Why is Bernie Winning?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Because while not free it has the appearance of free and will be labeled as being free. It's "free" after you pay for it.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Signals
It's a simple formula, Hitlery's doing it to.

Promise able-bodied people that should be working FREE STUFF.

How's it "free stuff" if we'll all pay more in taxes? Even the students will pay more in personal income taxes, especially after they start careers after college. The difference is, they won't be crushed by student loans, high healthcare costs, and low wages in the process.

No, we'll all be crushed. Socialism guarantees equality of misery.

LOL at the "equality of misery" point. If that's the argument, then what about the widespread misery from capitalism right now? Look at all of the American households that have crippling debt, crippling healthcare costs, are near the poverty line, are living off of $8.00/hour or less, can't get full time work, or need financial assistance right now. And all of the Americans whose lives were ruined during the 2008 foreclosure crisis (or the millions of American jobs that were shipped overseas to capitalize on the cheaper labor).

It's both ridiculous and sad that people like you demonize socialism yet ignore the catastrophe's caused by unchecked capitalism. Stronger socialist programs would prevent most of the suffering we have in America, but apparently that's not a desirable thing for some of you.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Uhh... No offense, but how do I respond to that? Wait, do you mean "it'll appear to be free to some demographics while other demographics are the ones who'll be paying for it"? Because this line is throwing me for a loop:

It's "free" after you pay for it.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Uhh... No offense, but how do I respond to that? Wait, do you mean "it'll appear to be free to some demographics while other demographics are the ones who'll be paying for it"? Because this line is throwing me for a loop:

It's "free" after you pay for it.

Yes. It has the appearance of free because you are not paying for it directly. It IS being paid for though, through taxes, so it's "free" after it's paid for with tax dollars, but people view it as free.

Perception trumps reality every time.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Then shouldn't the emphasis be on educating the public about this rather than attacking it as "free stuff"? Actual socialists and the people who support these programs already know this. But it's the people who've been brainwashed to think "Socialism will create a Stalinist hellhole!" that don't seem to get it.

Then again, a lot of people profit from the current price gouging system. So it makes sense that a lot of them don't want to take the profit out of healthcare, education, and the such.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Because educating them on it will prevent them from supporting it. The only way to get support is to sell it as "free".

originally posted by: Signals

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Signals
It's a simple formula, Hitlery's doing it to.

Promise able-bodied people that should be working FREE STUFF.

The only people who repeat this "free stuff" mantra over and over again are conservatives. Most liberals and DEFINITELY most Socialists understand that the costs for social programs come from taxes.

Yes, and what happens when the taxes are too high or when you run out of other people's money?

Considering we had a 90% tax rate at one point AND were economically successful (to a greater degree than we are today), I doubt that is something worth considering.

a reply to: alan2102z

It sounds like we are pretty close in our views. The funny thing is libertarians and Austrian economists are notoriously anti-state, anti-corporatism, and anti-war. Saying that the folks who pushed for the Gramm-Leach-Bailey Act (repeal of the Glass Steagall Act) were libertarian is kind of a misnomer. It was an extremely bipartisan congressionally approved legislation, in what many libertarians and Austrian economists would argue was a way to help their friends on wall street get rich.

I like your analysis of the "anti-big Government" crowd; it reminds me of the 'conservatives' who wail against social welfare but want more military spending.

I think the only difference I have with you based on what you have written is that you consider the fat cats on wall street the wolves guarding the hen house, whereas I consider the politicians especially in Congress who pass legislation to favor the fat cats and their lobbyist interests the wolves.

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: alan2102z

American here......I despise social programs. None of them work because the government always finds a way to mess them up with corruption.

As far as Bernie winning, the superdelegates would disagree. Clinton has been hand picked

That statement is pretty much the truth.

Social Security has been robbed blind, and they are telling people it's broke.

People have paid into social security their entire lives only to be robbed for future security. Bernie is an idealist rather than a realist.

On paper his ideas may sound great, but with our current MO it's idealism.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
People love the idea of free.

Yes, especially the wealthy. They want to stay on the dole forever! And a BIG dole it is.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Signals
It's a simple formula, Hitlery's doing it to.

Promise able-bodied people that should be working FREE STUFF.

How's it "free stuff" if we'll all pay more in taxes? Even the students will pay more in personal income taxes, especially after they start careers after college. The difference is, they won't be crushed by student loans, high healthcare costs, and low wages in the process.

No, we'll all be crushed. Socialism guarantees equality of misery.

LOL at the "equality of misery" point. If that's the argument, then what about the widespread misery from capitalism right now? Look at all of the American households that have crippling debt, crippling healthcare costs, are near the poverty line, are living off of $8.00/hour or less, can't get full time work, or need financial assistance right now. And all of the Americans whose lives were ruined during the 2008 foreclosure crisis (or the millions of American jobs that were shipped overseas to capitalize on the cheaper labor).

It's both ridiculous and sad that people like you demonize socialism yet ignore the catastrophe's caused by unchecked capitalism. Stronger socialist programs would prevent most of the suffering we have in America, but apparently that's not a desirable thing for some of you.

VERY well said, thank you!

For generations, vast energies have been spent by TPTB to "demonize socialism yet ignore [downplay, dismiss] the catastrophes caused by unchecked capitalism". And they have to a large extent succeeded! Especially with now-older people, who came up and spent most of their lives in the cold war era (circa 1947-1991). A couple generations of Americans were brainwashed to hate and fear socialism and ignore the disaster of capitalism. It became and still is a Stockholm Syndrome kind of thing -- these people actually like and defend the system that is f**king them over! (Now THAT is a true triumph of propaganda!) But with the younger generation, this is wearing off. "Socialism" is not a dirty word anymore, like it is for the old farts. The tea party phenomenon -- largely older people -- was probably the last hurrah of the anti-socialism meme. The younger people gravitated to OWS, and now Bernie. And it will continue for years and decades, as the economy goes to hell and as more of the old farts die off, replaced by much more enlightened and progressive young people. The Bernie upsurge is just the beginning of a sea change.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Consider [that] we had a 90% tax rate at one point AND were economically successful (to a greater degree than we are today)

Excellent point, oft forgotten!

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: alan2102z
It sounds like we are pretty close in our views. The funny thing is libertarians and Austrian economists are notoriously anti-state, anti-corporatism, and anti-war. Saying that the folks who pushed for the Gramm-Leach-Bailey Act (repeal of the Glass Steagall Act) were libertarian is kind of a misnomer. It was an extremely bipartisan congressionally approved legislation, in what many libertarians and Austrian economists would argue was a way to help their friends on wall street get rich.

Thanks, and I partially agree. It was a particular baldly-neoliberal contingent -- with much in common with libertarians -- that pushed that stuff. However, note that the libertarians generally approve of neoliberalism as a sort of partial libertarianism. They did not object materially to the dismantling of (as I said) precisely the things that most needed to be retained and defended.

I like your analysis of the "anti-big Government" crowd; it reminds me of the 'conservatives' who wail against social welfare but want more military spending.
I think the only difference I have with you based on what you have written is that you consider the fat cats on wall street the wolves guarding the hen house, whereas I consider the politicians especially in Congress who pass legislation to favor the fat cats and their lobbyist interests the wolves.

OK. Well, I see them as facilitators of wolves. They are not the real wolves because they don't get the big money that the wolves are going after; they just get trivial scraps (though substantial in absolute terms). The politicians are like rather low-paid useful idiots for the wolves.

Sanders Leads Clinton By Six Percent Nationally In New Poll
Read more at www.inquisitr.com...

From back on page 2:

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: ghostrager
[snip]
Bernie will likely bring a lame duck congress and the only good he will do, which is the very first step in cleaning up our issues is to bring focus to Corruption.
You can't fix corruption until you bring focus to corruption and you cant bring focus to corruption until it becomes issue 1 at a political level.
Bernie is the only one that is bringing corruption to the forefront as issue #1 while trump blames China , mexico, and Muslims.

I agree. The way you "bring focus" to it is to freaking simply DISCUSS IT, PUBLICLY, including on the MSM. That, of course, is not happening now, except to a limited extent in the wake of the Bernie insurgency. And that is the value of Bernie: opening up the discussion, the national conversation. Of course it would be much better if he went on to get the nomination and the WH. We'll see. But he has already made inroads, and it is now evident that large blocs of the voting public are F**KING FED UP with BAU politicians. That is the real significance and value of Bernie. To a lesser extent it is also the significance and value of Trump. Trump is a crude customer and doesn't have any coherent answers but at least he is not BAU. This year, the people are saying that BAU politicians truly are reaching the end of their rope. That's progress.

Having said all that , I'm not sure why the OP thinks Bernie is winning? actually I think because the system is rigged and to many lobbyist are making money of Obamacare that Hillary will become our next president sadly enough.

See above. Yes, HRC or Trump will probably be the next POTUS. But they will be sitting on a powderkeg that grows more strained and explosive with each passing year, and they probably won't make it to the end of their first term before the explosion. The "conversation" that I keep talking about WILL happen. It is just a question of when (earlier with Bernie) and how (more comfortable and organic with Bernie). That is unless it is Trump and he goes "full retard" (as someone up thread wrote) fascist tyrant, arresting all dissenters, etc. Which is possible, I admit, though unlikely.

from page 4:

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
The people making all the money pay and lobby to have laws passed to keep themselves rich, keep the poor downtrodden and finance propaganda to convince the poor that the rich are benevolent, generous overlords.
From movies, books, music -- it's everywhere. YOU TO CAN BE RICH! American Dream!
The American Dream is long, long dead. It's dead, been crucified, cremated and blasted off into space. The Horatio Alger myth that got the American Dream crap all started was in response to freed slaves after the Civil War.
What better way to keep a huge group of newly freed slaves under control? Convince them that they too can become wealthy and successful!
Its how you control the unwashed masses, you convince them that they are somehow richer than they are -- that there's hope for them in a hopelessly rigged system via cultural touchstones and mainstream media.

Well said, thanks.

For anyone interested in this subject, the operative phrase/idea is: "the myth of social mobility".
Try this:
google for myth of social mobility

Yes, with positive thinking, hard work, and my new book on the Law of Attraction, YOU TOO can become rich and famous, and live like the glitterati in People magazine! [/sarc]

It really is a MYTH, a pack of lies. Americans have never liked to think of themselves as living in a rigid class system -- but they do. Classes exist, and although some individuals manage to move up, the proportion is quite small.

a reply to: alan2102z

Correct. Upward social mobility is harder now than it was 10, 20, and 30 years ago.

These days if you come up with a great product or new app/software -- you'll be bought out for pennies on the dollar by extreme pressure from the "big boys". You won't be allowed to join the "big boys" -- but you'll sure as hell be pressured to sell them your technology or ideas.

It takes a LOT OF CAPITAL to break into the world these days -- something that unless you come from wealth is really, really hard to get. I think this is the attraction of crowd funding sites ... it allows the little guy to raise the money needed to get a project off the ground....usually to be bought up later by a mega-corp but I digress....

a reply to: alan2102z

It really is a MYTH, a pack of lies. Americans have never liked to think of themselves as living in a rigid class system -- but they do. Classes exist, and although some individuals manage to move up, the proportion is quite small.

Although I'm definitely not "rich" (or what I consider "rich" to be), I suppose I fall into that small proportion. Long story short I grew up in what I think anybody would consider a poor family. Finished high school and immediately moved out (college really wasn't an option at the time). I worked various crappy jobs until I found one that was in a field that I liked enough to pursue a career in. Fast forward and my wife and I each have a car, our son is in private school and we will hopefully be purchasing our first home this year (knock on wood).

I know that we all live in something like a dual-reality. That is, I understand that we all can review statistics and charts and numbers.... but at the same time we see what actually happens in our own lives and to those around us.

I said all that to ask this question about upward mobility..... What should that look like?

I'm trying to understand what people's expectations are. If someone comes from a poor family and manages to go to college (in my neck of the woods the State Universities are still relatively affordable), then they graduate.... is the expectation that they just send out some resumes and viola! They are making six figures?

I promise you I am not trying to sound like a wise-guy here. I'm sincerely asking (everyone, not just you) what they think that path from lower to middle class (and beyond) should look like.

Yes, with positive thinking, hard work, and...

I know it is all but a cliche, but there really is a lot of truth to that. Working hard (in the early days of my career that meant working on the weekends, volunteering to cover overnight shifts, etc) and having the right attitude will not GUARANTEE you success, but I can ALMOST assure you that without it, you wont stand a chance.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

a reply to: eluryh22

The thing is -- hard work alone isn't enough. It takes guile and the ability to BS and sell yourself. You have to make others believe in you and be willing to give you more responsibility, money, power.

Being able to BS other people and sell yourself will actually get you farther than toiling away silently in the background. If you never stand out, stand up, and get noticed -- you'll just be ground down and used as a beast of burden.

You basically have to convince other people that you are worthy of being rich and that they should throw their money at you...

But in order to do that -- you first have to believe that and convince yourself of all that...

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I disagree with exactly nothing of what you wrote.

I'm not sure if I would call it BS-ing, but as far as dealing with people and all that jazz.... just like developing technical skills and experience, if someone is conscious about it and wants to improve, it will come with time.

I'm not rich, so I can't speak about people who make millions per year, but I can say that in conjunction with the intangibles you are talking about, the best way that I have gotten significant raises is by being able to demonstrate my worth. If someone is helping a company make good profits, that company will not want that person to leave and one of the best ways to keep an employee is to pay them well. (Disclaimer: Yes, there are some companies that will try to take advantage of you, but then it's up to you to take your skills and experience elsewhere).