jobs every day, and still can't pay for their basic necessities. Are they just not working hard enough?

And that's not even mentioning the insanity that is student loans.

I realize you're terrified of socialism, but for many, untempered capitalism is infinitely worse.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

You can always find some exception to the rule. None of this is 100% one way or the other. But the vast majority of people who made their fortunes(this obviously excludes people who just inherited it) had to work hard as well as be savvy and creative and also had to delay gratification so they could actually build something.

I don't believe the 3 percent who are multimillionaires worked harder and sacrificed more than the 97% who aren't millionaires.

Did some of them work harder and sacrifice more? Sure.

Most of them? No way.

Telling the vast majority that if they work hard they have a decent chance at becoming millionaires just isn't true. If that were the case, at least 40% of the population would rich.

There's just way more room near the bottom of the workforce than there is at the top. Instead of promising every hard worker a place at the top we should be improving the conditions for the majority who will never be rich.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

So it's ok for the poor to be overweight and unhealthy under UHC because rich people are greedy and they should pay for like, everything!?

You remember that part in Billy Madison when he rambles without answering the question?

You know what is more expensive than fat people's healthcare? Giving old people social security checks.

The annual healthcare cost are 200 billion for fat people and social security is 800 billion for old people.

AND keep in mind the obese die 15 years earlier than normal people. So maybe the social security savings outweigh the health cost.

 

[kedrell]

Let's assume that's true. Your grandparents, I'm guessing probably had more opportunities. Times have changed, and not for the better. But they also had their share of luck. I know people who work two jobs every day, and still can't pay for their basic necessities. Are they just not working hard enough?

Maybe they aren't working smart enough. And who the hell works 2 jobs and can't pay for their own shelter, food and such? There are minimum wage laws in this country and I've personally experienced that low wage several times in my life and I was always able to pay for a place to stay and food to eat for myself. It ain't that hard. Granted, I never made a stupid decision like having kids who would be a burden on me and the rest of society. If the people you're talking about did stupidly get knocked up or whatever and now they have a big problem on their hands...well that's kind of their own damned fault, isn't it? I have no sympathy for them. They made their bed and now they have to lay in it. But they don't want to pay for their own mistakes in judgement so they'll get marxist Bernie to rob from the rich and give them free-bees. It's enough to make me want to vomit. And currently I am without a job of virtually any money in my pocket so it's not like I'm some rich guy talking about an economic strata that I've never experienced.

And that's not even mentioning the insanity that is student loans.

I'm all in favor of reform of the higher education system and such. But then nobody's forcing these kids today to take these loans. If you can't pay back then don't take the loan in the first place. There are many other options that are more affordable like trade schools and such.

I realize you're terrified of socialism, but for many, untempered capitalism is infinitely worse.

Anybody with a brain is terrified of socialism and very ignorant of history. I agree that untempered capitalism has it's own ills as no system is perfect but even then they aren't even close.

 

[kedrell]

I don't believe the 3 percent who are multimillionaires worked harder and sacrificed more than the 97% who aren't millionaires.

Since when do you need to be a millionaire in order to be doing well? I wasn't just talking about millionaires.

Did some of them work harder and sacrifice more? Sure.

It ain't just working harder. Working smarter comes into play as well. Also just being patient like my grandparents and doing a lowly job for a long time until you save up enough for your retirement. But young people today don't want to hear that kind of stuff. They want instant gratification.

Most of them? No way.

If you take out those who inherited their wealth? Yes way.

Telling the vast majority that if they work hard they have a decent chance at becoming millionaires just isn't true. If that were the case, at least 40% of the population would rich.

Depends on how long you stick to it. My grandparents ran their businesses(an refrigerator repair shop and a hair salon) for 50-60 years before they retired rich. They had no employees. They were the only ones who worked there. It didn't happen overnight and they were die-hard capitalists who went through the Great Depression and that taught them to value money and the patience it takes to earn it. Neither ever went to college. They were self taught. And they never asked the government to reach it's hand into some rich guy's pocket to help them out as they would have considered that stealing, which they were against.

There's just way more room near the bottom of the workforce than there is at the top. Instead of promising every hard worker a place at the top we should be improving the conditions for the majority who will never be rich.

IMO the younger generation need to drop this instant gratification BS that they grew up believing. If you can cover yourself and save a little for retirement and invest safely and wisely then there's no reason your should be in dire straits economically unless some unusual calamity befell you. And there are charities to help people like that. I don't consider the government one of those charities.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Kedrell, I don't know what world you live in. It sounds nice there though. 80% of the country is in debt. 60% have no savings. Most Americans are a paycheck away from the street.

Minimum wage is an insane 7.25. You live on that when places only hire you part time. Even if you make above that, you probably have no health insurance. But there is the Republican health care option. Die quickly, or go the ER and rack up debt.

I realize you don't care about these people, but you have to be aware of the fact that most of America is struggling.

Also, if you are without a job, how exactly are you living?

But I digress, the rich need to pay their fair share. And quite frankly there are a lot of back payments due.

 

[kedrell]

I seriously question those 'statistics'.

I live on my savings. Dwindling as they are. But that's ok because I only have to support myself rather than adding a family onto my shoulders. That's called planning ahead and living within your means. I have a marketable skill that took zero college to acquire that supports me just fine when I am able to use it(& it'll take another 6 months till I can do that again).

And what is their fair share? How do you define it? Because they have the same rights under the law that you have. When the government targets one single group for persecution...well that ain't American. That's what you'd get in Cuba or China. And I don't think many Americans want to live in Cuba or China.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Since when do you need to be a millionaire in order to be doing well? I wasn't just talking about millionaires.



It ain't just working harder. Working smarter comes into play as well. Also just being patient like my grandparents and doing a lowly job for a long time until you save up enough for your retirement. But young people today don't want to hear that kind of stuff. They want instant gratification.



If you take out those who inherited their wealth? Yes way.



Depends on how long you stick to it. My grandparents ran their businesses(an refrigerator repair shop and a hair salon) for 50-60 years before they retired rich. They had no employees. They were the only ones who worked there. It didn't happen overnight and they were die-hard capitalists who went through the Great Depression and that taught them to value money and the patience it takes to earn it. Neither ever went to college. They were self taught. And they never asked the government to reach it's hand into some rich guy's pocket to help them out as they would have considered that stealing, which they were against.



IMO the younger generation need to drop this instant gratification BS that they grew up believing. If you can cover yourself and save a little for retirement and invest safely and wisely then there's no reason your should be in dire straits economically unless some unusual calamity befell you. And there are charities to help people like that. I don't consider the government one of those charities.

I'm not saying many rich people didn't work hard or sacrifice. I'm challenging the idea that the top 5 percent richest people worked harder and sacrificed more than most people.

Your grandparents had very few advantages but that does mean most rich people started from nothing and worked harder than most people..

The truth is even if everybody worked incredible hard, sacrificed everything and graduated college, the vast majority would still not be rich. It's economically impossible for most people to be rich.

So knowing this why are we telling all children if everyone worked hard and/or go to college they could become wealthy?

It's a lie. Most people, no matter how hard working or how educated will get left behind.

If everyone got a PhD there are still a limited number of PhD jobs. If everyone wanted to work 60 hours there are a limited amount of jobs and working hours available. If everyone hoarded their money it would wreck the economy. American businesses need people to spend, spend, spend.

We need to make life better for the middle class because that's as good as it can possibly get for most people.

 

[BatLobster]

Personally, I really don't think college should be free, and that's a pretty fundamental disagreement I have with Sanders that keeps me from really Feelin' the Bern. Should college should be a bit more affordable? Absolutely. There should be more scholarships and other incentives awarded to students who work hard and keep their grades up too.

But as many people who go away to college will tell you- unless you've gone to a school for a very specialized degree, you're really paying for the "college experience". And we all know what that is. It can be an amazing, wonderful experience that will give you great memories and friendships for the rest of your life- but I don't think it's something that the American taxpayers should have to pay for entirely.

My girlfiend is an Occupational Therapist, studied her @ss off in school, got her Masters and now she's up to her knees in debt. But she's smart, she knew what she wanted to do, worked hard for it, got licensed and now has a good job with great job security and benefits. She is up to her knees in debt, but she is able to pay it off...and if she stays at her job another 5 years, they'll pay the rest off for her.

My point is, not every college student is that focused. For every student like that, there are so many more who are "finding themselves". I just don't see why that's something our tax dollars should foot the bill for. Not when there are community colleges, online degrees and other alternatives to the traditional college experience...not to mention all the taxpayers out there who have jobs in the trades, or or other jobs that don't require a college degree.

I also think that we live in a world where there's more opportunity than ever to be a self-starter. I think college is actually LESS important than ever, unless you are going into law, education, any of the sciences, etc.

I know there are a lot of diehard Bernie supporters that would resent me saying this kind of stuff, but after a lot of tossing and turning about it, I just can't ignore that I feel this way about it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think Community College being free would be a worthy compromise. It gives everyone an opportunity to go to college, but at the same time weeds out the people who aren't serious without overburdening the tax system.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Personally, I really don't think college should be free, and that's a pretty fundamental disagreement I have with Sanders that keeps me from really Feelin' the Bern. Should college should be a bit more affordable? Absolutely. There should be more scholarships and other incentives awarded to students who work hard and keep their grades up too.

But as many people who go away to college will tell you- unless you've gone to a school for a very specialized degree, you're really paying for the "college experience". And we all know what that is. It can be an amazing, wonderful experience that will give you great memories and friendships for the rest of your life- but I don't think it's something that the American taxpayers should have to pay for entirely.

My girlfiend is an Occupational Therapist, studied her @ss off in school, got her Masters and now she's up to her knees in debt. But she's smart, she knew what she wanted to do, worked hard for it, got licensed and now has a good job with great job security and benefits. She is up to her knees in debt, but she is able to pay it off...and if she stays at her job another 5 years, they'll pay the rest off for her.

My point is, not every college student is that focused. For every student like that, there are so many more who are "finding themselves". I just don't see why that's something our tax dollars should foot the bill for. Not when there are community colleges, online degrees and other alternatives to the traditional college experience...not to mention all the taxpayers out there who have jobs in the trades, or or other jobs that don't require a college degree.

I also think that we live in a world where there's more opportunity than ever to be a self-starter. I think college is actually LESS important than ever, unless you are going into law, education, any of the sciences, etc.

I know there are a lot of diehard Bernie supporters that would resent me saying this kind of stuff, but after a lot of tossing and turning about it, I just can't ignore that I feel this way about it.

Yeah this baffles me. I mean, you can't honestly have that same opinion of community college.

Outside of the show on NBC, I have never heard epic stories of a single community college attendee doing anything other than trying to get an education.

 

[kedrell]

I think Community College being free would be a worthy compromise. It gives everyone an opportunity to go to college, but at the same time weeds out the people who aren't serious without overburdening the tax system.

That might be a proposal worth considering. But there'd have to be a big ole' cost analysis done to see if it actually would be worth it.

 

[BatLobster]

Community College being free is certainly a different discussion. But Bernie's position is to make all public colleges and universities tuition free.

Maybe I'm just cynical about our education system, but I just feel that- even if say, you made Community College free...you'd get more people through the door, sure, but currently the vast majority of CC students don't complete their degrees, and only 12% go on to complete their bachelor's. I really don't think making tuition free is going to dramatically improve that number, because there are so many other factors into why that is. Namely, a lot of CC students still have to work fulltime just to survive while they're in school and it means it takes them a long time to complete their degree. And I do think people in that position deserve a free education. I also agree with Bernie's plans to cut student loan interest rates, and stop the federal gov. from profiting off of student loans.

I just don't agree that all college should be free, that's all. Why should someone who decides to study to be an electrician have to pay for everyone else's college education when they have to pay their own way through a trade school? Especially considering how common it is for people to end up with jobs that have nothing to do with their field of study in college.

I think I'd be more for serious education reform and dramatically improving what we have, over simply making it free. Any by all means, make it cheaper too and offer more opportunities for scholarships for those deserving. That's my issue with Bernie, he just seems a bit too extreme even though I admire the heart behind his ideas. And I just feel like, if 8 years of Obama put us in a situation where someone like Trump could rise up and stand an actual chance of getting the nomination, I shudder to think what a Sanders presidency would stir up from within the right.

At this moment in time I just think we need someone a little more to the center that can get things done, than somebody who seems like a "real person" that we "like". And like it or not, that's Hillary. I don't need to be friends with my politicians. It's a dirty game, always has been. Bernie will not change that. It's admirable how much he has accomplished with no corporate money, and hopefully that alone is a positive gamechanger in campaigns moving forward. And heck, even if Hillary gets the nom Bernie may still very well end up on the ticket with her. But I honestly think she is the better fit for the job right now, and I say that as someone that has generally found her repulsive. Especially with the state of the world right now...I just have no clue what the hell Bernie's foreign policy even is.

 

[summerteeth]

I think Community College being free would be a worthy compromise. It gives everyone an opportunity to go to college, but at the same time weeds out the people who aren't serious without overburdening the tax system.

Except, nobody is going into massive student loan debt from attending community college. My tuition was like $500.00 a semester and I think it's $690.00 a semester now. There's already pell grants and state grants for those who can't afford college that would pay for tuition in community college for those who can't afford it. A Cal grant pays something like $6,000 a semester for students whose parents make below a certain income threshold. That's not a loan and none of that has to be repaid. Cal State Universities cost $4,500 a semester.

http://www.csac.ca.gov/facts/2016-17_income_and_asset_ceilings.pdf

 

[chaseter]

You know what is more expensive than fat people's healthcare? Giving old people social security checks.

The annual healthcare cost are 200 billion for fat people and social security is 800 billion for old people.

AND keep in mind the obese die 15 years earlier than normal people. So maybe the social security savings outweigh the health cost.

Social Security needs major reform or it won't be around in 20 years. No one is brave enough to do what is needed now just like no one would be brave enough to tell obese to exercise or die if we implemented UHC. Politicians wait until it's too late because it's political suicide.

 

[Fenrir]

Regardless of which candidate you support from either party, it still baffles me how so many of the most "astute political commentators" either in the mainstream news, on social media or even on this forum have such a poor understanding of the mechanics of the economy, particularly when it comes to issues such as financial regulation, healthcare and unemployment.

The fact that so many people are still drunk on Milton Friedman's outdated ideas of unrestricted free-market capitalism as a panacea only goes to show how effective the propaganda machine has been even in the face of overwhelming historical as well as empirical evidence.

You may not like all of Bernie Sanders' proposed policies but some of his core ideas such as a government-run universal healthcare system (with a private healthcare option), increased taxation on corporations/capital gains and breaking-up the banking oligopoly have a far more solid grounding in facts than what the American public is constantly led to believe. On the contrary, it is actually the chest-thumping self-proclaimed champions of laissez-faire capitalism who are the ideologues here.

 

[kedrell]

Social Security needs major reform or it won't be around in 20 years. No one is brave enough to do what is needed now just like no one would be brave enough to tell obese to exercise or die if we implemented UHC. Politicians wait until it's too late because it's political suicide.

Because saying that stuff would pretty much be inciting another civil war. We already hate each other's guts. That would be the spark that would lead to outright violent conflicts.

 

[TheCommissioner]

Because saying that stuff would pretty much be inciting another civil war. We already hate each other's guts. That would be the spark that would lead to outright violent conflicts.

agree completely

 

[chaseter]

Increasing taxes on corporations will cause them to go overseas (which they've done in droves). It's far more complicated than just taxing corporations more to pay for social programs. That is pandering to get votes and the unintelligent eat it up. We've lost so many jobs and decreased gdp because of higher taxes. If it cost you $5 to make something in China, why would you make it here for $10? Americans feed into that by shopping at Walmart. If you increase taxes, guess who they pass the increased cost on to? Guess who it hurts the most? If you want to bring jobs back here, you lower taxes on US businesses and you punish businesses that outsource. Hipsters love Apple and yet they pay workers in China the price of a literal apple you buy at Whole Foods. Apple left because of cost. Apple workers in China live in pretty much indentured servitude.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Increasing taxes on corporations will cause them to go overseas (which they've done in droves). It's far more complicated than just taxing corporations more to pay for social programs. That is pandering to get votes and the unintelligent eat it up. We've lost so many jobs and decreased gdp because of higher taxes. If it cost you $5 to make something in China, why would you make it here for $10? Americans feed into that by shopping at Walmart. If you increase taxes, guess who they pass the increased cost on to? Guess who it hurts the most? If you want to bring jobs back here, you lower taxes on US businesses and you punish businesses that outsource. Hipsters love Apple and yet they pay workers in China the price of a literal apple you buy at Whole Foods. Apple left because of cost. Apple workers in China live in pretty much indentured servitude.

Um, it doesn't matter the tax breaks if corporations can pay workers 1 dollar a day and have little regulation in poorer countries.

 

[Fenrir]

Increasing taxes on corporations will cause them to go overseas (which they've done in droves). It's far more complicated than just taxing corporations more to pay for social programs. That is pandering to get votes and the unintelligent eat it up. We've lost so many jobs and decreased gdp because of higher taxes. If it cost you $5 to make something in China, why would you make it here for $10? Americans feed into that by shopping at Walmart. If you increase taxes, guess who they pass the increased cost on to? Guess who it hurts the most? If you want to bring jobs back here, you lower taxes on US businesses and you punish businesses that outsource. Hipsters love Apple and yet they pay workers in China the price of a literal apple you buy at Whole Foods. Apple left because of cost. Apple workers in China live in pretty much indentured servitude.

This is such a dumb argument. Regardless of how much you lower the taxes, there will always be one tax haven or another which will charge next to nothing on corporate profits. Does that mean you start giving corporations a free pass by acting like the lowest bidder? Or are you so desperate for jobs that you are willing to risk American workers to the same kind of "indentured servitude" as their counterparts in China? Do you what that sounds like? It sounds like it is the corporations here that are dictating the terms, not you and when they have imposed upon you the fact that they have the bargaining power in this negotiation, then you've already lost.

What is mind-boggling to me is that these words are being said by citizens of the largest and most influential economy in the world. Other countries offer tax benefits and other financial perks because they need the transfer of wealth and technology you get from FDIs to become prosperous economies. If you knew how corporations actually think, they would pay for the privilege to do business in the U.S if the American government starts taxing corporate domestic earnings being remitted abroad as it ideally should. Make the remittance tax high enough that there is as little incentive as possible to send money to foreign tax havens.

And this is just one solution off the top of my head. With more data, one can easily come up with many effective and sophisticated proposals to keep these multinational corporations on the leash. Yes, it would be inexplicably hypocritical of the U.S to implement such forms of taxation and capital controls after imposing The Washington Consensus on so many countries (and bringing them to the point of complete economic ruin) and then turn around to contradict their own principles now that it has started to adversely affect them as it did others but it is time the U.S stop suffering from its own broken remedies if it wants to get its affairs in order. Heck, even the IMF, after decades of squeezing and choking other nations during their most dire times of need by forcing them to liberalize and privatize (and eventually destabilize) their economies in exchange for financial assistance, is now eating humble pie tacitly acknowledging capital controls (when properly implemented) as a viable tool for averting financial and economic crises after witnessing the success of such policies in Chile, Malaysia, Spain and Iceland, among many others.

The average voter might not know this, but some of the most deeply-held beliefs and assumptions of classical Western laissez-faire capitalism about how economies work and interact with each other have either been successfully challenged or in some cases, outright debunked altogether. And this is starting to reflect in graduate-level study of economics, finance and business around the world. It is the outdated understanding of the old guard and the general population about the subject that is acting as inertia to a paradigm shift here.