1
4

[–] pretendperson 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Are you posting this as satire?

1
2

[–] Amelia_Earnhardt_Jr 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I don't think he knows what that word means.

1
4

[–] AnonymousCrowdMember 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Unless you happen to belong to the "one percent", Bernie isn't really after your wallet. The article itself talks about him going after the MULTI-millionaires and BILLIONAIRES. Also, I should point out that under Dwight Eisenhower the tax rates on the one percent were FAR higher than anything that is being proposed today. If the Republicans are truly so eager to return to the 1950s, why are they against returning to the tax rates of the 1950s?

2
-1

[–] brother_tempus 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

Trying to rationalize Bermis plan of theft because he is only going after a few people instead of everyone is morally dishonest

Besides as we see with socialism, the rich leave and the rest get their wallets picked

1
0

[–] AnonymousCrowdMember 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Of those to whom much is given, much is required. With great power comes great responsibility. There are many ways to say it, but the point is that those who have profited the most are the people who are most in debt to society, and they have a moral imperative to give back.

We live on a finite planet with limited resources, and those who would hoard them are morally wrong. Gluttony does not just apply to food. It would not have been possible for the rich to acquire their wealth without using the infrastructure that was paid for by the people of the nation.

You may see Bernie Sanders policies as "theft", but I see them as your moral duty. Those who aren't rich are already doing their part. The fact that the rich have been avoided their responsibility does not make it wrong to demand they start fulfilling their end of the bargain.

[–] [deleted] ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

3
-1

[–] jallab 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

― Margaret Thatcher

1
1

[–] Snissel 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

2
-2

[–] jallab 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Seriously? One article to take down her legacy?

3
-2

[–] brother_tempus 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

In response to Sander's 12-point plan

1 We have too much infrastructure now that we cannot afford. This is why it is crumbling. FDR and Eisenhower created a bubble in infrastructure from which we will never recover. With an $18 trillion dollar debt, we cannot afford what we have now much less repair it. All this is is a subsidy to the public unions at the cost of prosperity to the American taxpayer. The solution is to sell off what the states cannot afford and let the private sector take it over without having to tax anyone for maintenance.

2 As we have seen with the parade of bankruptcies with green energy companies despite receiving subsidies like the oil companies from the government, alternative energy is not ready for prime time and is nowhere close to prime time. The Europeans are learning this which is why countries like Germany are building 10 new coal plants because the promises made about alternative energy have not materialized nor will they for the foreseeable future. And again this is just a subsidy for special interest industries at the cost of prosperity for the tax payer bot in taxes taken and prices paid for their energy bills.

3 There are over a dozen programs now to help workers and everyone of them has failed. before you add anything new ( which the federal government shouldn't since there is no authorization for such policies in the Constitution ) , scrap what has failed first.

4 Unions already have it easy with laws that force non-union members to pay union dues anyways and programs in most states that preclude state governments and related industries from hiring non-union labor. besides as we have seen with the manufacturing centres, the automotive industries and recently Hostess .. unions kill businesses and job, they do note create any new jobs .

5 The goal of the minimum wage is to outlaw low paying jobs for the unskilled and inexperienced. The law, simply, says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs ( unemployment ) are the inevitable result.

6 Pay should be determined by merit not by gender

7 This is a government-created problems since you cannot have trade agreements without protecting special interests .... The easiest thing to do is revoke all trade treaties and let businesses trade with whom they want without any government interference

8 Until you remove the money the government is pumping into the education industry ( like it did in the housing industry until the government-created bubble popped) you will never get prices to lower for education. That means revoking Title IV, Pell Grants and other loans, entitlements, and subsidies

9 Won't happen until you break up the Federal Reserve, it is the biggest bank there is and it supports all the other banks under it.

10 So we can go the way of France and have death panels .. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/13/terminally-ill-allowed-to-be-put-into-deep-sleep-u/ .... Pass on that bullshit

11 These programs already consume nearly 2/3rd of the budget and are bankrupting the nation and show no signs of success. Adding more debt to the $18 trillion dollar debt we currently have is only going to get the US downgraded and making the interest on the debt be the biggest expense in the budget

12 I can support this if it is simplified and taxes lowered so people can keep more of their own money and then grow the economy instead of allowing government to steal it and flush it down an incinerator of deficit spending

Bernie's plans are not original and history has shown them to never work ... but the "fell good" message he peddles selling this failed ideas makes him a very dangerous snakeoil salesman

1
1

[–] Snissel 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

But is he the lesser of the evils? I think he is.