Does anyone follow Bernie Sanders and his run for the presidency?

[tango]

Sure, economic cycles rarely fit neatly into electoral cycles which means that politicians of all flavors get to try and claim credit for everything that goes well and blame The Other Guy for everything that goes badly regardless of whether they are in office or not.

So now with Obama in the White House as far as the Democrats are concerned everything good is because of their policy decisions and everything bad is because of the mess the Republicans left, while as far as the Republicans are concerned everything good is the delayed action of their policy decisions and everything bad is because of the bad decisions the Democrats made.

 

[MarkFL]

Sure, economic cycles rarely fit neatly into electoral cycles which means that politicians of all flavors get to try and claim credit for everything that goes well and blame The Other Guy for everything that goes badly regardless of whether they are in office or not.

So now with Obama in the White House as far as the Democrats are concerned everything good is because of their policy decisions and everything bad is because of the mess the Republicans left, while as far as the Republicans are concerned everything good is the delayed action of their policy decisions and everything bad is because of the bad decisions the Democrats made.

You hit the nail squarely on the head right there.

 

[Ruth]

Robin Hood is great for movies, but not real life, especially when one cannot determine who is really rich and who is really poor.

Reagan was right when he said the nine scariest words are "we're from the government, and we're here to help".

In our case the government is the people.

 

[Ruth]

Cuba is one of the most poverty stricken nations on the planet. And China rules its subjects with an iron fist. Neither is an example of the "successes" of socialism.

That is only your little tiny opinion which doesn't mean a thing to me.

 

[tango]

Cuba is one of the most poverty stricken nations on the planet. And China rules its subjects with an iron fist. Neither is an example of the "successes" of socialism.

Back in about 2006 one of the guys who worked for me at the time went to visit Cuba. From what he said when he got back it was a beautiful place to be but so backward it was unbelievable. For example, the Cubans were stunned at the sight of an iPod and even the concept that you could put so many hours of music on one device that would fit in a pocket. He also said that if you were part of the ruling class there was no shortage of resources but if you weren't then you were pretty much dependent on the government. If you wanted a bigger house you could apply for one, the government would consider your application and assign you a house deemed suitable if it was approved.

I don't want to live in a society where I don't have the right to buy the property that meets my own balance of needs/wants/budget.

 

[MotorCityChristian]

There is a big difference between communism and democratic socialism. Bernie Sanders has rightfully pointed out the incestuous relationship that politicians have with those in the banking industry as well as lobbyists in Washington. He is trying to get the crony capitalists(those playing with a huge advantage currently) to pay their fair share of taxes. We have all these huge companies that fail to pay taxes because their "headquarters" is not in the U.S. We turn away when they send jobs overseas rather than penalize them. The government elite and the 1% have these offshore accounts, but they get away with it because they pay the politicians off. Then, those making over 120k pay the same rate into social security as the middle class. The system is broken. Trickle down economics doesn't work.

 

[psalms 91]

Never did and never will. Trickle down is a joke the only thing that happens is trickle up, the poor supporting the rich to get richer

 

[Tigger]

Never did and never will. Trickle down is a joke the only thing that happens is trickle up, the poor supporting the rich to get richer

Well said::tea:

 

[Brighten04]

Good points, Brighten.

The real problem with socialism, as Margaret Thatcher once said, is that "Socialism works just fine -- until you run out of other people's money." Think of the literal billions of dollars we have spent since the 1960s through LBJ's "Great Society." And yet. a half-century later, the percentage of poor people is virtually the same. It has done nothing at all except destroy the black family structure and remove incentives to work for themselves.

I would think that Ted Cruz or Donald Trump would be strong conservatives who would turn things around, much like Ronald Reagan did after the debacle of the Carter years. Of course, to do that, they would need a continuing Republican Congress -- that is led by strong conservatives instead of dorks like John Boner and Mitch McConnell.

Sorry but I think you missed my point. And I am puzzled as to why you are pointing the finger at black people. Let us not make this about race. Living where I live, I understand that it is not social programs that is causing society to break down across all races, it IS income inequality and lack of jobs. But things imho are much better for the working poor under President Obama than under George Bush. I have never agreed with trickle down economics and I never will. Extreme capitalists like Trump, Cruze, and Romney who adapt the J.P. Morgan brand of capitalism are a danger to society imho. As Christians we need to know that everything, including "other people's money" belongs to our Father in Heaven.

 

[tango]

There is a big difference between communism and democratic socialism. Bernie Sanders has rightfully pointed out the incestuous relationship that politicians have with those in the banking industry as well as lobbyists in Washington. He is trying to get the crony capitalists(those playing with a huge advantage currently) to pay their fair share of taxes. We have all these huge companies that fail to pay taxes because their "headquarters" is not in the U.S. We turn away when they send jobs overseas rather than penalize them. The government elite and the 1% have these offshore accounts, but they get away with it because they pay the politicians off. Then, those making over 120k pay the same rate into social security as the middle class. The system is broken. Trickle down economics doesn't work.

The problem with the concept of "their fair share of taxes" is that it's a great line for tubthumping and rabble rousing but doesn't actually mean anything unless terms like "their fair share" can be objectively defined. Lines like "the rich should pay their fair share" and "corporations should pay their fair share" so often seem to get translated by the average dude in the street as meaning "people richer than me should pay more so I can pay less" which is selfish to the core. It's rather ironic that people with that selfish outlook complain at the "selfish people" who use legal means to pay less tax.

Part of the problem with the global economy is that multiple sets of rules apply. It's easy to argue that a "US company" should be subject to US jurisdiction but it takes little more than some clever accountants and lawyers for that US company to be taken over by a foreign company, at which point only the US operation is subject to US jurisdiction. The foreign parent is subject to the laws of the country where it is domiciled, and there's only so much any government can do to stop such things going on. Likewise when tax can be avoided by setting up a foreign discretionary trust fund we shouldn't be surprised when people do it. What many people overlook is the fact that just about anyone can do such a thing, it's just that unless the reduction in taxes is more than a certain amount it costs more to set up than it saves.

The incestuous relationship between politicians and some sections of the private sector market is definitely a bad thing, although it doesn't seem like any party is better than the others where that is concerned. The difference usually just seems to come down to which set of corporate interests pull the strings.

 

[tango]

Sorry but I think you missed my point. And I am puzzled as to why you are pointing the finger at black people. Let us not make this about race. Living where I live, I understand that it is not social programs that is causing society to break down across all races, it IS income inequality and lack of jobs.

A lack of opportunity is certainly a problem. Income inequality has been with us pretty much since there was income and never caused social collapse until recently. This is why I suspect a large part of the problem is caused by social programs.

To give you an example, one street where I lived until fairly recently had a reasonable range of people on it. We had one single mother with four children who seemed like a decent enough person but was obviously down on her luck. We had a few young professional couples who were obviously earning good money, and we had everything in between. So in terms of aspiration people could see what "the next step on the ladder" might look like, and aspire to be like Mr and Mrs Smith at number 43. If they achieved their dream, perhaps the next step would be to be more like Mr and Mrs Patel at number 18. And so on.

The problem is when housing prices rise the people on the lower end of the income range gradually get shaken out because only the wealthy can afford to live there. But then comes along a housing project that purports to help people get onto the housing ladder. The trouble is it's usually only available for those at the very bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum, which means that the housing area gets polarised. Which is exactly what happened in another street I used to live on. On one side of the road were seriously run down blocks of social housing while on the other side of the road were huge detached executive homes with brand new Mercedes and BMW cars on the driveway. There's no sense of trying to climb the ladder and seeing what the next step would look like - the people in the social housing would probably never live like the people they saw just across the road every single day. Hence their hope is squashed while their neighbors live in the fear borne of "I hope I never end up like them".

We don't have to question that ultimately everything belongs to God. But Jesus never told us to go and plunder someone else's wealth to fulfil our commission. Jesus told us what to do, and we can do that to the best of our ability using whatever resources we have at our disposal. Since when were Christians in the business of trying to force other people to do our work for us?