Why is Bernie Winning?

originally posted by: Signals
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Answer the question and stop making assinine assumptions about fellow poster's age and political leanings.

What are you going to do when you run out of other people's money?!?

Not one Sanders supporter on ATS can answer this simple question...

The reason people don't answer it is because it is a fairly ridiculous strawman question.

a reply to: eluryh22

Yeah, BS'ing is kind of the wrong word...it's not just lying to people (which BS'ing implies) ... what it really means is being able to schmooze people, get along with anyone, build trust and get people to depend on you. You need to be sharp and be the first person to move, not the last.

You quite literally have to be the person you want to be before you are that person. People can sense stuff like that. People will follow and give money/loans to someone confident in themselves and their abilities.

Perception is reality. You could build the best houses, but if your website is crap, I might move to the next contractor and hire them. You need to market yourself and make others believe you are something bigger and better than you really are.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I suspect you and I were "cut from the same cloth" as they say.

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: alan2102z
[snip]
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.
[snip]
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.

Yes, of course it takes hard work. My sarcasm was not coming from a place that denies the value of hard work. It is just a matter of numbers, and the difference between individuals and large groups. For every one like you, 10 or 20, or more, are stuck, struggling, doing the hard work, making the sacrifices, but not getting ahead, or if getting ahead, getting ahead only slightly for a whole hell of a lot of effort (reward not proportionate to effort). Hard work: yes, fine, but the reward has to be there sooner or later, and for many it is not.

This was somewhat less true 30 and 50 years ago, during the big postwar boom. A healthy growing economy acts like leverage for everyone and especially people who are willing to work: a higher proportion of them will make it, will greatly improve their material status. A lot of the "success" and self-help core ideas are from that era of growth, in which social mobility was somewhat more of a reality than today. But that world is gone and it probably is not coming back for a generation or two, if ever. The old farts today (the boomers), having grown up in that world with more opportunity, don't understand this. "Born on third and think they hit a triple".

You write: "I'm sincerely asking (everyone, not just you) what they think that path from lower to middle class (and beyond) should look like."

My answer depends on the level at which you speak. Are you asking what the path should look like (or probably will entail) for an individual, or for a large group? If the former, then my advice would be stuff like you said -- hard work, etc. -- and would not differ much from the average success/self-help book, except for the expectations/promises. The individual must accept that there is, realistically, a large chance of failure, either partial or complete. You're very likely NOT going to become a 10X millionaire, or even a 1X millionaire, the way the self-help books promise you. You probably CAN improve your lot to some modest extent, assuming you don't have special barriers (physically impaired, very old, convicted felon, etc.) or big debts. Hard work pays off to some extent, most of the time, for individuals. However, luck of the draw plays a large role as well, and after all of your hard work you might still wind up with zilch. Ug. Painful truth.

For big groups, an effective approach has to be different. You can't throw self-help books at 80 million people, exhort them to "work hard", and expect significant socioeconomic changes. This is not denying the value of hard work for the individual; it is admitting that advice for individuals does not scale.

We need a more-level playing field so that 9 out of 10 (or whatever the number is) don't fail and spend decades just treading water, or sinking. The playing field is leveled by many things, but just a few off the top: more support for students (college diploma being essentially like a HS diploma was 60 years ago); better health care structure (like most OECD countries which spend ONE THIRD of what we spend for comparable quality care); more support of all kinds for the poor; and so on, and perhaps even a universal basic income (negative tax). All easily affordable; just start chopping and whittling at the military/industrial/security/prison/intelligence complex -- a source of endless hundreds of $billions in funding, currently being wasted. And, oh yes, don't forget to tax the rich and the corporations, whose tax rates are now at many-decade lows.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
You need to market yourself and make others believe you are something bigger and better than you really are.

Yes, such is late capitalism in the U.S. of A., and it SUCKS. For most people it is a crappy way to live , though granted it suits some naturally egotistical self-promotional borderline-psychopath types. Some people for whom it is crappy can't live with it at all; they become alcoholics, drug addicts, or just outright killing themselves - suicide. Perhaps you recall this headline from a couple months back: "'Deaths of despair' are killing America's white working class ...". These are people who CAN'T MAKE IT in this pressure-cooker capitalistic hyper-individualistic competitive world. It sucks so bad that they are literally dying off. What should they do? Work harder? Get a THIRD job? Positive thinking? Self-help books? Yoga?

Time (way past time) to level the playing field. Go Bernie! And his spawn...

a reply to: alan2102z

Although I love our modern gadgets, I have to admit I am sometimes envious of the previous generations where for the most part (as far as I can tell), the "average Joe" would finish school (h.s. or college for white collar people) and find a job with a good company and build a life around that (spouse, kids, white picket fence). I agree those days are gone and I lack the vision to see how we get back to that level.

As I was reading your post a recurring thought once again popped into my head. In some ways we, as a society, are outsmarting ourselves. As technology advances, entire industries all but disappear. The example I usually use is travel agents. Remember those? When I was younger I remember seeing travel agencies all over the place. Now, when most people want to plan a trip it takes a few minutes on the computer and you're all set. I always wonder what happened to all those travel agents.

The same could be said about administrative assistants (or what used to be called secretaries back in the day). I know two very nice, competent women who were just around 50 years old when the recession hit. Both were laid off. One was married to someone who made a decent living so she essentially retired. The other took a few years to find a job (in a hotel at a greatly reduced salary). Part of the problem for her was that as the recession eased, many, MANY companies that had let go assistants like her realized they didn't really NEED them anymore. Way back when, I "boss" would dictate a memo for the secretary to type up, or have her send a bunch of faxes, or make rounds of phone calls to set up meetings. Now? That same "boss" writes and sends his own e-mails and can schedule a meeting in less than a minute using Outlook.

I suppose what I'm getting at is I believe in X-decades technology will get us to that "Star Trek" place where nobody is in need and people basically pursue what they are interested rather than working for a living to make ends meet as we do now. However, I think we are in the very beginning of a long terrible stretch of growing pains.

Just look how far robots have come. I know people will say that new jobs to build/repair robots will be made, but I don't see how that will be enough. If a warehouse that employs 100 people fires everyone and replaces them with robots, the 100 humans will be replaced by just a handful of techs. (I'm not an expert, just making up numbers).

I think people are ignorant to the fact it's all about delegates in the primaries, much like the electoral college in the election. It doesn't matter who has the most votes it matters who has the most delegates. As of right now Hillary is destroying Sanders.

D emocrat Delegate Count

Money rules politics and Clinton and Trump have it.

And you thought you had a choice? Ha.

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: alan2102z
[snip]
I suppose what I'm getting at is I believe in X-decades technology will get us to that "Star Trek" place where nobody is in need and people basically pursue what they are interested rather than working for a living to make ends meet as we do now. However, I think we are in the very beginning of a long terrible stretch of growing pains.
Just look how far robots have come. I know people will say that new jobs to build/repair robots will be made, but I don't see how that will be enough. If a warehouse that employs 100 people fires everyone and replaces them with robots, the 100 humans will be replaced by just a handful of techs. (I'm not an expert, just making up numbers).

YES. The "star trek" future is even here right now, to a large extent, in the sense that total productive capacity on earth is easily enough to comfortably feed, house, clothe, etc., everyone -- all 7 billion of us. The problem is that so much is stolen, hoarded and wasted (the top .01% having ~50% of all wealth on the planet, or something close), that this cannot happen.

The wealth gap will get relentlessly worse with -- just as you point out -- advanced automation and robotics etc. displacing masses of workers. That's bad, but at the same time it means that the total productive capacity on earth is even BETTER! i.e. we could not only feed, house and clothe everyone, we could probably give everyone a new car or equivalent. Or actually, for many of us, to hell with the new car; I just want to work only 20 hours per week for my fare, and have the rest of my time free! WHY NOT? It is physically possible. Easy, even. There is NO reason for us to be slaving-away 40+ hours per week just to survive. TEN hours per week really ought to do it, at this late date.

The people who complain about "entitlement complex" and "running out of other people's money" and "free s**t army" are, it seems, failing to grasp the physical economic realities of our planet at this time. THERE IS PLENTY. THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH. It is NOT a zero sum game thingie with not enough to go around. There is PLENTY to go around. The people with the "entitlement complex" -- the REAL "free s**t army" -- are the 1%, and more so the .1%, and still more so the .01%. Oh, wait, you think that their $trillions "belong" to them, the same way your house belongs to you?! I call B.S. on that. NO ONE can rightfully own 100,000 times more than everyone else. Wealth in great excess is, properly, a public trust.

We need a universal guaranteed basic income (blanket negative tax), to cope with the onrushing wealth disparity and unemployment crisis -- already very bad and poised to become dramatically worse. And btw for those of you who like capitalism, note that the only way to save capitalism's sorry ass is to do something like this -- a NEW New Deal for the 21st century. Remember that FDR was not opposed to capitalism; TPTB installed him in large part to SAVE capitalism, which would otherwise likely have been overthrown in a socialist/communist revolution (the fires of which were already burning). FDR was successful, and capitalism got a new lease on life for a half-century or so.

Anyway, without such a New Deal, capitalism U.S.-style will turn the nation into such a hideous neo-feudal hell that it will self-destruct. If you want to save capitalism, you've got to think BIG in socialism terms. Otherwise, your baby is toast.

[ jeez, I really am grinding out the rants here, aren't I? ]

a reply to: eluryh22

3D printing is the first step towards the technology you speak of. Can it come soon enough? Maybe. All I know is that until it does it doesn't matter whatsoever who the president. We will be slaves of live to work society until then while poverty & despair run rampant.

Bernie on Free stuff vs corporate entitlement -

www.youtube.com...

Question: is this remotely correct?

source: taxfoundation.org...

"U.S. Workers Face a Tax Burden of 31.5 Percent.
Average Worker Pays over $17,000 in Income and Payroll Taxes.
Washington, DC (July 16, 2015)—U.S. wage earners face a 31.5 percent tax burden on their pre-tax income according to a new report from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation"

I live in a democratic society (scandinavia) close to what Bernie Sanders is proposing. I pay aprox 35% tax. free education and free healthcare. I`s this really such a huge leap for you when talking about income tax?

Im struggling to understand that this would bee a deal breaker.

My wife to be is American so I'm quite interested in how things are turning out for you guys.

static.currentaffairs.org...
"Some in the media have rushed to declare Sanders’s campaign moribund in the wake of his recent loss in Nevada. This is absurd; after all, out of 50 states, only three have voted, one being a tie, one being a major Sanders win, and one being a small Clinton win. The media has dishonestly pointed to Hillary Clinton’s higher superdelegate count as evidence of her strong lead, despite knowing full well that superdelegates are highly unlikely to risk tearing the party apart by taking the nomination out of voters’ hands, and are thus mostly a formality. The press has also crafted a narrative about Sanders “slipping behind,” ignoring the fact that Sanders has been behind from the very start; not for a moment has he been in front."

Because the education system has been corrupted for the last 50 years. We have a young generation of brainwashed and disenfranchised, only concerned about getting what they believe they are entitled to. Add to that, very little reference given to historical facts and their implications, opting instead for filtered versions of history painting America in a negative light. Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.

a reply to: smitastrophe

Look, I'm going to assume you're a reasonable person here, since you seem reasonable enough. Being a reasonable person, you understand that getting money out of politics is the most important issue. It is absolutely paramount. Who else but Bernie can we trust to do it? Clinton? Trump? Those are the only two with even the remote possibility of doing something about it, and I wouldn't expect them to any further than I could throw either of them. And I am not a very strong person.

I personally believe that almost all of Bernie's policies are excellent. You may disagree, think it's entitlement, or whatever. (Though I feel like, particularly with education, specifically its cost, students nowadays are far, far worse off than the way things once were.) Fine, that's your prerogative. You might think Bernie will turn the US into the USSR somehow. I don't see it getting past congress, and in the worst case, the second amendment exists for a reason.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I'm hangry (hungry+tired) ...

Huh!

Is that like....hungired?
Me, too.

originally posted by: smitastrophe
Because the education system has been corrupted for the last 50 years. We have a young generation of brainwashed and disenfranchised, only concerned about getting what they believe they are entitled to. Add to that, very little reference given to historical facts and their implications, opting instead for filtered versions of history painting America in a negative light. Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.

More like "those who deliberately corrupt education are intentionally trying to repeat history."

Bernie isn't winning he's losing terribly. I guess the Bernie supporters don't know what delegates are and why they are important in a presidential race. He will be out of the race within a few weeks tops. He has so little chance it boggles my mind that people still talk about him. It's like talking about John Kasich for pres. at this point.

It's almost a guarantee at this point to be a Trump/Hillary general. If Trump wins the US has a chance to rebound and dig ourselves out of this massive debt pit. If Hitlery wins she'll finish up where Obummer left off (status-quo)

a reply to: EyeKyu

I thought it was 51 to 52 in sponsored delegates?

Super delegates are known for swaying with the popular vote, if they don't, it will destroy the dem party for many years to come.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GoShredAK

There are tons of Hillary supporters. The reason you don't see any is likely because of your personal bubble and that ATS treats Hillary supporters almost as bad as they treat Hillary.

People often forget that ATS isn't an accurate representative of the opinions of the entire country. Heck that is true of the whole internet at large with all the personal echo chambers you can go to and just hear people who agree with you all the time.

Ya sure their are.

Let me know what in the world would make a person support her, when she clearly has NO platform, no plan, and NOONE has any dam clue what she is going to do if wins.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: EyeKyu

I thought it was 51 to 52 in sponsored delegates?

Super delegates are known for swaying with the popular vote, if they don't, it will destroy the dem party for many years to come.

It's 505-71.

Clinton already holds over half the party’s superdelegates, the top-level lawmakers and party officials who qualify automatically as a convention delegate because of their “luminary” status.

It's a nice communist-esque loop-hole saying your votes don't really count much as long as she has friends in high places (DNC)

Only way anyone is stopping Clinton is by voting for Trump. Maybe get on board, or get 4 more years of the white female Obama. She will be worse than Angela Merkel has been for Germany.