He indicts the rich and does not indict the political shenanigans of government for causing such economic disparity in the first place.
Does he realize that the top 1% are protected from economic competition by government regulation?
He apparently has not really studied the issue -- but what can one expect from a pol?
Ha ha what an crank - This man literally has nothing to contribute to the welfare of the United States. It figures he's from the socialist republic of Vermont.
Figures--Senator Sanders intrudes with a little reality check and the right wingers piss and moan. Go Bernie.
Who do you think controls the government? Aliens, or something?
Really? He seems to know what's going on, while you continue to try to deny it. Who hasn't studied the issue?
What did he do? Push class warfare?
How does it help the economy to:
1-Separate people by income and cause one group to hate another?
2-Take more money from people in general and in particular from people who actually start and expand business?
3-Grow government any larger - They've proven repeatedly that they are inefficient and only slow a process down and discourage business.
Look man I know you're a big fan of socialism, and I don't want to insult you by bringing up your age and lack of credible world experience. But it's hard to start a business out there. The government feels like a 500 pound gorilla sitting on your back. We need some breathing room and plenty of capital - we can start by keeping more of what we have actually earned.
Sanders is a nutty communist.
I love this, bernie for president
But you neglect that government regulation protects the rich. Am I wrong? If so, why?
Speech is passionate. Inaccurate but passionate. He's circling the drain so let him talk.
Very simple, every time government takes money from people who earned it and gives it to people who did not earn it we take one step away from success. The government gets larger and the small business man gets poorer. As small business is responsible for hiring 65% of all new workers this harms the economic growth of our country.
We don't need make shift government jobs that are not rooted in reality. We need long lasting economic growth that can only be rooted in business growth and less government. Redistribution of wealth not only hurts the person that the government took the money from, it also hurts the person who gets a handout. It tells them that they're not good enough to do it themselves. Certainly NOT the American way.
I totally agree
Why is $250K the barrier between rich and poor? Because the IRS says so? They need to adjust the amount to reflect the actual line between middle and upper class. A family of 4 whose combined income is $250K is certainly not rich if they have a mortgage, car payment, and childcare to pay for all the while trying to save for retirment. I
would say $1MMk/year would be the lowest income level for "rich". I am all for taxing trust fund babies who haven't worked a day in their lives, and the death tax might take care of that.
Side note: It's amazing to me that throughout all of the finger pointing at big banks in the past 2 years we haven't reenacted Glass-Steagall, which was repealled under Clinton with the help of Repubs and Dems. It wasn't the only factor that led us down this path, but I would say it was a major contributer.
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.
Nope, in fact, I've said the same thing myself in the past. It's one of the main failings of Libertarianism. You can't get rid of the government, and so putting rich people in charge of it, as capitalism does, is a recipe for disaster.
I'll remind you that the top 1% controls 42% of the wealth. Do you honestly think businessmen need more money?
Furthermore, your concept of "earn" is a strange one, as they really did not earn (work for) that money, and so it is not theirs to keep.
You seem to be implying that since this wealth was not "earned" that the owners have no right to it but exactly how does someone else have a right to it?
Because it should rightfully have been paid to the workers. They're underpaid.
And I also realize that this is only one other interpretation of fairness. The point is, the liberal viewpoint is not the only one there is, nor is it the only valid one.
I can see how Paris Hilton did not "earn" her wealth, what about say mr. Gates? Why would he owe you anything?
But yours is rooted in a flawed and throroughly debunked ideology.
If you define "work" as "on what someone has clawed out of the rocks with his fingernails", why yes, workers are terribly exploited.
Why do do not simply choose to become exploiters instead of exploitees if capitalist are superfluous is beyond me, but I guess the capitalis cabal prevents them somehow from doing that.
Who said anything about him owing me money. He doesn't owe me.