36
184

[–] the_shootist 36 points 184 points (+220|-36) ago 

It seems correct to say that "having less disposable income on a 2-income household vs. a 1-income household 30 years ago" is moving in the wrong direction. Where I disagree with him is that the government is going to be able to magically fix this with policy prescriptions. 30 years ago we didn't have even a fraction of the stuff that Bernie is proposing. Increasing government reach, scope, and taxation, might provide a safety net but it certainly won't lead to more disposable income. We need more freedom, not less.

2
141

[–] Echo_of_Savages 2 points 141 points (+143|-2) ago 

Reigning in on inverted funnel sucking money up to the top 1% is a step in the right direction though. I do believe there is enough wealth in this country for the things he proposes, however that wealth is currently in the wrong places: in a bloated defense budget, in huge government subsidies to crony corporations, in offshore bank accounts, in corporate tax loopholes. What Sanders is suggesting is essentially for this country to be smarter with its money.

0
52

[–] Sir-Real 0 points 52 points (+52|-0) ago 

I agree. I'm not so much against taxing as much as I'm against stupid spending of tax money. Lets say we dropped the defense budget a bit, then sent that money toward fixing roads (on a state level) bridges, public transport, healthcare, schooling, etc. My tax money would actually benefit me and many others heavily. I would be proud to be a taxpayer at that point, since I contribute to all of this. Not to mention the fact that billionaires utilize loopholes to avoid much of their taxes (donating to campaigns can be written off)

12
25

[–] the_shootist 12 points 25 points (+37|-12) ago 

Not really. He's just in favor of centralizing it within the federal governemnt to dole out as they see fit. He really isn't that much different from the 1%, he's just saying "you can't have it, the federal government should have it"

Defense budgets are out of control, agreed. The feds shouldn't be giving subsidies to anyone or anything (but that goes both ways -- no subsidizes for the things the left loves as well). Offshore bank accounts are a symptom of a completely fucked tax code, corporations shouldn't pay taxes because they don't pay taxes now. It all gets passed on to the consumer. Everything that you're griping about can be fixed simply by the federal government reining in itself and reducing its size and scope.

0
1

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

Properly funding the IRS would probably fix a lot of tax issues, and raise awareness up the chain. However under the original government, we didn't even have an income tax. When wars were justifiable, people just volunteered, there were state militias, etc. States could still tax, but taxes would drop from a bloated 25-40% down to less than 10% which would go to the state. This won't happen, because those who have power, will be extremely reluctant to relinquish it.

1
1

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

So hopefully people can read this with a level head but the thing about the defense budget is a lot of that money (if not most) goes back to American people and help make American jobs. A good example are the thousands of small research facilities that are across the nation. There are towns that have 30,000 people in it and the only main industry is the research base or support base. The base might employee 8,000 people and a greater amount are town workers (schools, restaurants, gas station, car mechanics, store owners, police, firemen, hospital, etc..). This is just Federal employees and I'm not even counting the millions of DoD contract workers that work at Boeing, Lockhead, Raytheon, etc.. that would be affected by a defense budget cut.

So when you cut the defense budget it actually effects a lot of American workers (Raytheon is pretty notorious for hiring people for projects then firing them when the funding runs out or its over). It is unfortunate that for whatever reason we've decided to keep the economy going by pumping more and more into the defense budget but that is the reality (its almost like a defense bubble actually).

Personally I think we should tread carefully when saying "Lets just cut the Defense budget" because you could end up destroying high skilled jobs and those jobs won't be created anywhere else because that market was sustained by the bloated defense budget. I don't think we should expand the defense budget anymore but we shouldn't just out right cut it.

[–] [deleted] 12 points 90 points (+102|-12) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

22
28

[–] the_shootist 22 points 28 points (+50|-22) ago  (edited ago)

Great, so he's been wrong for 35 years. At least he's consistent I guess? I'm not saying I like flip-floppers, just that I believe him to be fundamentally mistaken on this. Bernie's policies are exactly in line with the 1% - its just that he's trying to be the 1%

9
6

[–] Howard_Beale 9 points 6 points (+15|-9) ago 

But his principles suck

38
42

[–] binky 38 points 42 points (+80|-38) ago 

Dear downvoater: it's not for "disagree"

14
49

[–] jeegte12 14 points 49 points (+63|-14) ago 

Just because that's not what you wanted it to be for, or even what it was intended for, doesn't mean that's not what it's for.

7
23

[–] the_shootist 7 points 23 points (+30|-7) ago 

Dear downvoater: it's not for "disagree"

I haven't downvoated anything. Even if I wanted to, I don't have 100 comment karma so the system won't let me downvoat. Me thinks thou dost protest too much

3
13

[–] CipherEnigma 3 points 13 points (+16|-3) ago 

Yay, the same useless comments I would expect from Reddit. Including this one.

4
9

[–] TheJubJubBird 4 points 9 points (+13|-4) ago 

But he criticized Bernie. That kind of thing simply isn't tolerated around here /s

3
28

[–] his_dick 3 points 28 points (+31|-3) ago 

I disagree with you on that. A hundred years ago, people were working 80 hours a week making very little money in factories. The government and Unions stepped in and created policies that helped people out and set the course for a while. Businesses found a way around those policies, and we are back in the same spot. I do agree, however, that WE need more freedom. WE need the freedom you get with a 40 hour work week. WE need the freedom to go to school without going into debt for the rest of our lives. WE need time off for vacation, family, and sick leave. Right now, there isn't much guaranteeing any of that, so that is what has to happen for us to truly be free (until they find another way around it in 75 years).

6
17

[–] the_shootist 6 points 17 points (+23|-6) ago 

We are not anywhere in the same spot as we were 100 years ago. If you're trying to say that modern business today is anything like business of 1915 in terms of working conditions you're deluding yourself.

There is no such thing as government granted freedom. You cannot have freedom that comes through the compulsion of another. Government is the antithesis of freedom. We need the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to work for someone with a 40 hour work week. We need the freedom to decide for ourselves whether our own investment in education is worth the rewards. We need the freedom to find employers who believe in vacation, family, and sick time.

Nothing in life is guaranteed and the idea that true freedom finally occurs when others can be forced to pay for the things that another wants shows a lack of the understanding of what freedom is.

7
15

[–] lissencarak 7 points 15 points (+22|-7) ago 

Hilarious. We need more freedom - does not know what freedom is. Freedom is freedom from other people, not entitlements.

0
10

[–] TynanSylvester 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

What changed everything from 100 years ago wasn't unions or governments implementing leftist policies. It was two world wars and a depression annihilating such massive amounts of wealth that by 1945 there almost weren't any super-wealthy people left. Their stuff got blown up in WW1 and WW2, their government contacts became worthless as governments fell, their colonial holdings vanished as empires were rolled back, and their investments disintegrated in stock market crashes.

Statistically: In 1914 the western world had about 7 years of income worth of capital stored up. By 1945, there was about 3 years of income worth of capital. For the first time ever, rich people became so poor that it was possible to earn more from your own labor than by living off the dividends of your inheritance.

This created a huge equality effect because hugely destructive social shocks (like world wars) occur, the people with the most money lose the most. The people with no money don't really have anything to lose. The result is greater equality, which is what we enjoyed through the mid 20-th century until now, when capital stocks are building back to their 1914 level.

9
49

[–] usul 9 points 49 points (+58|-9) ago 

This is a result of women joining the workforce in droves. 30 years ago a median family had one wage earner. Now it has two. Therefore to be a median family, you need both partners to work, or be a single wage earner that's in the top quartile. However the work done by the formerly stay at home moms still needs to get done. That means a higher percentage of income goes to things like daycare, and there's less disposable income.

[–] [deleted] 17 points 41 points (+58|-17) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
50

[–] PlayByPlayAnnouncer 0 points 50 points (+50|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Then you should, you know, refute it.

It looks sound, based in fact, and the reality that there is an opportunity cost for having a career. Would be nice to see data, but disagree? Well, that's not helping is it?

Has the role of women in society changed in the last 30 years? Yes. Was that a move largely from domestic duties to the labor market? Yes. Was the work women were doing previous utterly crucial and does it still need to get done? Yes, and yes. Does that move represent a rough doubling of the labor supply, while not creating the same change in labor demand? Well, yes, and what would that mean for wages?

It is a sign of a lack of critical understanding (not addressing you; you haven't said anything) when people do not consider that there is always a cost to any social change. Feminists seem to believe that their ideology is "obvious" and that it can only have good outcomes, when in reality when you move roughly 50% of the population into a different role, you will very quickly realize (as we are doing now) that the role they are leaving is essential, that it's going to need to be done by someone, and that supply and demand affect wages in labor markets.

I feel like you should have to get a degree in economics before you get a look at women's studies or the like.

0
16

[–] his_dick 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

Think about it for a second. Around half the population suddenly decided that they wanted the opportunity to make a good life for themselves. A whole bunch of women started to work, which means there are more people competing for the same jobs. While I don't believe this to be a bad thing (I love that my girlfriend has a job and is independent), and I don't believe this is the only factor involved, it IS a factor. There are simply MORE people by far competing for jobs.
I honestly wish I could downvoat you, not because of my disagreement with your comment, but because of you not contributing in any way to the conversation. You got angry and bashed that comment with no evidence for your point.

0
1

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

The only reason that a 2 worker household makes less than a 1 worker household 30 years ago is because effective income has remained level for the last 30 years while the cost of living has, naturally, increased.

With all else equal, women joining the workforce should increase disposable income because they would easily make in 1 day the cost of childcare and other necessities and still have leftovers as profit.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 18 points (+20|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

3
11

[–] Echo_of_Savages 3 points 11 points (+14|-3) ago 

Plus corporations moving their labor to cheaper countries.

I have to disagree with you though. Sanders knows what he's talking about. There is an elite class in this country which is using the government as a way to gain more money and power at the expense of average citizens.

1
6

[–] MungCunt 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

You understand 30 years ago was 1985 women were well into the workforce by then.

1
7

[–] Broc_Lia 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

It's increased alot since then. Also the recession hit typically working class male jobs harder than female ones.

0
3

[–] brouhaha 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I don't follow your logic. If someone enters the work force and starts making $30,000 a year instead of staying at home, that income surely exceeds any expenses necessitated by working, e.g. daycare. If working didn't make economic sense then people wouldn't do it.

0
15

[–] usul 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

It's a "keeping up" thing. A dual income household is like a college education. Both get you ahead. So everyone starts doing it. Suddenly, what was once a way to get ahead is a requirement to get to the middle.

0
5

[–] epsilona01 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I think it's more along the lines of:

Families had bonus income with a second wage earner, so they were able to cope better while wages were stagnating. Now we're at the point where the additional income isn't something nice to have it's a necessity.

It made the wage gap harder to see, and easier for companies to grow.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] Vvswiftvv17 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

No, no it doesn't. Daycare near me for my six month old daughter is $1,400/month. I have to make more than $16,000 before I even see a profit. Not to mention because I'm a woman I need to dedicate at least $100 a month for hair, makeup, and manicure. So now II need to clear $17,200. Add in $100/week for takeout 3 dinners at $30 plus tip because I'm too tired to cook) and now we are at $22,200 before we come out ahead. Oh! But don't forget $20 week ($1040 /year) for lunches and coffees and $100 a month for gas to get too and from work: I have to earn $24,260 just to break even. That doesn't even factor in the stress and quality time lost with your family.

[–] [deleted] 4 points 25 points (+29|-4) ago 

[Deleted]

4
39

[–] meatflop 4 points 39 points (+43|-4) ago 

It's because the rich destroyed the labor movement by vilifying the unions, labelling anyone pointing out the dangers of unregulated capitalism as a socialist, and forcing trade bills through congress that make American labor have to compete with the cost of foreign labor plus shipping. It's really easy to understand, in the last 30 years almost all of the growth in wealth do to higher production has gone to the richest people in the country. Americans are working harder than they have since the original labor movement started and getting compensated less.

[–] [deleted] 5 points 15 points (+20|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

4
6

[–] PlayByPlayAnnouncer 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago  (edited ago)

The rich ARE the unions. What does the President of your union make? They're bought and paid for, and now, they're just screwing over the next generation of workers systematically.

0
2

[–] johnlocke90 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The problem is that immigrants don't care about your labor union. They will gladly undercut it because they still make more than they would in their home country.

2
6

[–] Asinus 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

That and the Unions supporting NAFTA and immigration as well.

4
1

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

If you think it's a good idea to draw imaginary lines in the sand to prevent your fellow human beings from making a better offer then it's not "the rich" who are my enemy.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

18
19

[–] 1Sorry_SOB 18 points 19 points (+37|-18) ago 

Hey Bernie, If the government takes a greater share of it there is less for families.

4
40

[–] Lootaluck 4 points 40 points (+44|-4) ago 

Tax rates are lower than they were 30 years ago

1
23

[–] Irrumatus 1 points 23 points (+24|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The real problem is healthcare, education, and the additional costs associated with requiring two income earners in order to make ends meet, such as needing two vehicles, daycare, etc.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 18 points (+20|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
2

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

lol, if we only paid ONE federal tax then that would be true, lol...

5
13

[–] Naught405 5 points 13 points (+18|-5) ago  (edited ago)

NOPE. Average disposable income in socialist European countries (Finland Norway Sweden Denmark etc) is higher than here. Why? Because they have better consumer protections and spend more money covering direct costs of families like healthcare. 0.1% own 90% that is bad for families. If I make 10 million a year or more I think I would be able to scrape by on 4 million under a 60% tax rate, especially if it meant 1500 other families get free healthcare along with mine.

0
10

[–] Acerebral 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Although if I made $10MM per year, I would willingly spend $6MM one year to prevent getting taxed $6MM every year. To hell with the other 1500 families. Human nature would cause 99% of us to act like this. This is why we need policy makers who are willing to forgoe the bribes (policy makers like Bernie Sanders).

1
1

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

Can you give me a source for that? I'm not convinced. Prices are insanely high in scandinavia and they get very little take home pay.

Also, Norway is a poor model given that they can afford to pay for everything with oil exports.

0
0

[–] jollycynic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Consider though that everything costs drastically more because of the hidden costs that are VATs. They may have more disposable income in a purely numerical sense, but their dollar doesn't go nearly as far.

1
9

[–] rwbj 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago  (edited ago)

He's stated repeatedly he intends exclusively to increase taxes only on the wealthiest and has a decades long political career showing it's not just talk. The incredible income inequality(which is now surpassing levels only reached just prior to the great depression in the 20s) in the US is actually a great thing in this regard. Not only do a very small percent of people own and earn vastly more than the rest of the population, but they've also used their political influence to avoid paying their fair share. Take capital gains for instance. As an example the 6 primarily Walton decedents receive a total of about $3 billion a year in dividends. That money is classified in the US as "special capital gains." What's the tax rate they pay on that $3 billion? 20%. They pay less in tax on those billions than a regular American who earns $0.0000123 billion (or $36,901) a year. Every single president we've had since Reagan has put corporate and ultra wealthy interests ahead of the rest of society which is why we still have things like this, which is completely indefensible, in our tax code. Fix this, let alone bringing it to normal tax levels for high income, and the government would be flush with billions of dollars for 'free' simply by stripping out the products of corruption.

2
6

[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Also the fact that $100 used to be able to feed a family of four for a week, and now it's only enough for one person. Food is much more expensive.

0
6

[–] katphish 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

The value of the currency is lessened. 'we are being paid less and less.

0
4

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Food isn't more expensive, it's actually getting cheaper all the time (at least to produce). What's happening is that the dollar is continually being devalued and the cost of labour is rising.

0
2

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

Just for the record, you can easily feed a family of four for a week on $100. My family of five lives in California and and our monthly food bill averages around $350. We eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, beans, brown rice, whole wheat bread, a relatively small amount of meat. I'm pretty sure our diet is far healthier than the average American diet. Healthy home cooked is far cheaper than processed food, which is far cheaper than eating out.

0
0

[–] johnlocke90 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Well you have to adjust for inflation. Food spending actually has drop drastically.

https://pseudoerasmus.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/food_disposable.jpg

If you look across the board, you will find that most things are cheaper than they used to be. The big difference is we consume a lot more today. Heck, 100 dollars a week is plenty for a family of 4, yet many people spend way more than that because they don't control their costs.

Across the board, the 1970s family just consumed less. In 1970, most families owned 1 car. They only had 1 phone and a TV antenna. They didn't have cell phones, internet, multiple cars, cable TV and a computer.

If you live like someone from the 1970s, its actually pretty cheap.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 17 points (+20|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

1
10

[–] EdSnowden 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

Anyone who proposes ending the Federal Reserve seems to have their life expectancy drop quickly.

2
6

[–] BoiseNTheHood 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

Ron Paul is still alive and kicking. Bernie is just a pussy who chickened out of actually doing anything to scrutinize the Fed.

[–] [deleted] 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

1
1

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

I have an idea! Let's go back on the gold standard and hand the economy over to the gold mining companies!

1
0

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

Indeed.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
12

[–] 1Sorry_SOB 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

More government.

10
12

[–] brother_tempus 10 points 12 points (+22|-10) ago 

In response to Sander's 12-point plan which will further make Americans poorer ....

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 and no different that Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush

1
0

[–] epsilona01 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Man, that is imposingly wall-of-text-y. One small thing.. "feel good" I think is what you were going for. For next time.

9
-2

[–] 9-11 9 points -2 points (+7|-9) ago 

tldr - i'm a libertarian, i foolishly believe in the invisible hand of the free market, i want the masses to be poor, uneducated and starving.

5
7

[–] BoiseNTheHood 5 points 7 points (+12|-5) ago 

tl;dr: I'm a socialist, I foolishly believe in the power of the state, I want the masses to be equally poor, uneducated and starving.

4
-1

[–] brother_tempus 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago 

if that is what you want then you can't be libertarian ... because as we see in the US .. trusting government as opposed to liberty yields those scenarios

0
8

[–] lissencarak 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

How interesting, Bernie. 30 years ago, Reagan was president. Is he saying we should definitely not vote for a socialist? Because I can definitely support him if that's what he is saying.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

[Deleted]
load more comments ▼ (36 remaining)