Bernie Sanders tells it like it is...

[senervo]

SB hit the nail on the head. The kind of socialism I'm always advocating is merely that all children are given the same starting resources. Effort and talent should be rewarded, but its quite simply unethical that some start with everything given to them, and others start with nothing, through no fault of their own, but through parents who failed, likely through no fault of their own either. Its a sick, sick cycle. And it needs to end. Social policies like the universal health care we have here in Canada and most other counties are the first step to ensuring everyone is given the chance to succeed, and not merely make ends meet.

hell, i'm sure not only America needed a speech like this...
politics are usually always based on an absolute crap-load of money for the higher class because of family and a multitude of starving lower-class civilians in the same country...

poverty and riches in the same land isn't uncommon but i don't have much hope for humanity if everyone would tend to cry out against this man's speech, calling him a commie... damn politics and leaders...

[TheEconomist]

Ah, TF. It's sad how I don't even have to unblock your post to know you're probably rooting for the tax breaks.

*sigh*

If only you could see my post and see that you're wrong

[mikill]

Well if 19% all income in 1990s and of all income 23% today then that could mean more people have become sucessful eg 1000 in 1990 and now 2087 people are in the top 1% unless i misunderstood for the 8 seconds i was watching. like the TOP 1% is too general how do we know what this exactly means?

[JackhammerIV]

Well if 19% all income in 1990s and of all income 23% today then that could mean more people have become sucessful eg 1000 in 1990 and now 2087 people are in the top 1% unless i misunderstood for the 8 seconds i was watching. like the TOP 1% is too general how do we know what this exactly means?

Yeah. It is true that it doesn't give an exact figure for the actual number of people in the top 1%. But by the same argument it can be argued that over that time the population in the middle class was also expanding at a similar or more accelerated rate than the people in the top 1% of incomes. And by top he means the people with the highest incomes. Meaning if you arrange everyone by income then the 1% of people earning the most money (CEOs and whatnot).

He's basically using a common way to measure income disparity. It's in demography where they show a few different graphs showing the distribution of income. If that top 1% no matter how big or small it is in numbers (1,000 or 10,000 people) earns a large portion of the total income of the country 20% or whatever then it shows a big income difference in the country. Because no matter the amount it is all relative since it is in percentages. Whether he is quoting numbers right or wrong someone needs to check.

So he was saying basically out of every 100 people there is one person who is so super rich he earns more than the 50 poorest people in that group of 100 combined. This is all on average but basically that's the way to interpret it. It basically shows a situation where you can think of the top 1% as taking money from the bottom (lowest income earners). The top has amassed wealth much more than the bottom. Then there is a case for having high taxes on people in that top 1% to give benefits to the bottom income earners.

Here's one general drawback of that senator's analysis. It doesn't account for the fact that incomes and wealth generally rise over time. But then considering it's the US where their minimum wage hasn't changed in ages. So technically taking inflation into account people on minimum wage are poorer in real terms than in the past. His "made in china" arguments didn't make much sense but that's another topic entirely.:P

[Lupino]

Really, all you have to do is google "income inequality in america" and you'll find plenty of information on this sad fact.
Sad sorry state of affairs


The top 10% control more wealth than the entire bottom 90%; hell the top 1% control more wealth than the bottom 90%. Which is rich (pun intended) when you see stories on Fox about how the bottom half of that graph pays no federal taxes and what an outrage that is. Look at that graph above and tell me with a straight face the poor need to be taxed more.

Edit: And kudos to Bernie yesterday for the epic speech. It's a shame the Republicans weren't forced to make actual filibusters like that, rather than just threaten, to uphold their obstructionist goals.

[JackhammerIV]

This info is a bit old but meh can't be bothered to find anything more recent or reliable...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona..._United_States

Might as well put the incomes in a list for easier reading. This is all roughly.
Earn over 75k- Top 10%
Earn over 50k- Top 25%
Earn over 25k- Top 50%
Earn less than 25k- Bottom 50%
Earn less than 12.5k- Bottom 25%
Earn less than 5k- Bottom 10%

Then it seems having a professional degree (lawyer, engineer, accountant, doctor, architect) or a PhD gives you a pretty good chance (not guaranteed) of being in that top 10% (based off of median incomes by educational attainment). Similarly having a bachelor's degree gives you a good chance to be in the top 25% of income earners. Just graduating high school gives you a good chance to be in that top 50%. Of course there are cases where for example PhD student forced to work in McDonald's so it's just a chance not a guarantee.:P

So we can think of those in the Bottom 50% as generally being high school dropouts, on minimum wage and/or pensioners.

[TheEconomist]

I was planning on typing up something similar when I got back home, Jackhammer. Thanks for saving me the effort.

People need to realize that most people are in poverty because of their own laziness or stupidity. I know, I live with these people.

[Todie]

People need to realize that most people are in poverty because of their own laziness or stupidity. I know, I live with these people.

......
i will try not to get deep into this. let me just say this: socio-economic injustice is circumstantial. people arnt born stupid/lazy they are born into an environment that fails to promote their full potential. its ridiculously hard to fully offset this but they one way that is proven to work is government intervention. public schooling is a big part of this. even i dare say public school quality in rough US neighbourhoods is questionable.

its important to understand that this is a vicious circle; parents failed by the system have kids that they have a hard time helping and inspiring into performing better (and staying out of trouble..)

[TheEconomist]

- I wish you knew how ironic it is that you are saying that to me. If you don't want to look like an ass, don't talk to me about rough US neighborhoods or socio-economic injustice. I grew up in Miami Gardens. I know infinitely more about this than you do. I'm getting tired of saying this, but, short of New Orleans (the murder capitol of the world) there's no place in a first-world country that you're more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in. I know these people and I know why they are what they are; and it's not a lack of opportunities or governmental intervention. It disgusts me that this newest generation has been taught to ALWAYS blame others intead of themselves for their problems. No wonder they don't have the spine to help themselves out of their problem when I did so so relatively easy. Thank God America has been the least effected by these crippling influences.

Give a person the opportunity to work hard and be rewarded and those who deserve wealth will get it. Education, as it is, is more than adequate for providing this. No, it's not perfect and someone who is given a headstart will of course end up father along, but that's not the point. Wealth is a destination/journey; not something you are owed overnight. If a person is failing school, stop blaming the fucking teachers. People like you are what keeps these people from getting more educated. They will never analyze themselves and make changes. So, in reality, people like you are more responsible for the problems than lack of government intervention.

- Of course people aren't born lazy or stupid, they are allowed to be so because society allows them to live in comfort with very little effort. Even the poorest of people still have their basic needs met if they spend their money right. Why would they struggle if there's no need to? If you're comfortable and your needs are met, it's a scientifically verifiable fact that, without some other form of motivating influence, your body simply won't produce the stress hormones to cause you to get motivated. Telling someone mediocrity is acceptable or that its someone else's fault they're poor will also prevent these hormones. Of course, even without the scientific breakdown (which is undeniable by the way) this was common knowledge 75 years ago. Its amazing how far the world has fallen because of the damn socialists and communists. I fear we'll never have a generation as great as the generation the turn of the 20th century.

- As for promoting full potential, boo-fucking-hoo, that's a pathetic way of looking at it. And ideologies such as that are what breed weak people today. Motivated people triumph inspite of adversity; not because it was easier. Having to struggle makes you tougher which is what fuels most of the world's innovation today. If the world was run your way, we'd all have a bunch of weak, lazy useless people who break down when pressure reaches a certain point. Given I'm one of the people who you claim has been done wrong, I'd say I have more credibility than you. Since I fought against more of what you're talking about than you can imagine, I'd say that's an accurate assessment. I even have a tumor on my pituitary that two doctors (and a surgeon) agree was the result of too much cortisol release during my childhood which was the result of too much childhood trauma. Despite this, I say adversity is what makes a person so cut the idealistic bullshit. You are ruining the world.

- You don't live in America so you wouldn't know. The declining middle class is largely the fault of the people who have become lazy due to how easy life is in America even at the lowest income. If they were starving, they'd work and, in working, they'd gain a lot more for themselves. Instead, they can work for minimum wage and still live better than most of the world and just about anyone that lived more than two hundreds years ago. This is a cycle that all great nations has faced. You know the saying, "Great nations are destroyed from within." A coutry that becomes great will eventually become too great and the people will be come lazy (or something similar) until their nation declines. At which point, reality and motvation will set in and they will begin a new. This has been going on since the pre-cursors to the middle class were created. I'm surprised people still think this time is different.

To sum it up without going into more depth, if I can face 10000x more adversity than the average first-world citizen (including you) and I still made it to success, anyone who is properly motivated can. Instead, you want to homogenize the starting points so that there are no extra-motivated persons. That's an understandable desire, since its a creature's nature to be sympathetic towards its own plight and others who have the same, but it is misguided and goes directly against the very laws of nature which you can never deny.

[Todie]

[...]I know these people and I know why they are what they are; and it's not a lack of opportunities or governmental intervention.

so what are they? sounds to me like you were like, born superior or had some key influence that made you able to help yourself out of your problem. lots of people dont. i accept thats how the world works, but ill never stop asking why and how we can help them for everyone's benefit.

i dont get why anyone would think "having the spine" to help youself isnt a learnable trait.

If a person is failing school, stop blaming the fucking teachers. People like you are what keeps these people from getting more educated. They will never analyse themselves and make changes. So, in reality, people like you are more responsible for the problems than lack of government intervention.

again, people arnt born with the ability and inspiration to "analyze themselves". to a huge extent, people will be what their surroundings expect them to be. Ergo, if they go to a shitty school with disilusioned classmates, teachers and parents, they will perform shitty with their education.

Obviously, no one will get anywhere in life without accepting responsibility for their own actions. but how can you analyse your situation and take responsibility for your acting in working hard towards a goal if you have no reason to believe this is an attainable goal?
its a rhetorical question.

Im not saying the vicious circle is easy to brake, just that you have to start somewhere. making sure there's enough considerate teachers with enough time to see every student is a good place to start. (Idealistic as it may seem, i've eprsonally / professionally seen the young take immense impression)

youre making me out like a communist, witch i find funny considering how you tried to dispute Dsuids supposedly faulty stamtent that youre "rooting for the taxbrakes" ... im tempted to generalize to point out that hes probably more or less correct; your arguments are certainly right wing enough to fit the bill.

for the record, "complete" opportunity equalization has more or less been proven counter-productive but that certainly doesnt mean that we should have none of it.

... life being too easy even if you perform badly is IMO a different topic of discussion. it might be related to some extent, but blaming everything on this as you seem to be doing is pretty creepy to me, for lack of a better word.

im not discussing this further with you as the discussion is too polarized.. i faguely recall similar discussions from the before-time.

I bid you good day.