Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Must Read. Sanders spells out Progressive Agenda. (No holds barred)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 08:09 PM
Original message
A Must Read. Sanders spells out Progressive Agenda. (No holds barred)
Edited on Wed Oct-22-03 08:23 PM by Armstead
This is one of the best summaries of what is happening in America I have heard in a long time. THIS in my opinion, is what the Democratic Party ought to be saying loudly and clearly, and in unison.

Cong. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) gave it on the floor of the House yesterday. I happened to catch it on C-Span, and he has posted it on his website.

It spells out the core issues facing us today, and lays out the progressive agenda in the clearest way possible.

The full speech covers much more territory than the excerpts below. It is definetly worth reading and circulating.

And if you feel it is worthwhile, please give this a :kick: to keep it alive for a day or two.

The speech (in PDF format) is at:
http://bernie.house.gov/documents/releases/20031022180012.asp

-----------------------
For Immediate Release, 10/22/2003
Rep. Sanders Floor Statement: Congress and The White House Need New Priorities

Yesterday Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT) delivered the following statement on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to focus Congress and the White House on the needs of middle class Americans. Among the issues he discussed were the need for a new trade policy, a national healthcare system, and a media that discusses the concerns of average Americans rather than corporate America.

EXCERPT Below:


Mr. Speaker, the corporate media does not talk about it too much, and we do not discuss it terribly much here in the Congress, but the United States of America is rapidly on its way to becoming three separate nations: An increasingly wealthy elite, a small number of people who have incredible wealth and incredible power; a middle class, the vast majority of our people, which is shrinking, where the average person is working longer hours for lower wages; and, at the bottom we have a growing number of Americans who
are living in abject poverty, barely keeping their heads above water.

Mr. Speaker, there has always been a wealthy elite in this country, that is not new, and there has always been a gap between the rich and the poor. But the disparities in wealth and income that currently exist in this country have not been seen since the 1920s.
In other words, instead of becoming a more egalitarian country, with a stronger middleclass, we are becoming a Nation in which the rich have more wealth and power, the middle-class is shrinking, and poverty is growing.


Mr. Speaker, today the wealthiest 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 95 percent. One percent own more wealth than the bottom 95 percent. The CEOs of large corporations today earn more than 500 times what their employees are making. While workers are being squeezed, being forced to pay more for health insurance, while their
pensions are being cut back, the CEOs of large corporations make out like bandits.

Mr. Speaker, the Nation's 13,000 wealthiest families, which constitute one onehundredth of one percent of the population, receive almost as much income as the bottom 20 million families in the United States. One one-hundredth of one percent, more income
than the bottom 20 million families. That, to my mind, is not what America is supposed o be.

New data from the Congressional Budget Office shows that the gap between the rich and the poor in terms of income more than doubled from 1979 to 2000. In other words, we are moving in exactly the wrong direction. The gap is such that the wealthiest 1 percent had more money to spend after taxes than the bottom 40 percent. The richest 2.8 million Americans had $950 billion after taxes, or 15.5 percent of the economic pie, while the poorest 110 million had less, 14.4 percent of all after-tax income. Once again,
that is not what America is supposed to be. While the rich get richer and receive huge tax breaks from the White House, the middle-class is struggling desperately, in my State of Vermont and all over this country.

It is increasingly common to see people work at not one job, but two jobs, and occasionally three jobs. When I was growing up, the expectation for the middle-class was that one worker in a family could work 40 hours a week and earn enough income to pay
the bills. Well, in the State of Vermont, and all over this country, it is becoming increasingly uncommon when that happens. Much more often than not, wives are forced to work alongside husbands in order to bring in the necessary income, and kids, in many instances, do not get the care that they need.

Unemployment in our country is now at a 9-year high. We are over 6 percent, and there are now over 9 million people who are unemployed. But in truth the real number is higher than that, because there are a lot of people who are working part-time because they cannot find full-time jobs, and there are a lot of people who are not part of the statistics because they have given up and are not actively seeking employment.

Mr. Speaker, of the 3.3 million private sector jobs that have been lost over the last 3 years, 2.7 million were in the manufacturing sector. This is an issue I want to spend a moment on, because what is happening in manufacturing today is a disaster for this
country and bodes very poorly for the future of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, and this Congress must finally recognize it, our trade policies are failing. Permanent, normal trade relations with China has been a disaster. NAFTA has been a disaster. Our membership in the World Trade Organization has not
worked for the middle-class and working families, for this country, and the time is long overdue for the United States Congress to stand up to corporate America, to stand up to the President of the United States, to stand up to all of the editorial pages all over
America who have told us year after year after year how great unfettered free trade would be.

They were wrong. Their policies have led to enormous economic problems for the middle-class in this country. The decline of manufacturing is one of the reasons why our middle-class is
shrinking and why wages for middle-class workers are in decline.
Many people understand the pain involved when we have lost 3 million jobs in the last few years. But we also have got to point out that our trade policies and our overall economic policies have been a disaster for the wages that American workers receive.


Today, American workers in the private sector are earning 8 percent less than they were in 1973. Now, just think for a moment. Think for a moment. In the last 30 years, there has been a revolution in technology. We all know that. We all know what computers have
done, what e-mail has done, what faxes have done. We know what robotics in factories have done. In other words, we are a much more productive Nation than we used to be. Every worker is producing more.

Given that reality, why is it that the average worker in the private sector today is earning 8 percent less? That is an issue we have to put right up there on the radar screen, and we need to debate.

Mr. Speaker, manufacturing in this country is currently in a state of collapse. Let us be honest about it. In the last 3 years, we have lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, which comprise 16 percent of the total. That is right. You heard that right. In the last 3 years, we have lost 16 percent of our manufacturing jobs. At 14.7 million, we are at the lowest number of factory jobs since 1958.

In my own State of Vermont, my small State of Vermont, we have lost some 8,700 manufacturing jobs between January 2001 and August 2003, and the pity of that is that in Vermont, manufacturing jobs pay workers middle-class wages. In Vermont, on average, a
worker working in manufacturing makes over $42,000 a year. That is a decent wage. We are losing those jobs, and the new jobs that we are creating are paying only a fraction of what manufacturing jobs are paying, and almost always provide much, much weaker
benefits.

Mr. Speaker, in 2002 the United States had a $435 billion trade deficit, a $435 billion trade deficit. This year, the trade deficit with China alone, one country, China, is expected to be $120 billion, and that number is projected to increase in future years. It
has gone up and up and up. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that if present trends continue, our trade deficit with China will grow to $330 billion in 5 years.

But our disastrous trade policy is not only costing us millions of decent paying jobs; it is squeezing wages. It is squeezing wages. Because many employers are saying if you do not take the cuts in health care, if you do not take the cuts in wages, we are going to move to China, we are going to move to Mexico.

One of the areas where people are being most severely hurt is among young workers without a college education. For entry-level workers without a college level education, the real wages that they have received, that they are now receiving, have dropped by over
20 percent in the last 25 years. And the answer and the reason for that is quite obvious. 25 years ago, 30 years ago if somebody did not go to college, as most people did not, what they would be able to do is go out and get a job in manufacturing. And millions and
millions of workers did that. And with those wages and those benefits they were able to lead a middle-class existence and raise their kids with a decent standard of living.

But the reality now is that the new jobs that are being created, the jobs at McDonald's and the jobs in Wal-Mart are not paying people a living wage.

What is happening to our economy today is best illustrated by the fact that some 20 years ago our largest employer was General Motors. And workers in General Motors earned, and still earn today, a living wage. Today, Mr. Speaker, our largest private employer is Wal-Mart. And that is what has happened to the American economy. We
have gone from a General Motors economy where workers earned decent wages and decent benefits to a Wal-Mart economy where people earn low wages and poor benefits.


Today Wal-Mart employees earn $8.23 per hour or $13,861 annually. And that, Mr. Speaker, is an income which is below the poverty level.
And that is what the transformation of the American economy is about, an economy where workers used to work, produced real products, made middle-class wages, had good benefits, to a Wal-Mart economy where our largest employer now pays workers poverty
wages, minimal benefits, huge turn-over.

<snip>

Mr. Speaker, I have talked a moment about what is going on with the middle class. I have talked a little bit about the conversion from a manufacturing society, a General Motors society, to a service industry economy, a Wal-Mart economy, but let us look for a
moment at the people who are not even in the middle class. People who have not made it into the middle class. People who are at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder in our country, the 34.8 million people in America who live in poverty. Sadly, Mr. Speaker,
while the rich get richer, 1.3 million more Americans became poor and entered poverty, the group of poor people in America.

In the midst of those people, Mr. Speaker, we have got to ask about the 11 million Americans who are trying to survive on the pathetic minimum wage of $5.15 an hour which exists here, and I think it is morally repugnant that this Congress voted to provide
huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, but somehow the President of the United States and the Republican leadership, not for one moment have thought about raising the minimum wage, which today is at a pathetic $5.15 cents an hour.


How do people earning those wages survive? And I will tell you how some of them do it. After working 40 hours a week, they live in their automobiles because they cannot afford housing units in order to survive. They just cannot afford the housing because their
wages cannot pay the rent. And what, Mr. Speaker, about the 43.6 million Americans who lack any health insurance? That is 15.2 percent of our population. What about the 3.5 million people who will experience homelessness in this year, 1.3 million of them
children? What about our elderly citizens who cannot afford the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs? And the many of them who cut their pills in half or do not even bother trying to fill the prescriptions that their doctors write for them? What about those
people? What about the veterans who have put their lives on the line defending this country and then try to get into a VA hospital but find out that they are on a waiting list?

Mr. Speaker, one of the clear crises being faced by the American middle class is the crisis in health care and the cost of prescription drugs. In the last several years, we have
seen huge increases in health insurance and with the increase of unemployment, we have seen more and more working people lose their health insurance. In terms of losing health insurance, people then are open to bankruptcy, because if they end up with an accident or
a serious illness, they go to the hospital, but they are unable to pay those bills. And the highest amount of people who are bankrupt are the people who cannot pay their health
expenses that have been generated as a result of an accident or illness.

<snip>

Now, when we talk about the achievements of the Bush administration, and we understand that our deficit is now at an all-time high, that our national debt is going higher, that in the midst of all of this, our conservative friends who year after year told us how terrible deficits were and what kind of terrible obligations we were leaving to our kids and our grandchildren, well, these are the folks that are driving up the deficit, and they are driving up the national debt. Now, why are they doing that? Why are
conservatives doing that?

Well, I think there are two reasons. Number one, obviously, the tax breaks for the rich
are not hard to understand. Here in Washington, D.C. there are fund-raising dinners in which individuals have contributed $25,000 a plate, large corporations and their executives make huge contributions and that is payback time. Nothing new. The rich
make contributions. They get paid back in tax breaks. They get paid back in corporate welfare. They get paid back with their trade policy which makes it easier for them to throw American workers out on the street and move out to China. That we can understand. That is obscene, but easily understood.

But, Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to you that there is another even more cynical reason for driving up this deficit and driving up the national debt. And I believe that that reason
is that as the debt and the deficit become higher and higher, this President, or any other President, may be forced to come before the American people and say our deficit and our debt is so very high that we have no choice but to privatize Social Security, privatize
Medicare, privatize Medicaid, privatize public education.
We have got to do it. We have a huge deficit.

Oh, yeah, we did give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the rich; but nonetheless, the deficit is so high that we are going to have to do away with all of the benefits, all of the guarantees that the American people have fought for over the last 100 years; and it is my belief that this administration really does want to take us back to the 19th century, where working people and the middle class had no protections whatsoever, where workers and poor people were dependent upon the largess of the wealthy for charity, but there were no guarantees.


Social Security has its problems; and in my view, Social Security must be strengthened. Seniors must be receiving larger COLAs, but the solution to the problems that we may have are not to privatize Social Security and bring us back to the 1920s when elderly
people were the poorest segment of our society; but that is the direction that these folks are moving us towards, and they are moving us toward the privatization of Medicare.

Think about how many private insurance companies are really going to provide insurance for elderly, low-income sick people. The function of an insurance company is to make money, not to provide health care; and if a person is old and sick and poor, who is going to insure them? They are on their own.

<snip>

Mr. Speaker, on another area that is of enormous importance to the American people and more and more Americans are getting involved in it, the Bush administration is moving in precisely the wrong direction in terms of media consolidation. In my view, one
of the crises that we face in our country today is fewer and fewer large media conglomerates own and control what we see, what we hear, and what we read.

I know the average person says, well, man, I have got 100 channels on my cable. Check out who owns those 100 channels. Check out who owns NBC, which is General Electric; who owns CBS, which is Viacomm; who owns ABC, which is Disney; who owns Fox Television, which is Rupert Murdoch, an extreme right-wing billionaire. What we are
seeing in terms of media is fewer and fewer large corporations controlling the flow of information in America. Clear Channel Radio now owns 1,200 radio stations all over this
country.

In America, what our freedom is about is debating different points of view. No one has all the right answers, but we cannot flourish as a democracy unless we hear different points of view; and that is becoming harder and harder to achieve, as fewer and fewer
companies own what we see, hear, and read.

Instead of acknowledging that problem and moving us to a more diversified media, where we will have local media reporting on local issues, where it will be different points of view being heard, where there will be more diversity in our media, the Bush
administration is moving in exactly the wrong direction.

<snip>

So, Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by stating that it is high time that the Congress of the United States begin to focus on the needs of the middle class, the vast majority of our people, the middle class of which is shrinking, the middle class in which the average
person is working longer hours and for lower wages. America will grow when the middle class grows; and to do that, we need some fundamental changes in our policies.

We need a national health care system which guarantees health care to all Americans. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. We need to fundamentally change our trade policies so that we do not continue to see the collapse of manufacturing. We
need to make sure that every American, regardless of income, has a right to go to college. We need to rescind the tax breaks that have been given to the wealthiest people and the largest corporations and create a tax structure which works for the middle class and not
just for the wealthy and the powerful.

There is a lot of work that must be done, and I look forward to participating in that
effort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. I really like Bernie Sanders
Hes also one of the few who tries to expose the so called liberal media myth. Great man someone I would like to have represent me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whirlygigspin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Bernie would make a fine President
talk about kick ass!

Love you Vermont! keep on leading!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMacAttack Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. Is it his math skills that you like? See reply #28. NT.
NT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. What Representative Sanders did
was to lay out reality in the good old U. S. of A. He did it precisely and covered all of the important issues.

This is the fourth time this week, I have heard (read) a different speaker state what has been obvious to many DUers - this administration is bankrupting our country on purpose. That purpose is to have an excuse (although they hardly need one now) to do away w/all social programs.

Excellent speech! Thank you for posting this, Armstead!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. That seems to be the truth
Strip it all away and leave everyone subjected to the forces of the "markets" with no restraint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOPFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. GREAT!
:kick: KICK!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-03 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
7. right on the money
Is it because he is Independant that he feels free to be totally up front and honest about our situation?

Whatever the reason that Bernie allows himself to be so honest, we are lucky as a hell to have him in Congress. Democrats take note and listen to the words of one of our very best progressive leaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMacAttack Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
31. No, wrong on the money. See reply #28. NT.
NT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
8. It's great, but most Democrats won't say these things. Therefore, the
ideas won't get a wide audience, won't become political issues, & will wither on the vine, while a lot of BS about terrorism & "national security" is rammed down the public's throat.

Bernie's speech here says everything that needs to be said. It's all here. And he got it as far as the floor of the House. The problem is connecting this already extant developed view to the levers of power & to the machinery of public visibility.

It's too bad, really. If the Democrats were all like Bernie, DK, & other stars in the Progressive Caucus, this message & its implied program would go a lot further. But most of the Party is not at all like that. So the wisdom & coherence of this viewpoint will remain safely muzzled & marginalized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Sorta agree and disagree (as usual)
Edited on Thu Oct-23-03 08:44 AM by Armstead
I think these ideas are slowly getting out -- more than they used to anyway. And if people are exposed to it, eventually that will take hold in a larger way.

But I agree that the Democrats seem to avoid telling these truths like the plague (except for Kucinich, Sharpton and sorta Dean).

And the shame of it is that if the Democratis would tailor this as a "message" and deliver it clearly, they'd have a winning political strategy. The average person already realizes these things in their guts -- the problem is there are too few expressing it on trhe Big Stage. So they either give up or give in to the false remedies of the conservatives.

It is also a message that is not dependent on the Dow Jones andf unemployment that week. (Personally, I think the economy will "recover" just enough to deliver a haymaker to the Democrats chances next year, if they rely on the stale centrist criticisms of Bushonomics.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. It does seem to be a winning strategy. Does anyone think there's much
hope for creating an organized progressive movement within the Democratic Party? There are so many people who would respond positively to what Sanders has to say, but they'll never hear it the way things are now.

I don't think Dean is much of a progressive, but his campaign has demonstrated one can, at least to some degree, make an end run around the usual media outlets to gain notice. Maybe the internet isn't the best way to organize the middle class, but there have to be innovative ways to expose people to a truth that's a lot closer to reality than what they hear on GE TV. If we're going to get kicked around, we might as well figure out how to fight back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. With regards to your comments on Dean's campaign
I agree, Dean is no progressive. But it's important to remember that Dean's campaign is about so much more than Dean. It is about taking the party over from the Washington hacks, pollsters and spinsters -- and putting it in the hands of a vibrant grassroots movement.

I'm a Kucinich supporter right now, but I have to say that the Dean "phenomenon" is pretty damned exciting, not to mention a helluva lot bigger than Howard Dean himself. What is most exciting about it, IMHO, is that it scares the living shit out of the Washington "insider" crowd -- hence the frequent attacks from Lieberman and the DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. biting, yet astute
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMacAttack Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
32. I kind of like it that Democrats ability to multiply keeps them from
saying such things. See reply #28.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
9. Thanks, Armstead -- printed it out to read later...
I'm certain I won't find much to disagree with, because I consider Bernie to be "my Representative" in Congress, despite the fact that I live in NY and he's in VT.

Thanks for posting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoCountsTheVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
10. Kucinich/Sanders!
Edited on Thu Oct-23-03 08:37 AM by WhoCountsTheVotes
What a great speech. I *wish* the Democratic party would be saying this in unison. No, we must not talk about the wealthy elites, or their won't donate to our campaigns...or be our Presidential candidate either.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMacAttack Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #10
33. I see a movie. Staring Jeff Bridges and Jim Carey. See reply #28. NT.
NT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iverson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
13. thank you
Sanders' critique is very sensible and needs to be said by more than just a marginalized few. Mainstream Democrats should easily embrace this. Simple justice shouldn't be a terrifying hot potato.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Nail on the head
>>>>Simple justice shouldn't be a terrifying hot potato.<<<

Exactly. Sanders is not spouting off some exotic "leftist" foolishness. Just telling the truth that many people realize but which is not articulated in the media or politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
17. He lays it all out and
"morally repugnant" is the word to describe it all.

Wonder if China will be the new emerging future empire based on cut-throat ecapitalism and a hugh slave work force? Sure seems they increasingly own us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Morally repugnant and stupid
I'm sure some of the "free traders" believe in what they say. The problem is that the form of it that has been foisted in us runs contrary to basic comnmon sense.

It isn;t rocket science. After over 15 years of this nonsense, those long-awaited "benefits" just seem further and further away -- and in fact we are going in the opposite direction. At some point that simple truth ought to become obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unfrigginreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
18. Another common sense Vermonter!
Way to go Bernie!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chiburb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
20. Krugman has been making some of these very points...
For a while now. He says there is a REAL class war going on now, and the Repuke agenda is basically an attempt to remove all gubmint safety nets and create 2 classes: the rich and the rest of us.
Right on Bernie!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Yea, live in exotic El Salvador...
without leaving home. :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Yes we're voluntarily becoming an undeveloped nation
It's bizarre to see our nation pursuing policies that are pushing us down the socio-economic ladder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
22. As usual, excellent stuff from Bernie.
I really wish old Bernie wasn't such a purist though. As an admitted Socialist, Bernie has no hope of ever being a national politician. People are too stupid to realize that a Socialist isn't the same as a Communist or Marxist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Purist?
The only thing "purist" about Bernie's strategy is that it is based purely on listening to the concerns of his constitutents, and crafting common-sense solutions to those concerns that can best benefit society.

If that's a form of "purism", then that's a purism I'd gladly align myself with!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. He is a national politician
He gets more attention than most individual Congresspeople, partly because he doesn't play the sell-out game. He's also a workhorse, who pushes a lot of bills and issues behind the scenes. He almost single-handedly brought the media concentration into semi-daylight as a Congressional issue.

His agenda and message are basically "mainstream." The only ones who don't relate to the truths he speaks are the elite media, politicians, corporate oligarchy and right-wing nutjobs.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMacAttack Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. By excellent do you mean incapable of basic arthimetic?
See reply #28.

BMA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. Oh. You mean the discredited reply #28?
What a gas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mandyky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
25. Definitely kick worthy!
Gotta love VT and politicians from there :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
27. Kick
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. Psst...You forgot FICA. Oh and the average Walmart "Full Time" employee...
...works 30 hours a week (According to government statistics, the average Wal-Mart employee works just under 30 hours per week, and by the way, Wal-Mart considers 28 hours per week to be ‘full-time’. http://www.ufcw400.org/news/walmart/politics.html ) not 40. God I love reactionary CONservative math:-)

Thanks for playing!

Oh...Get bent:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMacAttack Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Do you have anything to point out that besides how bad Bernie
Sanders math is you will always agree with him?

As noted even using Bernies figures for a Wal-Mart employee a Wal-Mart employee earns over 4,000 dollars more than the poverty line.

Using Bernie's figures a family of four with two working parents makes over 9,000 dollars more than the poverty line.

Do you have any substantive replies? Or just ad hominem garbage?

28 hours a week. Good point. 12 hours times 5.05 = 60.60 times * 52 = 3120 more + 11,900 = 15,000. That would 6,000 dollars over the poverty line.

Millions of American families need income support. Bernies Sanders did NOT make the case for those families. His demagoguery regarding Wal-Mart ,which is source of needed income for millions of Americans, is not helpful. It based on an outdated zero sum view of economics and class envy.

BMA







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Since you like numbers more than people....
here's a page I suggest you visit. It's a family budget calculator.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/datazone_fambud_budget

Basic family budget calculator

The federal poverty line has traditionally been used to measure whether families have incomes high enough to enable them to meet basic needs. Yet most researchers now agree that a "poverty line" income is not sufficient to support most working families. "Basic family budgets," individualized for communities nationwide and for type of family (e.g., one parent/one child, two parents/two children) offer a realistic measure of the income required to have a safe and decent though basic standard of living.

The Family Budget Calculator lets you determine the income needed for particular types of families to make ends meet. Because costs of goods and services vary across the U.S., the calculator customizes the budgets for every U.S. community-400 in all. Simply select from one of six family types, pick a state, and then select a community to see how much that family is likely to need for housing, food, child care, etc. The calculator also shows the percent and number of families in that state living below the family budget level.

It is important to note that a basic family budget is indeed "basic." It comprises only the amounts a family needs to spend to feed, shelter, and clothe itself, get to work and school, and subsist in 21st century America. Hence, it includes no savings, no restaurant meals, no funds for emergencies-not even renters' insurance to protect against fire, flood or theft.

These family budgets are for the year 1999.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMacAttack Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Strawman and ad hominem. It may make you feel better to
demonize those who disagree with you by saying they like numbers more than people, but this does not make it true. It may make you feel morally superior but that does not mean that you are.

Researchers agree on no such thing. Many conservative, gasp, though I strongly support income redistribution, I read conservative views, claim the reverse. And their claims hold some merit.

A level whipped up on the back of a napkin is hardly perfect. But an income 33% above that level is most likely at least not below any 'real' povery line.

By the way your family budget does not measure poverty in any meaningful way. It measures relative poverty. A fatous notion based on class envy. With your family budget if the bottom 1/5 to 1/2's income increased by 10,000 but average income increased by 100,000 more people would be classified as poor. So with your family budgets poor people can earn more in real terms and still be classified as having gotten poorer. Like I said family budgets do NOT measure poverty in any meaningful.

Again this is a shame because poverty is a serious problem.

BMA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. Good gawd you missed the point.
Try this for a second: It was a speech, ok? Generally speaking his points about the overall situation in America were spot on and his statistics are close enough (What I mean by that is that if you've ever been involved with statistics you'll know that when 6 people calculate something independantly, often times you'll get 6 different numbers). That said Walmart still pays for-shit wages regardless of 5-10% ranges in estimates. If you've got a problem with his calculations, I have a grand idea, EMAIL him and ask how he derived the numbers, k'?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMacAttack Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Yea forget the facts and concentrate on the big truth. Who cares
if the evidence doesn't support it?

If we work hard enough we can selectively sift through the evidence until we find enough to support our big truth.

No thanks.

Wal Mart is part of the solution not part of the problem. No matter how you cut it 8.23 isn't great but it isn't poverty.

Some where a single mom needs a husband working 50 hours a week at 8.23 an hour. And you want to bust Wal Mart's chops for providing that job.

Again no thanks.

BMA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #46
56. Once again you've missed the point. "Facts" are, no really, SUBJECTIVE!
"Wal Mart is part of the solution not part of the problem. No matter how you cut it 8.23 isn't great but it isn't poverty."

Depends where you live, no? It also depends on the store policy that usually calls 30 hours a week "Full Time"! Go ahead live in that and support a family of four...Oh, wait, that's IMPOSSIBLE.

You are simply ingnoring the FACTS.

I'm through banging my head against an obtuse wall.

Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durutti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #39
57. Poverty Line is Outdated
I'm surprised you didn't know that, Oh Great Economics Master.

The current poverty line hasn't been updated since the 1960s. They calculated it then by taking the minimum amount a family would spend on food in a week and multiplying it by three.

Today, housing and healthcare cost much more than food. And even the original poverty line didn't allow for *nutritious* food, transportation, and myriad other needs. By the admission of the very people who formulated it, it was inadequate then, and is extremely inadequate now.

Applying the same standards that were applied then to today's economy, the poverty line should be about twice the official one.

Using a realistic minimum needs budget, about a third of the American population is struggling, if not quite impoverished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. You're an idiot
So we should all be making $17,000 a year? Gee let's see...when you break it into months, subtract luxuries like housing food, heat, transportation, health insurance (if you can get it) that doesn't go very far even if you're single...God forbid if you're a single parent.

What right wing rock did you crawl out from under anyway?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMacAttack Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. Ad hominem. If you have a problem with the Census Bureau's
povery levels, please detail your problems. I will listen to your arguments. If all you can do is emote and engage in ad hominem attacks have fun, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

BMA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. You started the ad hominum attacks
If you had not spiced your post with venom, I would not have insulted you in response.

As for the "official" poverty figures, I noted my problem with that in a post just above, referring to living costs....And besides, is your idea of a healthy economy one where increasing numbers of people are living just above the official poverty line? Is that the wonderful economy you're espousing?

And it is zero sum when corporations make huge amounts of money, while depriving the people that work for them on the front lines from the opportunity to earn a good living. Maybe that doesn;t fit into your brilliant economic analysis -- but sometimes you just gotta look around and see what is happening to people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMacAttack Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. Stop fighting phantoms. Wal Mart is cheap but they provide
decent pay for an hour of work. The poor aren't poor because the rich are rich.

Again a two parent family of four working 60 hours a week between them at Wal Mart, would earn roughly 33% above the Census Bureau poverty line.

Bernie is not brilliant he is a demagogue.

BMA

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. If you're happy with a steadily declining standard of living...
then good for you. If you think these trends are great, there's no way to convince you otherwise. You and GW Bush will get along fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMacAttack Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Again your premise is false. Income levels for all
income groups have been rising, overall, for two decades.


I do not get along with GWB. He is a plutocrat. I do not support his corporate welfare. I do not support the destruction of the welfare state.

I also do not support demagogic attacks on Wal Mart and gross simplifications of the problem of poverty.

BMA




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. A ridiculous lie. Kevin Phillips' "Wealth & Democracy" refutes this
assertion definitively, with tons of documentation. You are a repulsive rightwing jackass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMacAttack Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. What assertion? Again choose a source. Kevin Phillips'
summaries and characterizations are NOT a source.

Let us settle it by looking at the data.

Again if I am wrong will question my fundamental beliefs.

What will you risk?

BMA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. Your assertion that I responded to - namely, that "Income levels for all
income groups have been rising, overall, for two decades."

This is false. Income levels for the bottom 4 quintiles have not risen in 25 years. For percentiles 80-90 there have been modest gains. The only group that made substantial gains was the top 10%, & the gains were greater, the higher up one goes on the wealth scale.

Pick up a copy of the book & thumb through it, especially the tables at the back, & the chapter that mentions "quality of life" indices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. No poverty isn't simple
But when you attack people who point out trends that are as plain as the nose on your face as demagogues, then you are the one who is oversimplifying things.

Wages compared to living costs have not been increasings proportionally. Jobs that once paid middle class wages -- or lower middle-class wages -- are being replaced by wages that keep people in the "working poor" who wortk full time but stay just above the poverty line.

Wal Mart jobs are replacing small business and larger employers who are shipping jobs overseas due to our "free trade" policies and corporate monopolization of the economy. And corporations are either firing or pushing down wages and benefits of the people on the front lines, while executives make increasingly grotesque incomes and use their money to further build their monopoly power.

That is admittedly an oversimplification. But those facts are true. You are free to disagree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMacAttack Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. A few more minutes. No that just isn't true.
Real income has been rising over the last 20 years. Choose a respected source, Census Bureau?, and let us settle it.

I will question my entire foundation of beliefs if wrong.

What will you risk?

BMA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. I have seen numerous reputable refutations of that
But I don't have the moxie to go look them up tonight.

So go party and I will attempt to rock your worldview sometime this weekend.

But I warn you, my own mind won't be changed -- although it's always subject to modification. I've been paying too close attention for too long and seen too much. Sorry if that sounds inflexible, but it's taken 50 years to reach these conclusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigMacAttack Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Hey, I gotta go if I am not have ant chance of getting any tonight.
You made a few good points. You were fairly polite in the face of a little too much venom on my part. I enjoyed it. I will look for any reply tommorow. Have a nice night.

Wal Mart is not the problem!

BMA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
34. I printed this up and gave it to a co-worker.
He loved it but said this, "Was this in front of an empty chamber? It must have been because if it was in front of the full house it would've been big news. Sad eh?"

Well, yeah, it's sad that Bernie is becoming "The Power of One" and it's becoming apparent the "One" ain't enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
38. This should be the Democratic Party Platform.
Period. If we are a party representative of all the people, we should be discussing these very real issues and offering solutions (such as raising the minimum wage).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Polemonium Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #38
59. It should be, it might even start winning elections
and despite our fighting for these and other progressive ideas, progressive ideas have been far from the platform for a long time, and are likely to remain on the fringes of the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durutti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
53. Sanders is a Sellout
Edited on Fri Oct-24-03 09:21 PM by durutti
He supported the Gulf War and the sanctions on Iraq.

He also supported the Kosovo bombing (but I won't hold it against him, since many progressives were for it).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwolf68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
60. Hammer. Nail. Head

Dead-ass-balls accurate.

Keep bringing it Bernie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC