Sensible Erection | Bernie Sanders sums up why GOP plans for economy are doing damage to the USA

Sunday, 5 December 2010

Bernie Sanders sums up why GOP plans for economy are doing damage to the USA

Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, explaining the American economic situation and the risks it faces. Whether you agree or not, this guy is worth a listen because he is eloquent, topical, and very passionate.

Some background info on Sanders, the only self-avowed socialist serving in the US Senate:

http://sanders.senate.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

[politics] [by feldenglas@1:32amGMT] [+10 Insightful]

Comments

benjamander said @ 1:40am GMT on 5th Dec
Vermont represent!!
(spoiler alert: Nobody is from vermont. i.e. I will not "get a woot woot!")

feldenglas said @ 1:51am GMT on 5th Dec
Haha, my residence in Vermont has NOTHING to do with this post, I assure you. Nothing!

Where you at? Washington County here.

benjamander said @ 3:38am GMT on 5th Dec
Viva Rut-Vegas, baby.

Galley said @ 12:08am GMT on 6th Dec
Ugh, Rutland. My sympathies.

Larry said @ 2:25am GMT on 5th Dec
Hi. I'm Larry, and this is my cousin Daryl, and my other cousin, Daryl.

Daryl said @ 2:25am GMT on 5th Dec [Score:1 Funny]
...

Daryl said @ 2:26am GMT on 5th Dec [Score:1 Funny]
...

Tirade said @ 3:26am GMT on 5th Dec
Technically I'm 'from' Vermont. I was born there. Lived there for about three months.

graham said @ 7:47pm GMT on 5th Dec

oddzer said @ 9:24pm GMT on 6th Dec
ugh

Galley said @ 12:07am GMT on 6th Dec
Woot Woot! Fairfax Represent!

lilmookieesquire said @ 1:49am GMT on 5th Dec [Score:1 Informative]
I came.

711 said @ 1:50am GMT on 5th Dec
I am next door in White Hampshire.

I like Bernie

the belt said @ 12:26pm GMT on 5th Dec
Congratulations on your large penis!

Dioxin said @ 1:51am GMT on 5th Dec
Kevin Rudd has ruined "working families" for me forever.

Didel said @ 2:32am GMT on 5th Dec
Totally different tangent, I don't even know who Kevin Rudd is.

But what is a working family? I've never thought about it until you mentioned it, but to me it seems an overly broad, intentionally nebulous idea, solely used for political purposes.

I mean, do we compare that to a non-working family? Of which I can imagine 2 different types, those that have never worked in their life and are incredibly wealthy, or those who currently are not working due to their being unemployed. First, I've never met any of the former and I feel the latter deserve even more consideration. Most of the rich people I have ever met, or heard about are wealthy because they've worked for it, I believe very few people have inherited fortunes and never actually worked. I'd even consider charity work as work in this conversation.

In America and most of the Western world, the man is the one who is supposed to work and make money, while the woman stays at home and raise children. Now of course this is changing, we see many women in the work force, and not solely because they choose to work and raise a family but because they need the money to raise their family. But even in the case where the mother does not work, are we saying that it isn't work to raise a family? Do we devalue the mother that much to discount the effort it takes, and say, "if you're not directly contributing to the overall economic system of the country, you're not working?"

Another point I'd like to make. How many families actually consist of members of which all are employed? I'm sure in the third world this occurs quite often, but I can't say I've ever met to many people in this country under the age of 16 working full time jobs (a few of course, but usually they weren't members of a family unit which included a father and mother both working, or they had chosen to drop out of school to work, which isn't to discount these individuals, but I leave them out of this conversation). Most kids go to school in the US, usually, but of course not always until the age of 18 or so. So given a typical family of 4, we have half the members not working until they reach what we would consider an adult age. But many teens do work part time jobs, and an unfortunately large number of teens drop out of school to get part time or full time jobs of course, but usually not until the age of 15 or 16. I guess we should count children at school as working. I wonder if it was treated moreso if children and teens might take it more seriously, probably not.

Also, do only families count? Do I not deserve any political consideration because I'm single and don't have a family? Anyways, I don't think I've ever met an "un-working family," rich or poor.

So, a long meaningless diatribe over a meaningless phrase. I have no life on a Saturday night. But feel free to attack me personally over having an opinion that is different than yours!

turtlefire said @ 3:45am GMT on 5th Dec
have you been drinking? I suggest hitting up match.com.

happiest_sadist said @ 3:57am GMT on 5th Dec
To me, it's pretty obvious that a "working family" is a family which is wholly supported by income from work rather than from income from interest or dividends or profits. Since I haven't looked it up, I recognize that's just my opinion.
Since you're expecting a personal attack: DAMN YOU DIDEL YOU FAT STINK MEANIE WITH A DIFFERING OPINION!!!!!!!!!!11

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=definition+of+working+family
That link shows an array of definitions. Some are matters of opinion, some are matters of law or regulation.

structured_spirits said @ 4:05am GMT on 5th Dec
Well, I think in the American mindset, the rich don't work, that's the whole point of being rich, so you don't have to. Likewise, the poor do not work, that's why they're poor, because they don't have a job. In America, if you're working calling yourself poor is mislabeling traditionally speaking. It comes from the whole history of the work ethic in this country and the belief that the "middle class" or "working family" is the morally superior American, because they aren't lazy rich or lazy poor.

kichijoii said @ 5:34am GMT on 5th Dec
But even in the case where the mother does not work, are we saying that it isn't work to raise a family? Do we devalue the mother that much to discount the effort it takes, and say, "if you're not directly contributing to the overall economic system of the country, you're not working?"

Yes, actually. This is a bias carried over from the old days. In hunter/gatherer societies, celebrations were only held when the men actually caught and killed something, even though women's work (gathering, preparing grain, etc.) kept everyone alive. Also, because women give birth and breastfeed, its presumed that its the woman's duty to take care of the baby. In fact, even in households where both the man and woman work, the woman will usually do more housework and caring for the baby and family than the man. And, chances are neither one will see anything wrong with that. Fortunately this is changing as caring for one's child is perceived as gender-neutral.

In econ 101, the fact that housework is not considered as having any value is cited as a possible shortcoming of GDP calculation.

buzhidao said @ 1:03pm GMT on 5th Dec
in capitalism the woman is also supposed to consume goods. and now that more women have to go into the workforce just to make ends meet, she consumes less, so women in the work force have ruined the economy, natch.
although i have to say a lot of folks seems to need a lot of electronics items to make ends meet.

crom said @ 6:23pm GMT on 5th Dec
You think that working women consume less than their non-working counterparts?

Naruki said @ 2:32am GMT on 7th Dec
It's possible, since they tend to watch their weight more.

tickaz said @ 10:11am GMT on 5th Dec
Kevin Rudd is the former Prime Minister of Australia. I don't know why he was mentioned here though, although the whole "working families" thing was a big part of his political platform. I believe in the context of Kevin Rudd "working families" means working class/lower class families.

Also, a point you made was that children at school aren't working, because they are at school. Why do you think that study isn't work?

Captkirk said @ 2:14am GMT on 5th Dec
So if somebody gets rich, it is automatically assumed it was by making others poor?

Omegaphobic said @ 2:15am GMT on 5th Dec [Score:1 Insightful]
* keeping

feldenglas said @ 2:46am GMT on 5th Dec
Nope. He makes it pretty clear that there are some people out there who are wealthy AND ethical. Surprisingly few people find this objectionable.

lilmookieesquire said @ 7:37am GMT on 5th Dec
Can you deny 90% of the top 1% is?

There are many rich ethical people.

The super rich are mostly sketchy just by the merit of being super rich.

ie. Nobody needs yahts (plural).

lilmookieesquire said @ 7:44am GMT on 5th Dec
Ie re:compensation, the money should be re-invested in the company, NOT given to CEOs to take home regardless of their performance.

The top 1% typically get rich by crushing innovation and small business until they can copy it.

captkirk said @ 1:46pm GMT on 5th Dec
Class warfare Bullshit. I am not saying that has never happened, but it is not the norm

lilmookieesquire said @ 2:17pm GMT on 5th Dec
Taken a few MBA courses lately?

I'm not Timey.

I'm not talking about class warfare.

I'm pro business- the bottom line being the net improvement of human life/culture/society.

I'm talking about accepted best business practices and multinational corporations vs national governments.

There's a proper combination of profitable business and being able to sleep at night.

lilmookieesquire said @ 2:36pm GMT on 5th Dec
(no offense tiemy) <3

captkirk said @ 1:45pm GMT on 5th Dec
Who are you or anybody else to decide what somebody needs?

lilmookieesquire said @ 2:07pm GMT on 5th Dec [Score:2 Insightful]
A human.

You've never had people you call friends go homeless? Never had friends die because they couldn't afford healthcare good enough to save their lives? I have shirts made in sweatshops. I eat meat. I cause my share of worldly harm. People do bad things directly and indirectly.

I'm not saying poor people are fundamentally good. I'm not saying rich people are fundamentally evil. But there's only so much to go around and you can't deny some people have more than their share when it comes to inheritance, privileges, and advantages. And that doesn't have to be a bad thing.

But it can and sometimes is. The top 1% didn't get there without breaking a few eggs. That doesn't make them evil per say, but sometimes people in powerful positions have to make unpleasant choices- choices that are sometimes about choosing the lesser evil. But any book on manager theory tells you a manager has responsibilities towards shareholders. Not towards the greater good. Not towards long-term-healthy-environmentally-friendly profit.

Do you deny that? Am I wrong here?

Hito said @ 3:59pm GMT on 5th Dec [Score:1 Insightful]
If there are a finite number of dollars, yes. By definition, having more dollars leaves the collective rest poorer than they were before you had the added dollars. The entire world can't be super-wealthy. Otherwise, we'd all just be equal. There wouldn't be anyone willing to clean your house or wax your yacht.

I know, I know..."Stupid Commie Marxist Muslim Darkie Obamer prints all the dollars he wants, so your story doesn't hold up.", right? Wrong. Mathematically speaking, the person with more dollars will ALWAYS have a larger percentage of the money, even when more dollars are printed, unless those dollars are intentionally given to those with less as a method of reducing the wealth of the rich. That doesn't happen. The top 1% have gotten FAR richer since the 70s.

Mikhail_16 said @ 3:01am GMT on 5th Dec [Score:2]
I lost staring contest to the guy behind the speaker, i swear he doesn't blink... Fascinating speech though.

Ronin.ca said @ 3:18am GMT on 5th Dec
I fucking love the Vermontish. LOVE THEM!

benjamander said @ 3:53am GMT on 5th Dec
<3

feldenglas said @ 4:21am GMT on 5th Dec
We love you too!

Ronin.ca said @ 4:50am GMT on 5th Dec [Score:1 Informative]
I know, and you've shown it. In your state I have been given lifts while I stunk after a week on the LT. I've been sheltered for free in a LT volunteer's house, ate some truly spectacular food and drank some lovely beer. VT is one of the states I believe I could happily live in.

OH! Inn at the LT and Middlebury Inn? Both rock!

the belt said @ 3:43pm GMT on 5th Dec
Hell yes, LT! Finally thru-hiked it this year. Gorgeous hike, and like you say, fine state and people. Hiking out of the Inn buzzed is one of my best hiking memories, heading Northbound up the LT away from the AT folks with an ear-to-ear grin into a rain shower high on life... and 3 beers and an Irish coffee.

Can't wait to hike it again.

Ronin.ca said @ 12:48am GMT on 6th Dec
My wife and I are missing about 80km of it... I think we're going to do it one summer with our son.

If he promises to carry all our shit.

tickaz said @ 10:16am GMT on 5th Dec
Vermontish? I always thought it was Vermonese.

feldenglas said @ 12:48pm GMT on 5th Dec
Actually we prefer Vermonian.

farvelman said @ 9:17pm GMT on 5th Dec
I always thought it was Vermontiquarians...

tiemy said @ 7:34am GMT on 5th Dec
Sanders is a decades-old fraud - a "left" clown (like Kucinich) for the Democrats and the establishment.

He voted for the war in Afghanistan and every single funding bill for both the Iraq and Afghan wars. Most of his populism is couched in a noxious American nationalism (see his comments about "THE GOD DAMN CHINESE MAKING EVERYTHING IN THE STORE"), right in line with the bureaucrats in the trade unions.

And really no comment is needed on a 13 minute speech about the problems of American society where the government in power for the last two years goes unmentioned. Fucking joke.

lilmookieesquire said @ 7:41am GMT on 5th Dec [Score:1 Insightful]
When you have sex, do you complain to other person that they weren't good enough? I kid I kid. But really, is there ANY government official in the US you don't hate? Serious question.

Son_of_Sagan said @ 5:13pm GMT on 7th Dec
I agree. While I would wager that my politics would be very close to timey's, I find his delivery distressing. A little less vitriol would get him a long way.
I look at a guy like Bernie Sanders and think that while he may not be as "progressive" as I am he sure as hell is a guy who I can largely agree with, and thus for all intents and purposes is an ally of my own ideology. At worst we arrive at the exact same policy conclusions but by slightly different political means. Dennis Kucinich is in much the same boat.
I don't think there could be much worse in the world than joining a political party where everyone has to agree on every single last tenet of ideology and the interpretation of issues.

Dioxin said @ 7:53am GMT on 5th Dec
Every single politician is a clown. EVERY. SINGLE. POLITICIAN. No exceptions. If you're in politics you're a clown.

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:00am GMT on 5th Dec
City council?

Dioxin said @ 7:32pm GMT on 5th Dec [Score:1 Insightful]
City council runs on clown cars.

lilmookieesquire said @ 3:01am GMT on 6th Dec
To be fair, I can't deny that.

f00m@nB@r said @ 6:37am GMT on 6th Dec
You should start amassing arms for the coming revolution, comrade.

bbqkink said @ 8:24am GMT on 5th Dec
This kinds fits here..interesting look at what business can do to motivate their workers.

azazel said @ 10:16am GMT on 5th Dec
I'll just go with Theory X as a motivational force.