Bernie Sanders: Democrats Need to Wake Up

[AFerri48]

nytimes.com/2016/06/29/opinion/campaign-stops/bernie-sanders-democrats-need-to-wake-up.html

Some tidbits…

*“Surprise, surprise. Workers in Britain, many of whom have seen a decline in their standard of living while the very rich in their country have become much richer, have turned their backs on the European Union and a globalized economy that is failing them and their children”

"Could this rejection of the current form of the global economy happen in the United States? You bet it could.

During my campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, I’ve visited 46 states. What I saw and heard on too many occasions were painful realities that the political and media establishment fail even to recognize.

In the last 15 years, nearly 60,000 factories in this country have closed, and more than 4.8 million well-paid manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Much of this is related to disastrous trade agreements that encourage corporations to move to low-wage countries."

“Let’s be clear. The global economy is not working for the majority of people in our country and the world. This is an economic model developed by the economic elite to benefit the economic elite. We need real change.”

“We need to fundamentally reject our “free trade” policies and move to fair trade. Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage counties who earn pennies an hour. We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We must help poor countries develop sustainable economic models.”

“The notion that Donald Trump could benefit from the same forces that gave the Leave proponents a majority in Britain should sound an alarm for the Democratic Party in the United States. Millions of American voters, like the Leave supporters, are understandably angry and frustrated by the economic forces that are destroying the middle class.”*

 

[jediliz]

says the man that wants to tax the “super rich” to death (90% is what I heard) to reduce the debt, and that would include corporations, driving them even MORE off shore…causing the loss of jobs…

 

[jeannetherese]

says the man that wants to tax the “super rich” to death (90% is what I heard) to reduce the debt, and that would include corporations, driving them even MORE off shore…causing the loss of jobs…

Not that the super rich were out with picks and shovels making their own wealth; more likely, you (or some 3rd world worker) was making it for them.
I’d take Bernie over Hillary any day of the week.
If he was pro-life, he just might have taken the election .

 

[Avdima]

says the man that wants to tax the “super rich” to death (90% is what I heard) to reduce the debt, and that would include corporations, driving them even MORE off shore…causing the loss of jobs…

The biggest period of economic growth in the US has been when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

 

[Thom18]

says the man that wants to tax the “super rich” to death (90% is what I heard) to reduce the debt, and that would include corporations, driving them even MORE off shore…causing the loss of jobs…

And didn’t he say he wants to abolish private charity? Back when he was a socialist mayor?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The biggest period of economic growth in the US has been when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

I think one man actually paid it, though. Nobody else.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I voted for Bernie. I would again. But I have to say I feel with each passing day he is becoming less relevant. He ran a terrific campaign. But the page has turned. Hillary Clinton received millions more votes and either she or Donald Trump is going to be President. On the issues alone, I would have been voting for Hillary Clinton over Trump regardless of what Bernie or even Elizabeth Warren did. But Sen Warren is making it very clear to Bernie supporters that Hillary Clinton is far better than Trump.

That said, here are reasons why you can’t compare Brexit with the upcoming US election. US voters will be considering a multitude of issues as well as Donald Trump’s character and preparedness for the office he is seeking. Just the other day even the Senate leader from Trump’s own party wouldn’t say if he was qualified.

Also in the US we have the Electoral College and then there is the demographics of the very diverse electorate. According to the CIA World Factbook, the British population was more than 87% white in 2011. Other estimates put the ratio at higher than 90%. Meanwhile, a Pew survey from earlier this year found that the U.S. electorate in 2016 will be the country’s most racially and ethnically diverse ever. More than 30% of eligible voters will come from a racial or ethnic minority group. The white vote is expected to make up 69% of eligible voters, down from 71% in 2012. For Trump, who has alienated large swaths of minority voters with his immigration rhetoric, victory will likely have to come from securing a large portion of a diminishing slice of the electoral pie.

cnn.com/2016/06/25/politics/differences-brexit-donald-trump/

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Democrats do need to wake up, but not in the way Mr. Sanders thinks. They need to quit promoting the violent abortion of innocent children. Nothing else an abortion advocate says can be believed or taken seriously. An abortion advocate’s mind is so warped morally that he cannot be trusted.

 

[Inisfallen]

says the man that wants to tax the “super rich” to death (90% is what I heard) to reduce the debt, and that would include corporations, driving them even MORE off shore…causing the loss of jobs…

Well, not exactly. He has advocated raising the top ***marginal ***rate to 90% or thereabouts, which is not the same as taxing the rich at a 90% rate on all their income. Not even close.

Really, he’s just advocating a return to the tax code of the Eisenhower years, which were pretty good years for this country.

Guess that makes Eisenhower a socialist too.

Edit: I see that **Avdima **beat me to it.

 

[Inisfallen]

I think one man actually paid it, though. Nobody else.

Income distribution was a lot less unequal back then – the gap between working people and the rich (with a few exceptions) was much, much smaller. Yes, today more people would hit that top tax bracket, that’s almost certainly true.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I think one man actually paid it, though. Nobody else.

Can you link the source of that claim?

 

[ManOnFire]

Well, not exactly. He has advocated raising the top ***marginal ***rate to 90% or thereabouts, which is not the same as taxing the rich at a 90% rate on all their income. Not even close.

Really, he’s just advocating a return to the tax code of the Eisenhower years, which were pretty good years for this country.

Guess that makes Eisenhower a socialist too.

Edit: I see that **Avdima **beat me to it.

Or maybe the romanticism of the Baby Boom age was the Motivation for dads to work hard to put food on the table to prevent their kids from starving. The new progressives see no need for population growth or God. Try raising taxes to 90% and see what it does to the Motivation of a declining native born population. They’ll want to have even less kids. But then that’s part of the plan.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Bernie needs to read a book on economics.

 

[Inisfallen]

Or maybe the romanticism of the Baby Boom age was the Motivation for dads to work hard to put food on the table to prevent their kids from starving. The new progressives see no need for population growth or God. Try raising taxes to 90% and see what it does to the Motivation of a declining native born population. They’ll want to have even less kids. But then that’s part of the plan.

Once again, Sanders isn’t talking about raising taxes to 90%. He’s advocating an increase in the top marginal rate, and only that, to 90% (or somewhere in that neighborhood).

I hear a lot of claims that people will be less motivated to work if taxes increase. I think to make that case, you’d have to show that people were lazier and unmotivated in times when we’ve had (much) higher tax rates.

So go ahead. Make the case.

 

[ManOnFire]

Once again, Sanders isn’t talking about raising taxes to 90%. He’s advocating an increase in the top marginal rate, and only that, to 90% (or somewhere in that neighborhood).

I hear a lot of claims that people will be less motivated to work if taxes increase. I think to make that case, you’d have to show that people were lazier and unmotivated in times when we’ve had (much) higher tax rates.

So go ahead. Make the case.

I already did make the case. Having a large family during the Eisenhower years was enough for mom to stay home to raise kids while the population exploded. The native population is not only no longer exploding, it’s shrinking. Only immigration is growing the population. Rand Paul mentioned during the debates how the boom messed with the economy.

 

[PseuTonym]

For Trump, who has alienated large swaths of minority voters with his immigration rhetoric

Laws that aren’t actually enforced are rhetoric. They are empty words.

Why not auction off 100,000 US passports to citizens of Japan? I mean auction in the sense of selling them to the highest bidders who are eligible. I say “who are eligible” because there would have to be some restrictions, such as not selling the passports to citizens of Japan who have been convicted of serious crimes.

That would generate revenue.

Of course, there would then be bait for people who oppose Trump: anti-Japanese sentiment based on events in World War Two.

However, why should there be sentiments against people who faced military conscription? Maybe the US government should work with other members of the UN to create a new international agency that will help people who don’t want to become soldiers and who face threats from governments that want to force military service.

Also, how can one talk about tolerance and forgiveness while maintaining a grudge against an entire nation-state that happens to be an ally of the US?

 

[CaptFun]

Wake up or …

Go to sleep. Either one.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Well, not exactly. He has advocated raising the top ***marginal ***rate to 90% or thereabouts, which is not the same as taxing the rich at a 90% rate on all their income. Not even close.

Really, he’s just advocating a return to the tax code of the Eisenhower years, which were pretty good years for this country.

Guess that makes Eisenhower a socialist too.

Edit: I see that **Avdima **beat me to it.

Thanks for this. During the primary, I remember having to explain to a Trump supporter who clearly had no clue about what a marginal tax rate is, that Bernie was not proposing to tax all their income at 90%. And that person’s income is such that actually no portion of it at all would even fall in the top bracket anyway. As you stated a top marginal rate of 90% is not even close to taxing all their income at 90%. Far from it.

 

[estesbob]

Well, not exactly. He has advocated raising the top ***marginal ***rate to 90% or thereabouts, which is not the same as taxing the rich at a 90% rate on all their income. Not even close.

Really, he’s just advocating a return to the tax code of the Eisenhower years, which were pretty good years for this country.

Guess that makes Eisenhower a socialist too.

Edit: I see that **Avdima **beat me to it.

Except he is not suggesting we return to the deduction and tax credit system we had during the Eisenhower years. Nor is he suggesting a return to income averaging, the repealing of passive loss rules, repealing at risk rules or implementing any other number of tax benefits that deeply mitigated the 90% rate.

 

[holyreyes]

Not that the super rich were out with picks and shovels making their own wealth; more likely, you (or some 3rd world worker) was making it for them.
I’d take Bernie over Hillary any day of the week.
If he was pro-life, he just might have taken the election .

I think he and his supporters, including me, believe that he is pro-life by his stance on economics, education, healthcare, immigration, environment, incarceration, etc…