This is a dishonest debating tactic, and I think you know it. People complain all the time, on this forum and across the country, about politicians being out of touch. Yet when Senator Sanders actually takes a look at the economic reality and this country, and tries to do something about the problem, he's lambasted for pushing class warfare. Check this out:
Recognizing the fact that income inequality is at its widest gap since 1928, and being worried about the implications is not class warfare. Thinking that maybe the rich could pay more when 14% of Americans have slipped below the poverty line is not class warfare. Trying to do something about the phenomenon of medical bill related personal bankruptcies is not class warfare.
Pull your head out of the sand and stop pretending there's not a problem, or that excess government spending on the poor (ha!) is to blame.
Actually, socialists generally want to take less money from people. They want to increase people's quality of life, not reduce it. It is true that he (and we, generally) favor progressive tax policies, but why shouldn't we? When the top 1% of the population controls 42% of the wealth,
why shouldn't they pay 42% of the taxes? How does it even make sense to expect people with less money to pay the majority of the taxes?
Besides that, you talk about taking money from people, "who create jobs," but what about people who actually work those jobs? Who actually keep the country running? You don't care about them? They don't deserve anything? Do you honestly not see how your entire "philosophy" is a shield for the wealthy?
Actually, they've proven nothing of the sort. The government built the atom bomb. The government built the interstates. The government put a man on the moon. The government wiped out polio. They even built an awesome military machine (not that I'm much of a fan).
Government workers are even more efficient than private ones: "The federal government spent $110 million last year to determine whether 12,573 federal jobs could be done more efficiently by private contractors, with in-house workers winning 91 percent of the time, according to an Office of Management and Budget report."
So, sorry. You're just plain wrong.
I'm not saying its easy to start a business, but how is that the government's fault? It would be difficult if there were no government. Perhaps not quite as hard, but I mean, the US comes in at #5 in the world for ease of doing business,
so I don't know what you realistically expect.
Again, you say this while giving no examples whatsoever of how he is wrong. Think it about it: it's conceivable that you're the one in error.