Slashdot Mirror

Americans are making 20% less than they used to (article says "Millennials" but I don't know about you but I took a paycut when the economy crashed in 2008).

Men and Women are now fighting among ourselves over 1-3% (a percentage that might just be due to men not taking time off for child rearing) while the ruling class is laughing all the way to the bank with that 20%.

This has been modus operandi for centuries: wedge issues. You find something to divide the working class into manageable chunks. Race, creed, sex. Hell, when the Japanese couldn't do it with race because they were all Japanese they made up classes based on jobs and kept books of them by name.

Don't fall for it. Demand better pay for all workers. Support the push for higher minimum wage. Vote in your primary for pro-Union, pro-worker candidates who refuse corporate PAC money. Demand all workers get healthcare that isn't tied to your job so you can switch jobs at will.

We've got bigger fish to fry than this. Don't get into the trenches with your fellow workers fighting while the rich laugh at you

Citations:

https://berniesanders.com/open... https://www.bbc.com/news/world... http://www.spiked-online.com/n... https://www.washingtontimes.co...

It's too bad nobody was willing to propose such a sensible thing.

Too bad, he'd probably be president if Hillary hadn't hacked the primary.

It's too bad nobody was willing to propose such a sensible thing.

I had to take my baby to the hospital for a blood draw (pediatricians office wouldn't do it on a baby for some reason). Cost: $541.00.

There's the problem.

Shifting around who pays for it doesn't solve the problem.

The reason health care is so costly in the US can be found at the top of the insurance companies. Many of the top execs of these companies - including the ones that are listed as "non-profit" or "not-for-profit" take in guaranteed annual bonuses that exceed the lifetime earnings of most Americans. The "Affordable Care Act" just gave these greedy capitalists the keys to the kingdom as well, in guaranteeing them customers for the rest of time.

People dropping out of the insurance market and having no coverage won't solve this problem. The solution is to finally have our country behave like a modern industrialized nation and have a single-payer system. It's too bad nobody was willing to propose such a sensible thing.

I wish I could be more agreeable, but if you actually consider the impact of the issues, the D's almost always have a big lead over R's. Net neutrality is a big deal, and R's are for big businesses even though it will hurt the whole industry - almost everyone. Clinton's email server, I'm sorry, was not a big deal compared to this. Poisoning Flint's water supply hurt everyone in an entire city, Bill Clinton got a BJ and "ruined" one young lady's life (granted she was able to sell her story and made $ off it). The Iraq War and related conflict has killed over 1 million people (thousands of Americans) the neocon R's lied to the country to get us into that. In Benghazi a few Americans died, and if Hillary personally shot them it'd still be _absolutely_ nothing compared to Iraq. I know, Obama continued it but by then the decision really was a lose-lose. Obama did increase the drones and they've still killed some tiny % of the million+ overall picture, and few (or none? idk) were American.

I have actually donated to causes that fight superpacs and money in politics in general, so trust me, I'm with you on #thankscorporateamericaandyoursuperpacs. But the organizations that fight it always seem to have more D's (ask watchers of Colbert and Oliver), while the R's do stuff like Citizen's United - wait, does that have anything to do with what you care about - who pushed that one?

How about specifically one of the things Trudeau talked about, Cuba's medical system. They have an amazing medical system that's ranked in the same ball park as the US but yet they spend a tiny fraction of what we spend ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ). What we could do with that with first world funding would be amazing.

Let's assume that were true. Look at the health expenditure per capita graph. Notice how US per capita public spending is the same as, or higher than, all other OECD countries except Norway? What that means is that the US government has the money to institute, not just a Cuban-style, but a Canadian/UK/...-style single payer system any day they want to, simply by reforming Medicare/Medicaid and extending it to everybody.

The problem with US public health care is exceptionally poor management and a powerful medical lobby, both of which make it extremely inefficient. Extending the broken US single-payer system to the entire nation would cause medical costs to skyrocket and services to get much worse. Sander's plan he simply says "let's raise taxes on the rich"; in fact, there is nothing in his plan that addresses the core of the problem, namely the gross inefficiencies in Medicare relative to other single payer systems. All Sanders' plan is is a big handout to pharmaceutical companies and medical providers.

It's questionable whether Cuba really is as good as official statistics say, and, in any case, Cuba spends about as much per capita as South Korea now, so it's not all that cheap anymore. But even if it were true, it is wrong to attribute longer life expectancy or lower child mortality to a better medical system: authoritarian governments can do a lot to extend life expectancy, like telling people what to eat, what hobbies to engage in, aborting at-risk fetuses, mandating exercise, etc. Heck, Cuba dealt with the AIDS crisis first by locking up HIV-positive patients, then by forcing them into annual eight-week re-education camps. So, yeah, authoritarian shitholes can make people healthy and live longer, and because they need workers, they do just that; believe me, based on first-hand experience with real socialism: you don't want to live like that. That's also what makes Trudeau's comment so offensive to people who actually know real socialism.

If taxes are, as you basically argue, a use tax/service fee - then let's structure it as such. The US Federal Government is spending about $4 trillion this year for the 320 million of us present. So let's go ahead and send every man, woman, and child a bill for $12,500. That's their fee for the service provided.

Many on the left want to use taxes not to pay for the goods and services received, but to redistribute wealth to "make it equal". THAT is the fundamental difference between Conservatism and Liberalism in the US: Conservatives want to see equality of opportunity - everyone starts the race at the same line. Liberalism seeks equality of results - we all cross the finish line at the same time. And for the liberal politicians, they see the tax code as a way to enforce their belief. All the while exempting themselves from such levels (for example, President Obama pays about 20% in taxes even though the typical 1%er like he is pays much more. Heck, he pays a lower rate than the top 5% even though he's towards the very top end of that group).

IIRC, Bernie's plan was "significantly increase taxes on the middle class", which might actually work, assuming the economy doesn't tank as a result of the taxes. I like his honesty. When politicians say "tax the rich" what they always mean is "increase taxes on the middle class", but people keep falling for that lie.

You could have taken three seconds to check before making such an inaccurate statement.

https://berniesanders.com/issu...

Bernie is the only sane hope for change at this time.

And on a semi-related note, presidential candidate Donald Trump said in January he'd like to make Apple "start building their damn computers and things in this country instead of other countries."

Because these are the kinds of working conditions people like Trump and Sanders want for Americans. Will the suicide nets be tax deductible for American factories?

At least we can all sigh in relief that the people assembling these devices will have free college education. Thank you, Trump/Sanders! You only want the best for America!

The people who want the minimum wage to be a living wage.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-living-wage/ Millions of Americans are working for totally inadequate wages. We must ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years.

That's why I chose $30K/year.

I have no problem with upping the minimum wage so a working person can live above poverty, but bringing everyone above poverty just for being born (or turning 18 or whenever the wage starts) should not be the goal of this program. Basic income should be to keep people from starving to death and from living on the streets. Basic income should also not be considered when deciding to raise the minimum wage. Raise it up to $15/hour anyway. This, along with the $15,000 basic income will make it more sustainable to live off a minimum wage job.

Who the hell's talking $30,000/year?

The people who want the minimum wage to be a living wage.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-living-wage/
Millions of Americans are working for totally inadequate wages. We must ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years.

That's why I chose $30K/year.

Tell that to the indigenous people that were in the country before you invaded it, and killed most of them.

That's a complete non sequiter.

1) The clue is on the name: BASIC. It's not $30,000

Take a wild-assed guess what the yearly income of someone at the proposed $15/hr minimum wage: that's right, $30,000/year

That's why I specifically chose $15/hr.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-living-wage/
  The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years.

I have a photograph of myself standing next to the first President Bush. I am not a Republican

Is there a picture of yourself giving a speech at a podium, while President Bush looks at you (admiringly)? Probably, not...

Ok, to rehash. You agree that Communism is evil, that's a relief. You seem to agree, that DSA are Communist enough to taint any member — if he is a member.

But you insist that:

• Sanders is a Democrat.
• Sanders is not a member of Democratic Socialists of America

The first point is not entirely relevant, so I'll just point out, that Sanders is constantly identified as "an Independent" — he is caucusing with Democrats in Senate, but he is not one of them. The usual state/party designation next to his name is (VT, I.).

He is running for a Democratic Party nomination this year, but that's neither here nor there. Ron Paul ran for Republican nomination several times, but he is a Libertarian...

Now, is he a member of DSA? Here is my evidence:

• He gave speeches at their events — more than once. (1991, 1994, 2006.)
• He is referred to as a member by the party's own materials: Bernie Sanders — the independent Maine [sic] Senator and DSA member.
• He thanked them for their helping him in his 2006 Senate race.
• The party's current strategy lists "grassroots work for Bernie Sanders" as its number one priority. And it is not mere words.
• He refers to himself in conversations as a "democratic socialist" (carefully leaving ambiguous, whether that means a political philosophy or a particular party).
• His own site promotes "talks" about both DSA and "democratic socialism".
• He is viewed rather admiringly by the DSA.

With so much evidence, it is way past time he repudiated their support, don't you think? Unless he welcomes it, of course. Far less evidence was ever presented, that Donald Trump was a KKK-member, for example, before angry voices and sneaky interviewers demanded, he "repudiates" that organization. Talk about "intellectual honesty"...

Even if a stubborn juror may insist, the above evidence does not convict Bernie Sanders of being a Communist beyond reasonable doubt, there is certainly enough to rule against him on the slightly lower preponderance of evidence standard. He is a Communist alright...

Lastly, about your (and others') attempts to distinguish between Communism and Socialism... The distinction is without difference — Socialism is merely Communism-lite.

But even if you disagree, who would want a Hugo Chavez — another "Socialist not a Communist" — to become President of their country? Because, other than the late Presidente's anti-Semitism, the Senator's ideas are indistinguishable from his...

no democrats currently in Washington who are willing to propose anything that even slightly resembles an initiative to "give control of healthcare to the government"

Yeah, there is.
Normally I would oppose that kind of plan, because Medicare isn't that great, but realistically what we have now isn't that great, either.

It's not that "no one will pay for college", it's placing a new tax on stock market speculation that will be used to pay for college. "No one says it" because your entire premise is false, the same reason "no one says" the Earth is the physical center of the solar system.

Instead of trying to start an online fight, you could just actually go read his idea. But then that might take some actual effort and time away from your trolling. It's number 6 on the page, "FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS."

Two Words:

https://secure.berniesanders.c...

Granted, it's not in person, but I'm a fan of Bernie Sanders. As for what he would do differently from Chavez? Well, for one he wouldn't abolish the US Constitution. He would have to work with Congress and within the confines set by the Supreme Court just the same as any other presidential candidate will have to. If you're asking about his specific policy stances, you should probably go to his website for those.

Sanders opposes and has opposed Citzens United, Corporate Financing of Election, the TPP, and the Iraq war since the beginning. He has never accepted corporate money in his entire career and isn't now that he's running for president.

AFAIK he is the only candidate with a long political record who's speeches are in line with his actions. You could vote for him or, you know, talk about the cynacism of the two party system and how political change is impossible.

I do know one thing. Cynacism is obedience to the plutocracy. Sure, it talks differently, but it functions exactly the same way.

He makes a heck of a pitch anyway... Shame he isn't running for King. Then he could do some of it.

https://berniesanders.com/issu...

AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:

1. Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

That sounds wonderful, except... what is their "fair share" of taxes? There has to be a number attached to that, not just a slogan. And you can't just demand they pay more in taxes, you have to change the tax code, which is another mess.

As president, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes.

How is he doing to do that? By just telling them to and waving his finger at them? That isn't how it works. By asking Congress to pass a law saying, "you can't shift your profits and jobs overseas"? That is too vague and wouldn't stand up in the courts, it has to be more specific.

It is a wonderful sounding campaign slogan that means nothing.

He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million

Ahh, double taxation, tax it when you earn it, tax it when you die. Estate taxes are evil, but putting that issue aside, the really wealthy people don't pay them anyway, they put their money in trusts and corporations and "non-profits", and those don't "die" to be taxed in that way.

2. Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.

That sounds great, sure, why not... of course, it will just cause stuff to cost more, but it helps in the short run, so sure...

Of course, what is NOT SPOKEN there is that while people who work 40 hours a week might not live in poverty, far more people WON'T BE WORKING AT ALL, so there is that.

Raise the wages and I have far more incentive to bring in robots or offshore my work or figure out how to get more work out of existing employees.

Don't be shocked if 10 years from now there are only two employees in your average McDonalds, both paid over $15/hr, because robots are doing all the work.

Raising min wage doesn't actually solve anything, it just makes the numbers bigger. The real trick is to make people's work worth more, but that doesn't fit neatly into a 15 second sound bite so they don't talk about that.