• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Sanders 2015 Speech at Liberty University

Irredentist said:
You say that as if you seriously believe that government hasn't always played an active role in perpetuating wealth inequality. The job of the rich and powerful is to hold on to their wealth and power. Always has been. The rich don't want social mobility, they never have, and so they use government to their advantage, because they have the wealth to do so.
Click to expand...

According to Siddusai Karn, these are the billionaires who went bankrupt and lost it all.
Eike Batista.
Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson. ...
Allen Stanford. ...
Elizabeth Holmes. ...
Bernard Madoff. ...
Seán Quinn. ...
Vijay Mallya. ...
Adolf Merckle. ...
More items...

11 billionaires who lost it all and went broke - Luxurylaunchesluxurylaunches.com › celebrities › 11-billionaires-who-lost-it-all-and-we...
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
No one corrected or altered that by force in the New Deal era. We incentivized. We rewarded those who did right and just, and we did not reward those who shirked and ran away from it. And we levied proper and just taxation, which the Constitution says is our right to do.
When the talk turns to taxation being defined as force and coercion, it sounds like sovereign citizens who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of government.
Click to expand...

WE we we we hell. It was the powerful putting the hangman's noose on our country. Do not say WE unless you are one of those who imposed draconian rules on all of us.

Our government was entirely based on maximum freedom for all who were citizens.

The founders realized the possibility of the stranglehold Democrats can exert. But some of us plan to fight them. We espouse liberty.
 
Nap said:
Not concerned in the least, wealth inequality is simply a by product of freedom.

Why does it matter that 15 people are richer than 150 million? Does your heart break for the average millionaire because his wealth is effectively pocket change to a Jeff Bezos or Bloomberg? It seems to me the problem is poverty and not wealth inequality.
Click to expand...

Here is my view (age 81) view of poverty.

Formed after many seasoned years as a Democrat followed in 1980 forward as a Republican, but for most of my life as a person that hired others to work for his various companies. No, not any of the companies was big. But still i learned valuable lessons.

Why did I gain wealth from my early days? First I did not want to remain poor. What else? I talked to any rich person willing to talk to me to explain what they did.

How many Democrats can stop hating the rich to actually seek their counsel?

If you were poor as I was, and get to visit the inside of the rich mans home, who wants to go back to his own poverty home?

Success in the normal world works much like it does for the athletes. They set goals. They work hard to be ready. They aim for the top. They follow through on goals. They also reward them selves. A rich mans auto is a reward. A rich mans yacht is more of a reward. And his children do well in life. What can be wrong with that?
 
Nap said:
My question is why are so many concerned with "wealth inequality" when the actual issue is poverty?
Click to expand...

The two are inextricably linked. Mitigating massive wealth inequality, at least a little bit, helps to elevate societies out of poverty.
It's not a radical or even magical idea. Instead of a stagnant underclass, you get a dynamic underclass, one which is merely the starting point where one pays their dues, instead of a dead end where one is born into it and stays in it.

Poverty has the potential to be a fantastic motivator, because human beings are naturally ambitious, but only if there are perceivable, attainable and viable goals. Absent that, you get massive despair instead, and it is wealth inequality that contributes to that.

The concept of wealth inequality does not mean that everyone is entitled to the exact same wealth, it means that those who are the most blessed and most fortunate have some responsibility to help do some of the heavy lifting.

In many parts of the world, wealth inequality is so utterly complete and ingrained that millions routinely starve to death.
But while mass starvation may not be the issue here in the greatest and wealthiest nation on Earth, death and starvation of the soul "on an installment plan" is completely unnecessary.

We have the resources and ability to establish a kind of "floor" to the underclass, we have the resources and ability to establish minimum access to upward mobility, so that people in the underclass can invest their sweat equity in order to climb out of poverty at a greater rate, and put themselves on a path to becoming stable and productive taxpayer members of society.
We have the resources and ability to make it possible for more of these people to have the opportunity to have skin in the game.

And failure to make constructive moves in those directions only serves to further stagnate our growing underclass and the result is always increased despair.
"It's the despair quotient."

Reduce the despair quotient and a lot of our most pressing problems gradually become more manageable.
Addressing enormous wealth inequality simply consists of making it more possible for society to reinvest in itself, and in our future generations.
 
Last edited:
Checkerboard Strangler said:
The two are inextricably linked. Mitigating massive wealth inequality, at least a little bit, helps to elevate societies out of poverty.
It's not a radical or even magical idea. Instead of a stagnant underclass, you get a dynamic underclass, one which is merely the starting point where one pays their dues, instead of a dead end where one is born into it and stays in it.

Poverty has the potential to be a fantastic motivator, because human beings are naturally ambitious, but only if there are perceivable, attainable and viable goals. Absent that, you get massive despair instead, and it is wealth inequality that contributes to that.

The concept of wealth inequality does not mean that everyone is entitled to the exact same wealth, it means that those who are the most blessed and most fortunate have some responsibility to help do some of the heavy lifting.

In many parts of the world, wealth inequality is so utterly complete and ingrained that millions routinely starve to death.
But while mass starvation may not be the issue here in the greatest and wealthiest nation on Earth, death and starvation of the soul "on an installment plan" is completely unnecessary.

We have the resources and ability to establish a kind of "floor" to the underclass, we have the resources and ability to establish minimum access to upward mobility, so that people in the underclass can invest their sweat equity in order to climb out of poverty at a greater rate, and put themselves on a path to becoming stable and productive taxpayer members of society.
We have the resources and ability to make it possible for more of these people to have the opportunity to have skin in the game.

And failure to make constructive moves in those directions only serves to further stagnate our growing underclass and the result is always increased despair.
"It's the despair quotient."

Reduce the despair quotient and a lot of our most pressing problems gradually become more manageable.
Addressing enormous wealth inequality simply consists of making it more possible for society to reinvest in itself, and in our future generations.
Click to expand...

Over the last 50 years wealth inequality has skyrocketed and yet the poverty rate has been around that 12% the entire time despite spending vasts amount of tax money to try and "correct" the issue.

This is going to be an unpopular theory but I think the social welfare programs and demand side economics plays a large role in creating wealth inequality.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
No one corrected or altered that by force in the New Deal era. We incentivized. We rewarded those who did right and just, and we did not reward those who shirked and ran away from it. And we levied proper and just taxation, which the Constitution says is our right to do.
When the talk turns to taxation being defined as force and coercion, it sounds like sovereign citizens who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of government.
Click to expand...

The New Deal program of Social Security, still our largest "entitlement" program, was and still is funded by a flat tax on the first $1 of individual wage/salary income and ceases at an income cap of below the salary of a congress critter. Social Security also allocates its retirement benefits based on past individual contributions over a 35 year period - not by denying benefits to those who "contributed" taxation to fund it in order to "reduce income inequality". It would have never been passed into law if it had exempted 40% of the population from paying the federal taxes to support it because that would not have been seen as right and just.

The "Newer Deal" programs being proposed include no such broad based federal taxation of all workers. Instead, the "Newer Deal" is aimed at increasing federal government power and control of large sectors of the private business sector and boasts of how (only?) "the rich" will be forced to fund it through more progressive taxation of income. It is neither right nor just to promise to exempt most from increased federal taxation in order to promise them "free" goods/services to be paid for by "others".

Taxation is not theft simply because government can't be run at no cost to the governed, but narrowly targeted and grossly unequal taxation based on claiming that a minority have "too much" is nothing more than a vote buying effort. Folks often say "look at Denmark", the land of extreme happiness, but carefully ignore that the average income tax burden in Denmark is about 45% in order to have such massive "free" social program spending.

I have absolutely no objection to expanding Medicare to all so long as it is funded entirely by increasing the FICA payroll tax rate used to fund Medicare for some. What congress critters have realized is that they can drop the the concept of "pay as you go" or the use of broad based taxation of all workers and now raid the general fund (or simply borrow from future generations) to avoid even keeping Medicare for some being funded entirely by FICA payroll taxation, user premiums and reasonable deductibles and co-pays.
 
Nap said:
Over the last 50 years wealth inequality has skyrocketed and yet the poverty rate has been around that 12% the entire time despite spending vasts amount of tax money to try and "correct" the issue.

This is going to be an unpopular theory but I think the social welfare programs and demand side economics plays a large role in creating wealth inequality.
Click to expand...

And that coincides perfectly with the widespread adoption of "The Powell Memo".

“Business must learn the lesson . . . that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination—without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.”
Click to expand...

"Winner-Take-All Politics, How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned its Back on the Middle Class"

Spending vast amounts of tax money to try and correct the issue?
I see money spent toward insuring that the underclass remains stagnant and dependent, I see a "dole" system rather than a system that maintains upward mobility. I see money spent on vast bureaucracies focused on cradle to grave welfare instead of a sustained investment in higher education and job opportunities.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The New Deal program of Social Security, still our largest "entitlement" program, was and still is funded by a flat tax on the first $1 of individual wage/salary income and ceases at an income cap of below the salary of a congress critter. Social Security also allocates its retirement benefits based on past individual contributions over a 35 year period - not by denying benefits to those who "contributed" taxation to fund it in order to "reduce income inequality". It would have never been passed into law if it had exempted 40% of the population from paying the federal taxes to support it because that would not have been seen as right and just.

The "Newer Deal" programs being proposed include no such broad based federal taxation of all workers. Instead, the "Newer Deal" is aimed at increasing federal government power and control of large sectors of the private business sector and boasts of how (only?) "the rich" will be forced to fund it through more progressive taxation of income. It is neither right nor just to promise to exempt most from increased federal taxation in order to promise them "free" goods/services to be paid for by "others".

Taxation is not theft simply because government can't be run at no cost to the governed, but narrowly targeted and grossly unequal taxation based on claiming that a minority have "too much" is nothing more than a vote buying effort. Folks often say "look at Denmark", the land of extreme happiness, but carefully ignore that the average income tax burden in Denmark is about 45% in order to have such massive "free" social program spending.

I have absolutely no objection to expanding Medicare to all so long as it is funded entirely by increasing the FICA payroll tax rate used to fund Medicare for some. What congress critters have realized is that they can drop the the concept of "pay as you go" or the use of broad based taxation of all workers and now raid the general fund (or simply borrow from future generations) to avoid even keeping Medicare for some being funded entirely by FICA payroll taxation, user premiums and reasonable deductibles and co-pays.
Click to expand...

Oh hey, fixing those gross inefficiencies is a good idea and I certainly welcome better thinking in that regard but it doesn't change the fact that these programs are very much needed, if only because the alternative is far worse. A generation of ignorant destitutes is a lot more expensive than padding old age pensions for sake of stability. Education is very expensive but the cost of generational ignorance eclipses it by several orders of magnitude. Healthcare is expensive, but the alternative almost guarantees collapse.

Pay as you go? Fine by me.

Denmark's average 45% tax rate? If we calculate what we're spending here, it works out to be slightly more, and just saying "at least it's not taxation" doesn't change that. Danes don't seem to have much difficulty leading stable and relatively prosperous lives despite that taxation.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
And that coincides perfectly with the widespread adoption of "The Powell Memo".



"Winner-Take-All Politics, How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned its Back on the Middle Class"

Spending vast amounts of tax money to try and correct the issue?
I see money spent toward insuring that the underclass remains stagnant and dependent, I see a "dole" system rather than a system that maintains upward mobility. I see money spent on vast bureaucracies focused on cradle to grave welfare instead of a sustained investment in higher education and job opportunities.
Click to expand...

100% agree with you on this.
 
Nap said:
100% agree with you on this.
Click to expand...

Thanks, because all I am saying is, we either invest in our future or we don't.
I'm seeing the result of not doing so all the time, and it doesn't resemble anything I remember when growing up in the New Deal era.

The movie "Idiocracy" might just be one of the most important statements on our glaring ignorance of this ever created.
It's supposed to be a comedy, but as director Mike Judge says, it is shocking how quickly it is becoming a very sobering reality.

"I’m no prophet. I was off by 490 years."
Click to expand...

Family on Tracks Barely Escapes Fast Moving Train

 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
And that coincides perfectly with the widespread adoption of "The Powell Memo".



"Winner-Take-All Politics, How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned its Back on the Middle Class"

Spending vast amounts of tax money to try and correct the issue?
I see money spent toward insuring that the underclass remains stagnant and dependent, I see a "dole" system rather than a system that maintains upward mobility. I see money spent on vast bureaucracies focused on cradle to grave welfare instead of a sustained investment in higher education and job opportunities.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is the sad fact, yet nobody dare change it or the dependent masses enjoying the current "dole" would riot. Once qualifying for public assistance is based on adding some sticks (mandated individual recipient behavioral changes) and not just ever more carrots (rewards for becoming and remaining destitute) we might actually start winning our (endless?) "war on poverty".
 
Phys251 said:
Then I realized what he was all about, and it was all downhill from there.
Click to expand...

Giving Americans the same benefits/programs Scandinavians enjoy? The horror!
 
Craig234 said:
That's one of Bernie's strengths - more than other Democrats, he can and will go to non-Democrats, and can talk to them and win more of them over with REAL support and defeat trump's con job.
Click to expand...

My conservative co-worker told me today he will likely vote for Sanders. I aked, 'In the primaries?' He said no, in the general election.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is the sad fact, yet nobody dare change it or the dependent masses enjoying the current "dole" would riot. Once qualifying for public assistance is based on adding some sticks (mandated individual recipient behavioral changes) and not just ever more carrots (rewards for becoming and remaining destitute) we might actually start winning our (endless?) "war on poverty".
Click to expand...

You might be surprised to find out what the welfare system is like nowadays. Most states have a bar set to destitution level. There are no "welfare Cadillacs" anymore. But yes, one of the biggest problems is, the moment you get a job, your benefits are cut immediately, leaving the recipient with no cushion to tide them over till their paychecks start coming in.
Thus, if you score a job, you're suddenly facing eviction because that last payment that might have been there to cover the first two weeks on the job isn't there.

So it's not so much the lack of carrots as much as it is the fear that getting hired probably means you'll wind up one of the working homeless.
 
Geoist said:
My conservative co-worker told me today he will likely vote for Sanders. I aked, 'In the primaries?' He said no, in the general election.
Click to expand...

Good to hear!
 
Geoist said:
Giving Americans the same benefits/programs Scandinavians enjoy? The horror!
Click to expand...

If only it were that simple. :shrug:
 
Craig234 said:
Inequality plummeted from FDR to Carter, before Reagan bean shooting it back up.
Click to expand...

And yet amazingly enough there were still tons of filthy rich people walking around.
The home my cousins grew up in, my uncle bought it in 1962.
(Atlantic Beach, Long Island NY)
He wasn't quite a millionaire, he was in construction.

xLQDo5U.jpg


Yes, there was a dock out back, every home on Reynolds Channel in Atlantic Beach (Long Island) had their own dock.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
And yet amazingly enough there were still tons of filthy rich people walking around
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why it's an idiotic argument when people claim that reducing extreme inequality (1 person has as much as tens of millions) to moderate inequality (like the 1930's-1970's) will stop rewarding people for things and be 'total equality'. It's a lie. The economy, opportunity, and democracy will increase; corruption and monopoly will be reduced.
 
Craig234 said:
Yes, that's why it's an idiotic argument when people claim that reducing extreme inequality (1 person has as much as tens of millions) to moderate inequality (like the 1930's-1970's) will stop rewarding people for things and be 'total equality'. It's a lie. The economy, opportunity, and democracy will increase; corruption and monopoly will be reduced.
Click to expand...

My uncle made a handsome living building all kinds of homes, from little cottages on Staten Island and apartment buildings in Brooklyn, to luxury mansions in Woodmere and The Hamptons.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
I just listened to his speech and came away very impressed. It was a very convincing speech. He spoke about justice in Biblical terms and how unjust our society is. A tiny few have so much and so many have so little. He speaks with such conviction and is incredibly persuasive.

If he can still deliver a speech like this at the Democratic Convention and on the election trail, he will surely win the presidency.

The video is long but the speech is only about 30 minutes. It starts at 0:48 and ends at 1:12.

Click to expand...


On average Sanders support is roughly 30% of Democrats. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e....tion-6730.html

That means 70% of Democrats do not want Sanders as their candidate.

30% of Democrats is not sufficient to beat Trump.

30% of Democrats is not sufficient to recapture the House.

30% of Democrats is not sufficient to win the Senate.

It is well and good for Sanders and Warren to shout out to their followers they must be bold. It is also quite stupid to be idealistic when the opposition party controls the White House and the Senate. Sanders and Warren are putting the cart before the horse. Sanders and Warren are asking for a cart before the horse when there is no cart. The Democrats must first win the White House and Congress before embarking on needed changes.

Democrats need to ask themselves, what good are their bold and idealistic dreams if Trump is in office for four more years and the GOP controls Congress? They are dreaming if they think Americans will choose a socialist to be their President.
 
Sandy Shanks said:
That means 70% of Democrats do not want Sanders as their candidate.
Click to expand...

No, it does not. It means he'snot their first choice, just as trump wasn't the first choice of most Republicans at this point. If 25% of people's favorite ice cream is vanilla, it doesn't mean they don't want to eat chocolate. People like you are among the worst enemies of the Democratic Party and country, with your intra-party hate for Bernie.
 
Phys251 said:
If only it were that simple. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Nothing about it is simple, especially when you have most of the Establishment and corporate lobbyists holding the puppet strings. Putting in another neo-liberal centrist who wants to put band-aids on a broken system is not the answer and will lead to another demagogue like Trump in the future.
 
Geoist said:
Nothing about it is simple, especially when you have most of the Establishment and corporate lobbyists holding the puppet strings. Putting in another neo-liberal centrist who wants to put band-aids on a broken system is not the answer and will lead to another demagogue like Trump in the future.
Click to expand...
:lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom