Feeling the Bern.......

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (93 posts)

85
gmwilliamsposted 7 years ago

To progressives & liberals, what are the ways that you all believe that Bernie Sanders will improve the United States? Do you believe that Mr. Sanders have the political experience to improve employment & the status of the middle class? In essence, what are the ways that Bernie Sanders will make America a more viable nation?
reply report
1. 0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Sanders wants socialism. Like what the Greeks have. And everyone who lived in poverty and misery in the Eastern European blocks had.
  Because he doesn't understand economics, or the historical catastrophic failures that socialism and communism have caused the world over.
  reply report
  85
  gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 !
  reply report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  CONservative Republicans are interested in Ratifying a Failed System of Capitalism here in America which creates a population of SLAVEs while CONCENTRATING almost ALL of our Wealth into the Greedy Hands of a SELECT Few ~
  
  The United States is NOT a Democracy for this very REASON ~
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Like the Greeks. You mean the country where it is a national past time to cheat and avoid paying any taxes? Check out the fuzzy math in their reporting taxable income.
  
  http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is- … lem-2015-2
  
  I guess this is all attributable to socialism as compared to our illustrious of late capitalistic democracy. All the corporations are sticking it to this "democracy" of sorts through their paid for life candidates serving them. We are doomed just as Rome was with the overtaking of our system and replacing it with THEIR better system. GEESH!
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah never mind the fact that the Greek government is taxing the average citizen a 46% income rate. Because taking half of their money away is what really helps an economy grow.
  
  Economics for dummies- Socialism doesn't work.
  And it is what's destroying the American economy as well. As the number of wealth producers decreases, and the number of benefit receivers increases, the economy collapses. We can always print more money to delay the inevitable a little further.
  reply report
  78
  colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  The Ponzi (Ponzi Planet) scheme is to re-inflate the world's economy by money printing. You can't pay your way out of debt with borrowed money or money printing. We've got lunatics running the asylum and the policies they have implemented have not worked.
  
  I mean, Obama came out with the employment figures about a week ago and said how well the economy was in the USA.
  
  Now if the economy is a good as Obama says ... what we have right now....is student loans are at a record high.
  Student Loans .3 trillion,
  food stamp recipients are at a record high
  the federal debt at all time record highs
  money printing is at a all time record high
  tuition costs have sky-rocketed 1300% since 1981
  health care costs have gone up massively
  labor participation has collapsed
  incomes have collapsed
  home ownership has collapsed
  
  So we do have inflation!
  
  Wealth and equality though is at a record rate? ...er...So that is what the Central Banks have created, ...its called "hope and hype".
  
  We've got peek debt, and have gone full Banana Republic, which leads to a currency war.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  40% is the average tax rate in Greece but I guess not paying it is the option rather than voting on it and just not paying at all.
  
  Our choices are how much you own of the government where you don't pay anything. The oligarchal running of this country is better whereby the ones who can most afford it pay little or nothing at all? Get real man we already are socialism in denial.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  We're not quite socialist yet, It gets much worse. Interesting that some people seem incapable of making the connection with the growing amount of social programs, overreaching government regulations, and record breaking debt, as it correlates to our economic downfall.
  Liberal solution- More government.
  
  You should read less Karl Marx and more Adam Smith. One of these views created the worlds largest middle classes, and the other was a complete economic catastrophe.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I only use Marx as an example of what unfettered capitalism creates in a country such as ours. I am not a follower of his but am struck by his predictions of its resolve. You rail against more government but as we have seen the GOP creates such huge deficits and spending increases it is hard to notice the difference between the two parties.[1] The difference is only between the special interests that get a piece of that pie.
  
  [1] http://www.cato.org/publications/commen … government
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I never said anything about the GOP, in fact I agree with you. They are pretty much the same party. A Hegelian dialect so to speak.
  
  If you don't like capitalism because of the cronyism it creates then you should really hate Socialism, because there is no faster way to create a gigantic two class system of haves and have not's than implementing socialism and communism as your nation's economic platform. The evidence is right in front of you, just crack open a history book.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  All forms of government have cronyism in them as it is an inherent side effect of politics. It is that in our form of money is speech, it prospers exponentially because of the two sided threat that by regulating it would be socialism in many peoples eyes.
  
  Your aforementioned Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations offered that wealth lay not in gold but in the productive capacity of all people with each seeking to benefit from his or her own labors.His idea that the economy is based on the production of individuals to produce and reproduce income was at the heart of true wealth which would be free for all to pursue. With that in mind It has now become known as the "Virtuous Cycle". A cycle based on trading money for services in a free economy that grows from it's process. Capitalism mixed with a democratic republic has brought us to the brink of ruin because of the greed capitalists have by looking to other regimes for their greed to be rewarded. Capitalism now works because the work is predominantly coming from other countries who do not practice capitalism with our form of government and penalizes the American worker for it. A duplicitous slap in the face if you will. Using another countries form of government and oppression to zero out the rewards of our countries system. In that case capitalism works for those who play the two systems against each other.
  
  The pathetic truth is that we bolster our wealth based on a valueless piece of paper we call dollars that are based on a resource in the ground.
  
  Maybe if you could extrapolate from your learning what is really going on and not deduce what we have is a working system that rewards all for their work you might make some sense of it all.
  
  I will await your next point masquerading as an insult.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Character assassination is the final virtue of a loosing argument. Tsk, tsk..
  
  You said it yourself, that all governments have cronyism. And the more power you bestow to those governments, the more you form a coalition between the government and the industry against the ordinary worker.
  
  In only one instance does the average citizen have power over the industry, and that is in capitalism. In that scenario the industry is forced to make an affordable, quality product, which the consumer decides whether or not they wish to make the purchase.
  
  In every instance where America has gone socialist we are forced to buy a product regardless of it's value. The quality of healthcare goes down, social security makes an average -22% return to those who are forced to invest in it, People become dependent on a welfare system that causes them to remain in poverty and destroys neighborhoods and families.
  
  If these facts have hurt your feelings, a warm blanket and pillow will be provided to you by the government. The blanket is riddled with smallpox.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  "In every instance where America has gone socialist we are forced to buy a product regardless of it's value. The quality of healthcare goes down, social security makes an average -22% return to those who are forced to invest in it, People become dependent on a welfare system that causes them to remain in poverty and destroys neighborhoods and families"
  
  I love "every" answers as it is a hopeless position to defend. It provokes an absolute condition to an opinion and tries to dissuade any dissent by doing so. It just provides me with an out to a bias and ridiculous opinion based on conjecture and propaganda. The programs you offer as evidence of decay due to socialism are also the ones that are offered up by the opposing opinions of success. Welfare is a state of mind but so is greed. We only accept greed as the least offensive because we feel it does not affect us. Greed is doing more to kill this country than welfare possibly could and you offer conjecture.
  
  While you want me to lie down on a small pox infected pillow i would offer that you wake up from your delusional dreamland. If you want to trade barbs why waste time with your subjective argument?
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Well I think that a smallpox infested blanket is fitting to the conversation as it was the US government who infamously spread the disease to the native Americans.
  
  You have no argument to show welfare as a success? I would say that the success in welfare should be measured by the amount of people who get off of it. Yet the opposite must be true since more and more people are swayed to get on it, and stay on it throughout their lifetimes.
  
  And you are wrong about greed. We accept greed because our economy is based on it, and as a byproduct it creates the most individual freedom. The free market is simply the recognition that people are best off when they are allowed to pursue their own self interests.
  
  "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages" -Smith
  
  I'm going to get a burger. Should I go to McDonalds, Burger King, In-N-Out, Hardees, Whataburger? Maybe a sandwich would be a healthier option.
  
  One thing is for sure. The taxpayer funded Michelle Obama school lunch is not on my list, yet I pay for it whether I want it or not.
  
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  What you cite as failures is the result of capitalism run amok due to the pressures to relieve the 1% it serves from the tax burden. Sure there are faults such as the Indians but that was the result of government run by bad actors. You need only look to modern day Flint to see where the welfare of the people is overlooked for greed. Mixing the accountability with the failure of a few to berate the many is self serving in your argument.
  
  We did not have such problems before capitalism took control of the elections. The fifties is a prime example of capitalism and democracy working. Back then the tax rate was in the 90% range. What changed? The greedy influences of the 1%ers buying a favorable outlook for themselves and be damned the country and all of the middle class.
  
  Reagan came along and sold us out to the military industrial complex rewarding all his donors with fat military contracts and raising the taxes on the loser and middle class. His myth of trickle down worked only for the top as they defunded many programs and sent the savngs back up the pike.
  
  You have the Gordon Gekko disease where unbridled greed allows the cream to rise to the top. But in its wake you leave millions in your dust. So in other words capitalism is all about the individual and to hell with the rest of the country? That is what has taken place and you rail on the poor who cannot get enough work to fend for themselves. Greed may be good for your friends but the rest of the country is feeling its' horrendous affect even with the limited under funded socialist programs we do have.
  report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I have never berated people on welfare, rather I feel that they have been duped into believing that their lives are better as nonproductive slaves to a system which deeply erodes their livelihood, and only benefits the political class who "advocates" for them.
  
  Also the 90% tax rate in the 1950's narrative is a farce; http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241 … 1554982808
  
  Now you say that the greed of capitalism leaves millions of people in the dust, yet you ignore the fact that the poor in this country are better off than any other country in the world.
  They have refrigerators, cars, television, computers (or at least easy access to computers), and food in abundance.
  From a basic economic standpoint it is the concern of the industry in order to be the most successful, to invent a useful product which can be mass produced at a cost low enough that it reaches the maximum audience. Such was the case with John D Rockefeller and the invention of kerosene. He created Jobs, fueled the entire nation, mass produced an alternative to wood and coal burning to heat homes, and he gave half of his money to charity.
  No successful invention for the betterment of mankind has ever been predicated by a government edict, because the government can not predict the wants and needs of hundreds of millions of people.
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  A link that doesn't require a paid subscription to read would be a little more useful.
  report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't have to pay anything to look at it, but here you go.
  "Democratic Party leaders, President Obama in particular, are forever telling the country that wealthy Americans are taxed at too low a rate and pay too little in taxes. The need to correct this seeming injustice is framed not simply in terms of fairness. Higher tax rates on the wealthy, we're told, would help balance the budget, allow for more "investment" in America's future and foster better economic growth for all. In support of this claim, like-minded liberal pundits point out that in the 1950s, when America's economic might was at its zenith, the rich faced tax rates as high as 91%.
  True enough, the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today's top rate of 35%—but the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then.
  
  In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.
  
  So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.
  
  In 1958, an 81% marginal tax rate applied to incomes above $140,000, and the 91% rate kicked in at $400,000 for couples. These figures are in unadjusted 1958 dollars and correspond today to nominal income levels that are about eight times higher. That year, according to Internal Revenue Service records, about 10,000 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had income that was taxed at 81% or higher. The number is an estimate and is inexact because the IRS tables list the number of tax filers by income ranges, not precisely by the number who paid at the 81% rate.
  
  In 1958, approximately two million filers (4.4% of all taxpayers) earned the $12,000 or more for married couples needed to face marginal rates as high as 30%. These Americans paid about 35% of all income taxes. And now? In 2010, 3.9 million taxpayers (2.75% of all taxpayers) were subjected to rates that were 33% or higher. These Americans—many of whom would hardly call themselves wealthy—reported an adjusted gross income of $209,000 or higher, and they paid 49.7% of all income taxes.
  
  In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically—to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s.
  
  The changes came about not so much by movements in rates but by the addition of tax credits for the poor and the elimination of exemptions for the wealthy. In 1958, even the lowest-tier filers, which included everyone making up to $5,000 annually, were subjected to an effective 20% rate. Today, almost half of all tax filers have no income-tax liability whatsoever, and many "taxpayers" actually get a net refund from the government. Those nostalgic for 1950s-era "tax fairness" should bear this in mind.
  
  The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthy—including doctors, lawyers, business owners and executives—were versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure.
  
  For instance, a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership. Huge numbers of professionals signed up for all kinds of money-losing schemes. Today, a corresponding doctor earning $500,000 can deduct a maximum of $3,000 from his taxable income, no matter how large the loss.
  
  Those 1950s gambits lowered tax liabilities but dissuaded individuals from engaging in the more beneficial activities of increasing their incomes and expanding their businesses. As a result, they were a net drag on the economy. When Ronald Reagan finally lowered rates in the 1980s, he did so in exchange for scrapping uneconomical deductions. When business owners stopped trying to figure out how to lose money, the economy boomed.
  
  It's hard to determine how much otherwise taxable income disappeared through tax shelters in the 1950s. As a result, direct comparisons between the 1950s and now are difficult. However, it is worth noting that from 1958 to 2010, the taxes paid by the top 3% of earners, as a percentage of total personal income (which can't be reduced by shelters), increased to 3.96% from 2.72%, while the percentage paid by the bottom two-thirds of filers fell to 0.51% in 2010 from 2.7%. This starker division of relative tax burdens can be explained by the inability of upper-income groups to shelter income.
  
  It is a testament to the shallow nature of the national economic conversation that higher tax rates can be justified by reference to a fantasy—a 91% marginal rate that hardly any top earners paid.
  
  In reality, tax policies that diminish the incentives and capacities of innovators, business owners and investors will not spur economic improvement. Such policies will, however, satisfy the instincts of those who want to "stick it to the rich." Never mind that the rich have already been stuck fairly well.
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you - they wanted me to sign up to buy access and I refuse to that at even $1 a week.
  
  Most interesting, and reinforces what I've said for a long time - that no one was ever actually ipaying that giant tax rate. And that the tax burden is actually shifting from the middle class to the rich, and has been for some time.
  report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure why they wanted to charge you. I saw it for free and wasn't asked to sign up for anything. How very random.
  
  You are correct, greed always seems so much more benevolent when the money is usurped in the name of charity regardless of the program's effectiveness.
  
  And when the social program doesn't work, that just means we didn't spend enough money on it. You will never hear a politician say the program was a success, lets zero out the funds and move on to the next thing.
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  No, you haven't ever seen a politician declare a welfare program a success so close out the books and shut the doors.
  
  Instead you see "success" being promoted as finding new people that are supporting themselves but can still be added to the welfare roles. My state touted that a few months ago; how many thousands they'd added to the food stamp program. A huge success to increase charity levels (particularly as much of it comes from federal money, not their own tax receipts).
  report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  The subscription demand might be related to the frequency the site is visited. Many sites now give to limited number of reads, (30?), or a limited time from first visit, (30 days??), before restricting access and asking for money.
  
  Might be the case here, Wilderness might be a frequent WSJ reader. Or not.
  
  Just a thought from my previous experiences...
  
  GA
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  LOL I go there from these forums a bit, but that's all. They just don't like me.
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  "Back then the tax rate was in the 90% range. What changed? The greedy influences of the 1%ers buying a favorable outlook for themselves and be damned the country and all of the middle class. "
  
  The mindset inherent in this statement is always interesting - we consider it "greed" when someone wants to keep more than 1/10 of their earnings for their own purposes, but when we want what they've earned for [i]our[i] purposes it is no longer called greed. We've decided that we have a god-given right to what others have, and the hypocrisy of forcing legal outlooks favorable for ourselves in order to keep what we have at the expense of others, while labeling it "greed" only when they do the same thing, is astounding.
  
  It's a part of the human psyche I guess - the willingness and ability to spin a topic just so, to use just the right loaded words, to rationalize that whatever we want is ours for the taking even if it belongs to others. We can convince ourselves of just about anything if we use the right spin. Not a very pretty part though.
  report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  What is even more amusing is that some people think they live in a vacuum. Their actions or reactions should have nothing to do with interrupting their own lives. The " I only want your money for selling you something" or "My income has nothing to do with supporting this country" train of thought is equally amusing. Let the common folk pay for the upkeep of the nation and the defense of it. "It should not take a lion share of my income to push the countries will into other economies and holdings despite my not paying the taxes necessary". It really is quite amusing I must say. The other train of thought is the lack of foresight to see that robbing the country of it's jobs and then shipping the raw materials overseas for manufacture claiming it an export only then bringing it back cleansed of the domestic labor charge and claiming it as an import is a dead end, as the labor you have eliminated can not buy the cheap crap you imported. Ignoring the virtuous cycle and greedily pocketing the proceeds is very, very amusing don't you think. A race to the bottom we are now enjoying because of it. Rail on the social programs while leaving the people no other recourse. Quite amusing indeed.
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  You got it.
  
  "Let the rich folk pay for the upkeep of the nation and the defense of it." (wish the formatting had a strikeout format!)
  "It should not take a lion share of my income to push the countries will into other economies"...but it's OK if it takes the lions share of yours.
  "The other train of thought is the lack of foresight to see that robbing the country of it's jobs..." - that it is necessary to assuage my greed for the lowest price is not to be discussed.
  "My income has nothing to do with supporting this country" - only yours does.
  
  Don't know that it's amusing, but it is certainly evident in our greed for what we cannot afford, in our ever present desire for what belongs to someone else and the rationalizations we invent to make it "right" that we take it from them. By force if necessary.
  report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  For some odd reason you still work in this vacuum of an all or nothing scenario. Let the rich pay what worked in the past. In 1980 it went south in a hurry when Ronnie thought he would take the money from the middle and lower class and reward his rich buddies for their support. Things worked before then as we built the biggest middle class in the history of the world. The rich made out like bandits too as the consumer accelerated their earnings way beyond what was necessary for them to ever have to worry. What you fail to accept is that we cannot support what we do and by cutting it to the bone will implode the economy as we cut government and spending with a still growing population and ever burgeoning surplus of retirees. The greed is what you hold out for? The greed that stores their money overseas and the greed that robs us of jobs that we can sustain a suitable standard of living?If we don't move forward like providing opportunities for all of the people we will decline. What you defend is killing the country.
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Me that's all or nothing? From the man wanting 9/10ths of income?
  
  "Let the rich pay what worked in the past."
  
  Did you read onus's post? Are you advocating to go back to a much smaller percentage tax base for the rich, like we had in the 50's? You're advocating a return to the rates, but not the huge tax shelters, and that's hardly paying what worked in the past. What worked was a smaller tax being paid (by the rich) than is being done now!
  
  "The greed that stores their money overseas and the greed that robs us of jobs that we can sustain a suitable standard of living?"
  
  Until such time as you understand that it is consumer greed kicking jobs out of the country, not enormous profit margins, I have to think that it is you supporting greed. Profit margins are only very slightly above their historical average (to be expected in a rapidly improving economy), so they aren't the drive behind shipping jobs overseas: consumer greed for cheaper products is. It is the consumer refusing to pay a living wage to their neighbor (by buying the product they produce) that's causing jobs to leave, not some fantasy 50% profit margin that people seem to think is being earned.
  report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Yes the higher taxes for the rich helped to create the largest middle class in the history of the world in the 50's and early 60's.
  
  "Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed."[1]
  
  [2]
  
  For some odd reason you cannot equate that the consumer in this economy is a slave to the cost of the pricing and availability of the goods offered for sale that are made in China, Viet Nam, India....etc. Your remedy also relies on the consumer uniting in a boycott of these items which will never happen. The American companies have either been run out of business by the trade agreements effects or have become cottage high end companies selling quality over quantity. The trade agreements have also effectively kept the amount of income Americans make so low or non existent in some cases so that they could not possibly make more expensive purchases of American made products as a movement. The consumer is the driver of this economy and by eliminating their jobs has effectively made this a race to the bottom. All this for giving tax breaks to the rich and creating jobs.
  
  [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates
  [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/2 … 24430.html
  report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Of course you are going to have a drop in job rates when you begin to demand for $15.00 an hour for flipping burgers. Every job has to offer a "living wage" or else it degrades the people who perform it. Never mind the fact that it was invented as an after school income for teenagers who want to take their girl friends to the movies.
  Nope, now it's a career. Not a pathway to a career, not a way of getting early entry level experience for those who wish to enter the workforce, not a stepping stone, it's a career.
  
  One thing that socialists never seem to understand is that it is the low paying entry level jobs that lift poor young people out of poverty, and puts them on a pathway to developing a stronger work ethic that employers are seeking. Naturally Bernie would never understand this concept because like Karl Marx he never had a real job that made a real contribution to society.
  
  Tell me Rhamson, what's your favorite burger joint?
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I would add that it is not only viewed as a career, it is viewed as a career for a single earner family of 4. Or 6 or 8; whatever that family size is. It's no longer for the teen living at home or the college student wishing to cut their loans to something reasonable. It's supposed to feed a large family now.
  report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Well that is where welfare comes in. So instead of advancing in their careers they are given this oppressive alternative which ensures that they never move up or out. They'll give you free money, but only if you keep your income just low enough to meet some arbitrary standard.
  
  What did socialists use before they had candles? Electricity.
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  And if you try to dig your way out of the welfare hole, it is taken away faster than your income goes up (watched it happen!). But Noooo! It's not a cage for the poor! We WANT them out!
  
  Right. And I've got this really nice bridge for sale...
  report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I know a gal who was on welfare while working and they told her that because she made $50.00 too much they had to cut her off. Right before Christmas. Sorry kids, no Santa this year.
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  My son's wife, before marriage, was trying to support two kids while going to college and working part time. She asked for help with the electric bill, but was told she made too much. But if she would quit her job, she could get her rent, utilities, food, college tuition and spending money to boot. Makes great sense...if the goal is to lock the poor into charity for life.
  report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  What is funny is that somehow these jobs are looked at as a part time or throw away job and that they are developed for kids. These are the only jobs that are available for many in the cities. Once again the vacuum you live in does not recognize the jobs that are being created and that many are only qualified to do. There are more and more older workers who were marginalized out of their jobs and have no other choice due to their unwanted age and health problems. College is turning out more and more unemployable graduates because the jobs just are not there.
  
  Raising the minimum wage has mythical ramifications of doom and gloom perpetrated by those who's greed can't bear the thought of paying more than they are to keep their profits increasing. The truth is that by increasing the minimum wage it will increase new jobs and increase the economy. [1]
  
  I love the way those who don't understand the argument result to labels. If you want to call me a socialist then you must also refer to yourself as you live under the same laws and benefits that this country affords you. So all I can say is welcome comrade.
  
  [1] http://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster
  report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Right, because here in socialist America you are forbidden to pick up your stuff and move to another area. And yes, as it turns out a degree in gender studies, liberal arts, or whatever stupid useless pursuit I just wasted tens of thousands of mom and dad's money on does not produce any marketable skills. What a shocker...
  
  In the early days of America when they said you are free to create your own destiny, it didn't mean that you are guaranteed to become wealthy when choosing to become an interpretive dance artist. It meant that people could pull themselves up out of the pre-chosen cast they were born into in the old world, and work their way up to the life that they pursue. They even came up with a nifty title for it; "The pursuit of happiness"
  
  Now this is going to be a hard concept for you to understand but try to keep up. You get to pursue happiness. That does not mean that the government was ever obligated to support you until you feel comfortable enough. But that's what it's been turned into by liberals, socialists, Democrats, whatever, same thing. To make them feel comfortable enough in poverty that they never want to leave, that's what you are advocating for.
  
  If you had an understanding of basic economics you would see that the do gooders always have the best of intentions at heart but the plans by government to assist the poor are never effective, and in fact instead of creating a desire to become productive, it creates a sense of entitlement. Consequently it destroys true precepts of charity. And the more human institutions which have traditionally and much more successfully dealt with the poor, (such as churches and charities) are now forced to compete against a faceless bureaucratic government agency which has no intention of lifting a single person out of poverty nor is it ever designed to do such.
  
  A government social worker for example, is disposed to seek out more people to add to their system in order to justify that social worker's and his or her organization's existence. They then use the number of people they have on their system in order to project the amount of funding they will need for the next year. If their numbers go down, well then they are out of a job. And that's not good for them.
  
  So let that settle in for a minute, and you can get back to me on what your favorite burger joint is. There are so many it's hard to choose from. I myself am torn between A&W and Noah's Ark. Love them Ark Burgers! (It's a local place)
  report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  If you had a basic understanding of the change that has taken place in the economy due to the huge tax breaks and incentives resulting in only driving the money to the top 1% you would stop your senseless nitpicking around the truth. 400 individuals possess as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the population combined in total. What about that don't you understand has wrecked the economy. Those top 400 can never spend as much as the other 50% of the population to keep the economy running. They have harvested the money and while it would be very magnanimous for them to spend it all trying to make up for the difference it would not work anyway. Money in the hands of the consumer is the greatest engine the economy could get. What you also fail to understand is that the consumer IS the job creator through demand. Demand drives industry. demand drives expansion, demand increases production. Without a job or a job with a decent wage it all stagnates as we have now. Ask anybody what they did when they got their stimulus refund from the government under "W" and they will tell you they either paid some bills or saved it. That won't make any difference at all.
  
  Go ahead and run all the tired and played out rhetoric the Reaganites have been handing us for years and you still have a wrecked economy with crushing debt and little little change.
  report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Had a nice juicy burger at the A&W today. Man it was good! The brilliance of capitalism is that the business owners want to make everything cheap enough that everyone can afford to buy it. Everyone wins. What you want is Obama burgers for everyone. Eat it and live with it. Don't like the way it tastes? Too bad.
  You know there is someone who want's to spread the wealth around as much as Bernie and Barry...
  Kim Jong Un. You would love his country. They're real Eco friendly too. They've got the tiniest carbon footprint.
  Hey you know who could most effectively spend that money the top 400 guys in America have? The guys who have it now. They created the wealth, they built the businesses, they took huge risks, they emerged to the top, not by accident, not like Obama the post turtle.
  
  Now spare me the tired income disparity argument, because in essence what you are saying is that you would rather see the poor remain poorer than see the rich be richer.
  
  report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  What is funny is your typical misguided reaction away from the point. You connect nothing and peruse the incendiary rhetoric that has no proof. Thank you for your amusing shenanigans.
  report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  The point is, the liberal left has waged a war on money, and the middle class. You tout the fantasy of a socialist eutopia while remaining safely ensconced behind the walls of academia, purchased by the people who brought you the industries which you constantly demand more money from.
  It takes a conservative to build businesses and make huge sacrifices to ensure that those businesses survive or at least break even. Then once they have become established and a prophet has been made, perhaps considering expansion to create more jobs for other people, Liberalism arrives to demand it's cut. Just like a mafia protection policy with nothing to offer.
  In short conservatism does not compete against liberalism, it sustains it. Without conservatism there is no liberalism. Want proof? You need to look no further than Chicago and Detroit.
  
  report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I love the way you mix the lies the political parties sell us with some semblance of order toward their particular platform. My point is that it does not matter what ilk you come from everybody on both sides is bought and paid for by the oligarchy that pays each side equally. They don't care who wins as long as they have the fix on who is more popular. Socialism is already here and thriving no matter what you think and it is the governments way of keeping us sleeping, placated and somewhat happy. Trump and Sanders has upset that apple cart and the GOP is trying to eliminate Trump without losing the party in the process. You can throw ideologies at it and it will still turn out the same way. Hillary is waiting for her crown while the GOP implodes on itself.
  
  The destruction of the middle class came when the oligarchy fed us a bunch of union crashing crap and taxation relief so they could bring us back to where their methods never worked. Reagan fed us a line we were deceived into believing worked. It just brought about a crushing blow of debt with military spending leading the way. Taxes were raised on the lower and middle class to make up some of the losses and he called it a success. We just hate it when we are told we have to pay our bills and point the fickled finger at everything else. Time is running out and the bill is coming due.
  report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  "Socialism is already here and thriving no matter what you think and it is the governments way of keeping us sleeping, placated and somewhat happy."
  
  I'll address this. Yes we have an enormous amount of socialism far beyond what John Maynard Keynes ever intended. And it is directly responsible for the crushing deficit that America now faces. The people have recently discovered that they can vote money for themselves under the guise that it would soak the rich, however it is the middle class that suffers the most because they tend not to have the resources to find loopholes that would alleviate that tax burden. Therein lies your socialist motivated trickle down of debt.
  
  You are not going to affect the ultra rich, and if you bleed them out of all their money, if you take away every dime from every fortune 500 company, sports team, Liberal Hollywood star, and every household that makes over $400,000 a year you might be able to pay off the deficit for a single year. But then what? That's all the money, the economy goes away.
  Don't believe me? Do the math.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
  
  PS Reagan tore down the Iron curtain. It was worth every dime.
  report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Taxing the those who have gamed the system is no different than taxing those you claim are taking from the system. The only difference is that one has used our freedom to buy a politician while the other has used what the politician cannot take away.
  
  "PS Reagan tore down the Iron curtain. It was worth every dime."
  
  Tell that to your children who cannot afford to buy a house or support themselves while they pay for your debt.
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  How about a flat tax? Give everyone a deduction big enough for a reasonable life style (to be defined); say maybe $30,000 for a single person and $60,000 for a couple (that two people wish to live together, sharing legal benefits and liabilities of that, isn't a reason to charge them more than anyone else). Add another deduction for anyone being supported by that wage; say maybe $10,000 per dependent.
  
  And take 10% of whatever is left. Or 20% or 30% - whatever the country needs. And if that won't support the demands of government, perhaps a tiered system like we have, but certainly nothing over 50% level. If we demand more than that of anyone there's something wrong, something that will destroy motivation to earn and eventually the economy.
  
  It isn't "fair" - some pay more than others, and for no more reason than they have more - but it's a lot better than grabbing 9/10ths of someones earnings!
  report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  And giving even MORE or OUR Wealth to CEO's, Corporations, & Wall Street in the form of MASSIVE Tax Cuts like all CONservatives are PAID to do is the ANSWER? ~
  
  Our economy under a Democratic Administration is STRONG & Vibrant and that's a Un-Deniable FACT of Life ~ It's ALWAYs better under the Democratic Umbrella ~ Of Course it could always be improved upon but the Planned Republican SCAM to give more of our money to the GREEDY Billionaires is just INSANE and everyone knows it ~
  
  Right now, we are forced to listen to a CON-Man named Trump who is BASHING China while he PROFITS from COMMUNISM and that's a FACT ~ He has ZERO Intentions of Bringing back jobs to America for this very reason, moreover, he wouldn't have a clue how to do it even if he was sincere ~ ~ Go check out his Buddy Carl Icahn who is driving his OWN Company into "JUNK Status" ~ This is TRUMP's Main Trade NEGOTIATOR believe it or NOT
  
  Wake Up and Open your EYES to the Corporate Control of AMERICA ~ Believe me, it doesn't get much WORSE than a society like ours which is based on the so called "Free Market Capitalism" CON-Job ~
  reply report
  57
  Rodeonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  You seem to have some excellent grip on the world of world politics. Do you write for newspapers sometimes? Really impressive if you do.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  To say that giving tax brakes to corporations is taking money away from other people shows that you have fundamental misunderstanding of how economics works. Here's a clue, when you say "OUR wealth" what you really mean is "THEIR wealth". You didn't earn it, and taking money from people by force is called stealing.
  
  Taxing a corporation takes money away from the people who created that wealth in the first place and gives it to people who did not. Plus you get to waste a substantial amount of that money on a corrupt government bureaucracy to administer it.
  
  And you want to give these seedy government bureaucrats more money? By your plan the people will create an all powerful oligarchy faster than any corporate cronyism ever could.
  reply report
2. 78
  colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  When Bernie Sanders announced he was running for president the World Socialist Website published articles on Bernie's track record saying that it "marks a new stage in one of the longest-running political frauds in American history."
  
  Senator Bernie has been very conservative at times. Aw well, here is the link. "His “independence” is as much of a sham as his “socialism.”"
  
  Bernie Sanders to seek Democratic presidential nomination
  https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/0 … d-m01.html
  
  The right-wing political record of Bernie Sanders
  https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/0 … d-m15.html
  
  Bernie Sanders’ Elephant in the Room
  http://theantimedia.org/bernie-sanders- … -the-room/
  
  reply report
78
colorfuloneposted 7 years ago
He won't make it more viable. But, try to tell a B.S. supporter that.

Under Sander's plan it is the people who earn $200, 000 a year that will be taxed hard, $250,000 for couples. Those are not the billionaires.
The middle-class will continue to decrease as it is today. More people in the lower-class and poverty, and the rich will keep on getting richer.

Bernie pretends he is going to take on Wall Street. Well, to do that he has to finger the big Corruption Bankers that own the Federal Reserve. He isn't going to do that and risk his life.
* http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-t … erve/10489
reply report
1. 85
  gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Sadly, he will make America much worse than it is with his far left socialist policies.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  LOL, I was going to post here, but with this comment, you made it clear you are not really wanting to listen to why Bernie supporters believe his policies will benefit the middle class.
  reply report
  85
  gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Bernie doesn't care about the middle, upper middle & upper classes. He will further decimate the more affluent classes. His intentions is to redistribute income. He is a bona fide socialist verging into communism. Comrade Bernie ( hearing the International- a song sang during the Russian Revolution). BTW, Bernie isn't going to be elected. No American in his/her right mind wants an outright socialist. Americans are flocking to the Donald because they want a more viable economy for the middle class.
  reply report
  77
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  America cannot be any worse with the rightwing capitalist junta already in power. Things can only get better with a Sanders candidacy.
  
  Yes, I am 'feeling the Bern' and the fire will not be quenched until the 'Right' and all of its followers are rendered 'inert'.
  reply report
  78
  colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Here I found the article on CNN Money. If people would bother to read down to where it says...they can see for themselves that what Bernie Sanders is feeding them is more B.S.
  
  Under ... Higher income tax rates across the board
  
  But anyone with adjusted gross income over $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples) would then be subject to much higher rates than they currently pay. Instead of the 33%, 35% and 39.6% rates in today's code, they'd be subject to rates of 39.2%, 45.2%, 50.2% and 54.2%, depending on how high their income goes.
  * http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/04/pf/taxe … ers-taxes/
  
  Forget about Hillary, she won't stop the bankers from gambling with our money either. Former president Bill Clinton declared the Glass–Steagall law no more. The central banks get to decide when the economy crashes and when there is a trickle-down under what they call macro-economics. We need to flush that down the toilet. But, of course they are all rainbows and unicorns because of greed.
  
  Trump has some genius ideas and I believe they will get him elected.
  
  reply report
  77
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  CNN Money is a reliable source of info, these Sander's tax increases has me nervous. I will investigate further, it may very well be too much.... I will check his campaign materials and see how he justifies the increases.
  reply report
  85
  gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I have said that Bernie has a MUCH WORSE socialist agenda. Americans(well smart ones) aren't falling for Bernie because he is a left winger. He will be MORE of a disaster for America than the current President. Now,let's give the devil its due, Donald Trump seems infinitely more promising as a President right now. He is highly successful as opposed to Bern. He has ran businesses so he has credibility. Mr. Trump is no BS but Bernie sadly........IS. Who is feeling the Donald?!
  
  Any middle, upper middle, or upper class America who sees Bernie Sanders as a viable president candidate is committing socioeconomic suicide. Bernie is totally against the interests of the middle, upper middle, & upper classes. Bernie is more of a Lenin than Obama even will be. Bernie is an overt left wing socialist. He is more for the lower, working, & underclass. He has repeatedly voice this during his campaign. He is......TROUBLE. Now, Donald is voicing very viable, even smart socioeconomic solutions for America. Donald has IT while Bernie DOESN'T and NEVER WILL.
  reply report
  77
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  We will have to disagree on this, I don't trust Trump to be any less than the basic aristocrat that he claims that he is not.
  
  While I may have problems with Bernie's tax positions, I have exponentially more problems with Trump and his positions on a wider array of topics. Life is a series of choices, in the real world my desire to attain to an absolute is impossible, so I have to make my choices based on relative, comparative info.
  
  I prefer left wing socialist over rightwing authoritarian fascists if I had to choose between the two. Since the ideal, somewhere in the middle, is not a choice that is available.
  reply report
60
Alternative Primeposted 7 years ago
Senator Bernie Sanders is a "Democratic Socialist" which means he's interested in "Community Benefits" where at least a semblance of "Equality" Exists, unlike our current society built upon a Failed System of Capitalism where the Vast Majority of our WEALTH is Concentrated within the pockets of a small select few Fortunate Individuals ~ Even "Capitalist" don't even use that term anymore for fear of the Negative Connotation ~

The Primary Tax Burden under a Sanders Administration would SHIFT to the Wealthy and be removed from those who cannot afford it ~ A SHIFT from a Multiple Source Health Insurance Program to a "Single Payer" would also be the objective which means a Tax Increase to pay for the new system to be OFFSET by the Elimination of current Health-Care Expenses ~

If you believe the Status Que is acceptable where Wall Street & Corporations Promote Grotesque Multi-Million Dollar Salaries & Bonuses for CEO's while OBSTRUCTING Minimum WAGE Increases for the American Worker, then you should RUN & VOTE for a Mentally Disturbed Fascist Bigot like Trump or any other CONservative ~ If you believe the TAX Burden should FINALLY be shifted toward those who Use & ABUSE the Masses like SLAVEs to rake in Millions & BILLIONs, a VOTE for Bernie or Hillary would be in order ~
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
Bernie Is a career political frump , Please Vet Him - Is what I have to say . I live in the state he calls home . He began his "career" doing nothing , seriously not having a job until he was about forty years old. His launch into local politics was because he couldn't , wouldn't work a real job ! Seriously .....Vet his career yourself ! He is a politi-speech wiz -and that's all he has ever done !
reply report
1. 60
  Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  If that's all you have to say about a "Man of Integrity" like Senator Bernie Sanders who will finally begin to SHIFT the over-loaded Financial Burden off of the aching shoulders of the Majority of AMERICANs, I can just imagine what you think of a Mentally Disturbed CON-Man Fascist like Donald "Drumpf" Trump who Inherited a FORTUNE, Never worked a REAL Job in his life, and USED our FAILED System of Capitalism to invent investment SCAMs like "Trump University", an apparent fictitious place where he allegedly FLEECED Thousands of Innocent Consumers out of MILLIONs, a cornerstone of his ill-gotten income ~
  
  And YES, Vet HIM to find the TRUTH ~ You'll be nothing less than ASTONISHED ~ ~
  
  This is what Con-Man Trump honestly believes ~ WAGES are too HIGH for American Workers ~ $7.25 per hour is TOO High ~ ~ YUP, this Moron actually said that and he will go to WAR with Hard Working Americans if by that miracle he escapes a staight jacket and ends up occupying our White House ~ Check it OUT ~ Listen to what this idiot is saying ~ He will NOT Raise the Minimum Wage for hard working americans but he is SALIVATING to GIVE More of OUR Wealth to Corporations, CEOs, & Wall Street in the form of MASSIVE Un-Necessary TAX CUTs ~ ~ Unbelievable ~
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRmi28fjNOs
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I live where Bernie Sanders spent his entire younger years not even working , finally finding a career when he was about forty , sure he was "poor " but poor because he was a lazy man , not because of entitlements . Not because he inherited anything , that I know of . Sen.Sanders began his sophomoric rise by promoting the Castro regime , yes ! The Fidel Castro regime . He is nothing but a too old ,too white , too socialist , too divisive , too political moron , who can or could do nothing else beside talk socialism until he decided to become a "democratic socialist " ! So v ote for him , you deserve him ! AND , you deserve what you will get if he were to win !
  
  Sen. Sanders is ALL about social programs for the deserved , problem is in Vermont where he and I are from ; social entitlements are the norm , welfare roles are high , unemployment rates are plugged by leftist legislators to be low while everyone is leaving Vermont for better lives . Now , Why do you think that people would leave utopia , if it is so good ? Sen Sanders has helped drive a very liberal state down the drain ...........Vet Him, is All I'm saying ! Obviously you can't , won't and haven't!
  reply report
2. 85
  gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I have heard this also. Bernie= BIG TIME LOSER and who wants that! At least, the Donald has consistently being proven a winner!
  reply report
  60
  Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  In the REAL-World, Trump is a Proven LOSER CON-Man who inherited a Fortune from Daddy and got LUCKY ~ ~ If you investigate the FACTs, you'll find he has just as many MONUMENTAL Failures & SCAMs as successful ventures ~
  
  Moreover, his Un-stable Mental-State will prevent him from becoming President of the United States ~
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
Bernie defenders will go to all ends to defend who he is , except for the most important single fact , Bernie isn't any part of the rhetoric he so eloquently projects of himself. He's a ex- socialist hippy college debater from sixties revolutionary days , His love and writing associations of Fidel Castro for one , was quite well known ! My message to Bernie , There is no surviving European socialism that you compare Americans needs to !
reply report
1. 78
  colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  "Is this Bernie Sander’s “David Duke” moment? When asked to differentiate his brand of social from the communist leader Fidel Castro, Sanders had little to say. The Univision/CNN/Facebook debate featured video of then Mayor Sanders explaining why he believed the Cuban people had not staged an insurrection against Cuba, and why then President Ronald Reagan was wrong to think that Nicaraguans would do the same against the leftist government there. “They had forgotten that he educated their kids, gave them health care,” he said in the video, adding that the Castros had “totally transformed their society” but also qualifying his statement “You know, not to say that Fidel Castro or Cuba are perfect, they are certainly not.”
  
  They tired to get him to explain the difference between Bernie Sanders’ brand of socialism and Fidel Castro’s brand of socialism? Not even Bernie Sanders knows the difference.
  
  * http://www.latintimes.com/democratic-de … ami-374005
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
Truth of the matter is; is that more people will be able to take from America's system than give . That is the Fuel For The Bern ! Bernie has been instrumental in his ability to created a welfare state in Vermont , he has owned this state since the sixties . Organized labor is one of his favorites . Any group of people that host demands over contributions. The tax rates in Vermont have been nothing but expansionism in Government ,welfare roles and social programs have exploded , state employees has doubled or tripled . While the opposite effect in results , our youth are leaving the state in droves , business' have constantly relocated elsewhere , University grads , gone for bluer skies anywhere else , The single most important thing for Berners to remember is ,What liberties now are you now willing to sacrifice to socialism ,---- that you're willing to pay dearly for later ?
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
Like it or not , if you knew what the economy knew , Reaganomics was good for America . He lowered taxes for corporate and main street America , there-by creating a vacuum for jobs because of manufacturing , consumerism , expansionism , The mushrooming of jobs , of new company start -ups was very notable . For New England where I live ,the eighties began a boom in many phases of our economy , housing , manufacturing , tourisms , .......Stop trying to dispel the success' of the Reagan era ! Remember ..........There is only one truth and what that truth doesn't include is the liberal parroting of repeating lies until they become fact !
reply report
1. 71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Reaganomics or Voodoo economics as termed by George Bush was a short term payoff to the rich and started the real deficit spending and debt rolling. The idea being that giving tax breaks to the "job creators" would inspire them to invest in industries and business' which would spawn more jobs was really a masquerade for the military build up and the payoff for Reagans elite. Since the myth has been perpetrated we have seen politician after politician promise the same failed policy since with little or no results. We have plunged hopelessly into the abyss of debt in trying to reprove this failure. You cannot take one part of the tax burden out and deprive the other part of it through job loss and make up the difference. History has been very kind to Reagan but his legacy of Voodoo economics has devastated us.
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  This makes me think of my reaction when Bush had the government send us all a check so we could cash it and go spend it to stimulate the economy. We laughed because we had more pressing things to spend extra cash on. It was like they were clueless to the growing problems of the middle class. Or, they just thought we were too stupid to see a thinly veiled attempt to fatten the wallets of the big companies.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Whether the plan worked or not (I don't see that it did much but could be wrong), I don't think the plan was to fatten corporate wallets. It's true that when the consumer spent that check on corporate products (a new fridge, maybe) a very small portion of that money ends up as profits. Some of which was returned to the government in the form of taxes and the remainder given to company owners to spend again (minus another chunk of taxes), just like the wage earners that were paid wages out of the price of that fridge did, and continue the cycle. That's not a "thinly veiled attempt to fatten the wallets of the big companies".
  
  What makes us so eager to vilify the corporate world that puts food on our table and gas in our cars that we'll use the most ridiculous excuses to demonize them some more? That they cooperate with our demand for low prices that can only come from the use of foreign labor? That a huge corporation should make enough profit to give a return on investment of 6 or 7% to it's huge number of owners? That a tiny handful at the very top earn more than we think they should?
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  You can rationalize and talk as if big business is our savior. I disagree. Small businesses can offer an alternative so that all the money stays in the United States. And the community it is spent in.
  
  I'm not advocating shuttering the doors of large corporations, but I do think too much time is spent by our government worrying about their interests and not enough time understanding the needs of the American people.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely they can! If only the buyers would agree and buy from them...but of course they won't. They'll buy from whoever has the cheapest price, and that means imports. How and why do you think WalMart is so successful?
  
  The interest and need of the American people is to buy from Americans, paying American wages - not from other countries. They just won't do it.
  
  But you didn't respond to the basic question of why we vilify and demonize large corporations so much, down to using arbitrary and irrelevant excuses to get in every little dig possible. Got a theory?
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  "Absolutely they can! If only the buyers would agree and buy from them...but of course they won't. They'll buy from whoever has the cheapest price, and that means imports. How and why do you think WalMart is so successful?"
  
  What have you been smoking? The economy is in shambles and we can "Unite" in a common cause individually to stop buying foreign imports to shore up the economy and jobs? Ridiculous and can never happen as mostly everything that is made overseas as far as commodities is no longer available from a domestic manufacturer. Just look at shoes or textiles for example. The reason why we also buy cheap foreign made products is that we have less of a paycheck as wages have been stagnant and costs are ever increasing. The increasing costs of living in this country will never let anyone support a higher priced item for very long. Your argument is "pie in the sky" dreaming. Let alone the difference in cost of livings between countries you cannot compete with a $0.65 per hour labor cost in say Viet Nam by paying the difference of an American worker who makes $7.00 per hour to do the same job. Not even close.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  No, it's not pie-in-the-sky dreaming. It's recognition of the reality of the situation we have very stupidly put ourselves in. For you're right - far too much of our production has left the country...because we won't pay for the labor costs we ourselves require. Nor is it just our blue collar, production, jobs - we are shipping anything we can to wherever the labor is cheaper. It's the only way we have (as a business) to remain competitive and convince consumers to buy our product.
  
  But I don't see any answer for this, except to wait it out until those countries raise their own standard of living to match ours. You're right - we won't tolerate the prices that paying a good wage requires. So what's left? Protectionism? Levy huge tariffs on any imports, raising the prices to match what American labor requires? As you point out, we can't pay those prices and maintain our lifestyle.
  
  We've dug a hole for ourselves that I'm not sure we can get out of.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  "We've dug a hole for ourselves that I'm not sure we can get out of."
  
  This I can totally agree with. And as you say what may be the answer. If Trump wins we may see an answer in his push to destroy the agreements and introduce tariffs. It will be interesting to see.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Tariffs are scary: we live in a global economy, like it or not, and don't have all the resources we need today. Lithium comes to mind, but there are others as well.
  
  With punitive tariffs comes protectionism and economic "warfare". We could end up hurting ourselves as badly, or worse, than we are now. Should China shut the door to exports to the US (as we have done to nations in the past) it would nearly destroy us.
  
  But China is a rational nation and would never do that...except they're not and would have nothing to lose if we increase tariffs to the point that it's cheaper to make things here than it is in China. We not only don't have the raw materials we need, we don't have the production capacity either.
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I agree that a trade war only exasperates an orderly change of direction but we still hold many of the cards. China needs us and our willingness to acquire more debt in lieu of actual money. We are the biggest consumers at least for the moment but our resources are steadily dwindling as our earning power diminishes.
  
  If Bernie doesn't get the Dem nomination I will vote for Trump to finally pop this tenuous relationship in deficit trading.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Not the biggest consumer for long - China is quickly overtaking.
  
  What resources? We used to be the production powerhouse of the world; it's what won WWII more than any other thing. We used to be the invention capital of the world, but no more - it went to Japan's willingness to risk long ago. About all we have left is a willingness to take on debt!
  
  I predict you will join me in voting for Trump, then, for the Democratic Party has already given the nomination to Clinton. They just haven't made it public yet.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  That's all fine , but when our representative government trades our jobs, our factories , our livelihoods for their historical trade deals and personal portfolio's ,We become the biggest loser , the congressmen become the winners with their homes offshore , their junket trips , their steak sandwiches and third homes , while you and I go job hunting .
  THAT , is the only "globalism" that we have had benefit our economy , Middle class America pays for it all , the trade subsidies for China , the gubernatorial junkets , the third homes for congress , All we get out of it are three or four part -time job households and a high interest mortgage .
  
  I say hang a congressmen or two , wake the rest of them up.....:-]
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I tend to appear to vilify large international corporations because they don't care about you or me, or their workers, or anything other than how much money they can make.I don't respect such an attitude so I see no reason to show respect for that business model. You are right. We don't band together. But, we shouldn't have to band together to ensure our government keeps the playing fields level. That should be a given. But, it isn't
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  But they DO care about you and me...about as much as we care about them.
  
  What is the "business model" that you hate so much? That business deserves a profit? That they (generally) give value for value received in approximately equal amounts? That capitalism rewards effort and ability instead of "to each according to their needs"?
  
  But you want a "level playing field" with foreign labor, created by our government. How do you suggest we do that without raising product prices to what American labor requires, prices we won't (can't) pay?
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I think you are assuming I'm talking about miffed at not having a Sunday brunch with these guys. I am talking about the welfare of their customers and the well being of their employees. Cutting pennies sometimes makes the difference between a safe product and an unsafe one. Which way does the big corporation go? Many times the penny pinching way. Do you think no one noticed the moisture leaking off of the ceiling into the vats making the peanut butter months before the recall?
  
  Did the companies which sold the chinese drywall have any obligations to the consumers hurt by that incident? Why did they chose that product over gypsum board from the states?
  
  What about decisions to change the manner in which a product is put together, in order to offer it more cheaply and make more money? I'm talking about things like the hamburger patty. If you know that the change from one source to multiple sources, worldwide, will cause that product to be 10,000 times more susceptible to containing e coli which can kill; do you opt for the extra pennies in profit? Since this equates to hundreds millions for the mega corporation, with the possible risk of having to put out tens of millions in a lawsuit, that mega corporation looks at the value of human life in a totally different manner from the smaller company making patties. And, of course the mega corporation can always claim it wasn't them. It had to be one of many different suppliers who are not even in this country and probably can't be held accountable in the first place. That, I don't like.
  
  I'm talking about companies moving toward part time help and away from full time. How does that affect the worker?
  
  Businesses deserve a profit. Of course they do. But they are in a position of trust. We are trusting them to provide a safe product in a decent manner.
  
  Capitalism is good. I agree that many large companies give value for value. Effort and ability should be rewarded but we have always fought between the love of the dollar and the good of the citizens in our capitalistic system. One belief rises to prominence for a while and then the other. We've never found a happy median where both sides are protected fairly and equally. What we have at the moment is a lopsided system in favor of protections for the corporation. A corporation is not an individual. No matter how many laws they have been able to have put onto the books. Individuals are more important than the desires of the corporation. The citizens should not have had to bail corporations out of their financial woes brought about by greedy and unscrupulous decisions. The citizens, who own stock in large corporations should not get a penny here and there in order to ensure that a CEO who runs a company close to the ground gets multi million dollars in compensation for doing just that. And individuals who are in charge of companies caught in wrong doing should be held accountable. Not accountable by attending a congressional hearing. They should be treated just as you, or I, if we stepped out into the marketplace and caused a death because we wanted to make a dollar.
  
  That, I don't know. I will say that I do know several American companies that do compete quite well with products from foreign countries. How? I don't know. But, we as citizens are also partly responsible for the horrible working conditions in some countries; because our desire to consume helps create the environment for abuses to occur. If we all of a sudden spent more on one thing, meaning we couldn't spend as much on another. Would that be all bad? Think about how much we have moved to a must have attitude. Consume, consume, consume.....to the thousandth degree. If our disposable income was lessened by a small increase in prices and we could only consume to the nine hundredth degree would that be an acceptable hand off in order to bring more jobs back to America or for us to demand better working conditions for those abroad?
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  The problem is that you are falling into the trap of considering corporate profits as limitless. Take the hamburger you had at Mickey D's. It cost a couple of dollars, and the owner likely made less than a dime (5%). Yeah, it's a franchise, but pretend it's not. Now you want him to increase his cost 2 cents by buying exclusively local meat (likely more than that). And hire mostly full time workers, costing another 2 cents. You want him to do better maintenance on his building for a couple of pennies. In the end all those pennies you want him to absorb takes his whole profit, or at best leaves him without enough to live on. Those pennies (5-8 on the dollar) is what the entire profit margin is for most companies! That giant mega-corporations make giant mega-dollars doesn't change that; it just means that what you want will cost giant mega-pennies. While you complain that cutting pennies can be the difference between a safe and an unsafe product, you forget that those same pennies can be the difference between having a product at all as no company can take a loss on each product they sell. As an example, I used to work in a factory that produced 5 gallon pails of product. Although we put out some 500 pails per hour, towards the end of my stay I worked very hard to cut the time per pail by even 1/10 of a second per pail - maybe 2/10ths of a penny per pail in labor. Small savings can reap big rewards and small cost increases often mean the difference between staying in business and going bankrupt. It's easy to say that companies should do better, but until we're willing to pay the price for that "better" they are empty words.
  
  Nor will cutting our consumer-orientation by 10% help much: at the bottom of it all, labor is almost all of the cost of any product. Your car has steel in it - steel that someone mined (and got paid for), using tools that someone else made (and was paid for). It was smelted by someone (earning a wage) in a factory (that someone's labor built and was paid for). It was transported by a truck driver (being paid to do so) in a truck that someone else made and was paid for. It's nearly all labor, with a few percentage points to raw materials and another few to profits. Bringing back jobs to the US isn't going to increase prices by 10% - it will increase it by 50% or more. Which is why they're overseas in the first place - while you may pay an extra couple of dollars for shoes made in the USA, you won't pay half again what the import costs.
  
  But the biggest problem may be that we've lost the infrastructure that went with all that production. We no longer have the factories and trained personnel and would have to rebuild it all - an enormous cost. We've saved millions of kilowatt hours in electricity usage that would have be replaced somehow. Factories often take water - lots of clean, potable water that is already in rather short supply. It means lots of additional pollution as well, pollution we're learning to hate. Lots of problems, and with no real answers.
  
  We've really hurt ourselves in our greedy thinking that cheaper is always better, and getting out of the hole we've dug isn't going to be easy or cheap. It's going to take sacrifice, lots of it, and I just don't think Americans are ready or willing to do that. But try taking the road of soaking the wealthy for all of it and that wealth is going to dry up faster than a lily pond in Death Valley. That won't work, either.
  reply report
  60
  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know what Micky D's you go to but most any burger on the menu around here costs more than a couple of dollars. Now if we take the tiny burger, the .79 kiddie size, the owner might make a dime, but you have to remember that out of that whole he has also paid healthy franchise fees. If you break down the amount of labor involved in cooking the burger, loading it with inferior pickles and a squirt of mustard and catsup....wrapping it and pushing it out the window you can see that he made a few pennies more than your estimate.
  
  I get the dilemma. I am living it. But, that is the price you pay to dream of building a successful business. Our workers who want a full time job are full time. They come first. Your suggestion of 2 pennies more to have a better quality ingredient tells me that if you put a better quality ingredient in and absorb only the profit you might have made, passing on only the cost of the improvement, you can offer a better quality and/or safer product to the consumer Look at the quarter pounder at McDonald's. If a quarter pounder costs me $4.99 and the owner only makes pennies on the dollar what would you have to raise the price of the quarter pounder to in order to add 2 cents more to the cost of the meat per pound? I have no idea what markup is on restaurant food but let's say they have to increase the cost 3 times in order to get their margin. So that two cents is now six cents. Divide that by 4 since there is supposed to be 1/4 pound of beef in that burger. What do you have? I see 1 1/2 cents. Even if you added the extra cost to the whole and then multiplied for your margin you aren't looking at more than a few pennies. As a consumer, if I am offered a better product, the ability to support a local business through my purchase at a major chain I will spend one and a half pennies or three pennies more on a burger.
  
  I realize your, and my, examples are simplistic. But, you picked the example to use.
  
  I think you are ignoring the expenses built in to a mega corporation. There are levels of profit built in to support the megacorporations. You have to pay CEO's exorbitant wages. You have millions upon millions of dollars in advertising. You have millions upon millions of dollars in lobbying costs. Pennies on the dollar for a company that grosses a million, whose business model doesn't include multiple levels of management and upper management and which doesn't include lobbying costs can be managed more easily.
  
  I would suggest that this does not apply to all business models.
  
  Been there and done that also. And I still believe that pennies more for a product, if it is a safer or more environmentally friendly product; if it is a more community sustainable product, is very marketable. Right now people will pay dollars more for an item which fits that bill. Pennies more should be a hot ticket item.
  
  Standard labor cost estimates are 50 % of the cost to produce. Those estimates do include the wages of everyone involved in the process. That includes management and in a a small company management is usually the owner. The larger the company, the greater the number of people who will have to be included in that percentage because you suddenly have levels which work their way up to management and then you have levels of management.
  
  Infrastructure can be built. Americans are easily trained. As for electricity usage and pollution....if it means the difference between employment for our citizens or a welfare state I'll opt for attempting to jump those hurdles.
  
  I don't know that I have ever been an advocate of soaking the wealthy. What I am an advocate of is not being slaves to them. Not letting them own our elected officials and thereby keeping the playing field lopsidedly to their advantage.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
We conservatives are very selfish , we want to keep our own money ! Liberals want to share all monies yours , mine , corporate America's , big business , small business ,the governments , other governments , even God's .......How is it exactly that they justify that over all else ? And what ever happened to personal accountability ?
reply report
1. 94
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  They want it is enough justification. But their cause is just. The ends justify the means. "Though shall not steal" only applies to conservatives.
  
  Children are not held accountable, and all citizens are children. Only government has adults in it, and then only when they are liberals.
  
  All very simple, actually.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
The reason that the middle class has disappeared is because of taxation , because of the entitlement , free student loans , because of Bernie Sanders general welfare mentality for everyone , One close look at Vermont where he is from shows that . Corporate America gets a better tax deal than the working individual !.....As well they should ,-------and THAT's who pays the middle class ! Want to restore the middle class , Fire The Bern!
reply report
1. 85
  gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!!!!!
  reply report
2. 71
  rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  The taxation historically is shown to have no effect on how business does its' business to produce profits. When you mix the movement towards globalization in it the taxation issue becomes a firestorm sidebar. Why is this? Because they want to use reducing taxes as a carrot to dangle in front of our faces as a way to inspire economic growth. They do this knowing and having proved they only pocket the money and tell us more ways to save them money. I don't know if you can call this swallowing the Koolade but it comes close.
  reply report
3. 60
  Neil Sperlingposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  If folks looked at the current monetary system they would realize no matter who wins the election nothing will change. There are flaws in communism, socialism as well as capitalism ---- the monetary system is the only common thread - it is the problem. We need Thrivalism. I wrote about it.
  reply report
78
Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago
Higher the taxes= less ability to be independent. Aren't we getting a taste of this malady more and more every single day????????
YES.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Feeling the Bern.......

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Feeling the Bern.......

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies