Who are you voting for: Bernie Sanders or Hilary Clinton?
Options
Comments
-
Bernie SandersThaNubianGod wrote: »
Huh? Colonialism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade. Not an economic policy. Especially one in it's infancy.ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Worked for Bill Clinton though......Out of all the candidates, Donald Trump seems the most sincere. He doesn't pander like Hillary.
Hillary is so phony. Her body language looks like somebody told her how to act in front of a camera.
So you would vote for a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? because he's sincere about being a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? ?
And what makes him more "sincere" than someone like Bernie Sanders who has been pretty consistent in what he says and does his whole career in politics?
And Bernie is sincerely fragile. Socialism is the worse type of economy for Black people.
ummm capitalism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade...that was a tad inconvenient for Black people i'd say
and then there's the whole privatized prison thing that's driving incarceration rates today but hey
The wealth gap is greater in socialist countries. The majority controls all, and the minorities get the short end of the stick. In America most of our rich are self-made. Black America alone has $1.1 trillion in economic power(would be #15 country in the world), we just squander it by not supporting our own businesses like Jews and Asians do. The ability to work ourselves up the ladder is the most important aspect of any economic system for Black people. Without it, do you think we would be allowed to move up? Tell me a socialist country, and then show me how Black people would benefit there. I would love to see it. White people will never give us ? . Look at public education, or any public serve, we ALWAYS get the short end of the stick, always.
Bernie Sanders is part of the minimum wage/welfare sect. We'll be Greece in a few years with him.
You can't compare socialist nations which are OVERWHELMINGLY ethnically uniform to a nation as diverse as America...it's apples and oranges
Capitalism is designed to have somebody at the bottom. Who is that going to be?? I would argue that capitalism is and always has been the MAIN driving force of modern day racism in this country. And regarding the trans-atlantic slave trade: Colonialism was driven by mercantilism...which is what capitalism evolved from. -
Everybody is making a big deal about how Trump says he's going to deport the illegal immigrants.
But I don't see anything wrong with deporting people who are here illegally.
In fact, I don't understand the opposing viewpoint.
Basically what Sneak just said. Not only is that not the only topic he holds a questionable position with, it alone is enough reason to want nothing to do with him.
He's not just trying to deport all illegals (which raises issues on it's own) he also wishes to challenge birthright citizenship granted by the 14th amendment. That then open's a pandora's box of the government deciding whose citizenship is valid and whose isn't.
It's understandable that you don't understand the opposing viewpoint when you don't quite have a full grasp of the viewpoint in which you are supporting.
? was sincere about what he was saying and had the body language to match. Don't be amongst the naive individuals allowing that to be the driving force behind their support of a candidate.
Honestly, ? might have been the best leader in the 20th century. Its too bad that we stopped him. If we had never got involved in World War II he probably would have exterminated all of the jews, which would have been a good thing.
My ? ...please stick to the Reason -
Bernie SandersBernie Sanders is a socialist and Socialism is evil disguised as good. He can never have my vote.
I wouldn't say that socialism is "evil" (whatever that really means) per se, especially if the people agree on a socialist state. But it does violate individual liberty (that is, in the negative sense) and is therefore "immoral" to such classical liberals.
But Sanders is a socialist, and for that reason, I don't like his domestic policies. But he does seem genuine and smart on many other issues, including the issue of foreign policy, which is, in my opinion, the single most important issue in America today. Nevertheless, he might not get my vote. Gary Johnson has consistently been better than the rest for several years now.Bernie Sanders and here's why:
Consistency
Bernie Sanders has held the same consistent positions since the 60's. A long time supporter of the Civil Rights Movement. Not that it matters to me, but he supported ? marriage before it was trendy as a democrat to do so while Clinton only supported marriage equality in the last 4 or 5 years or so. He stood by Obama through his ENTIRE presidency (history is going to look back kindly on all of the things Obama did for Black people on the low..namely working to undo some of the drug war damage done by Bill Clinton and Biden)
Stance on Gun Rights
Gun laws in this country have historically disproportionately effected Black people. Clinton believes in tighter gun laws which will ultimately keep weapons out of the hands of law-abiding Black people. Good luck with that. Look up Sander's record on gun control
Attention to Issues that Effect Black People in this Country
Sanders has released a comprehensive manifesto on racial inequalities and hostilities that effect the country on numerous levels and solutions on how to effectively combat them. Clinton? Ummmmmm not so much. She used the the Charleston church shooting as an opportunity to talk about stricter gun control laws. She had to be pressed for days to even acknowledge what transpired in Baltimore in the wake of Freddie Gray's killing. And again, I point to Sander's record as a supporter of the Civil Rights Movement as a person who actively participated. During this time, Clinton was a "GoldWater Girl" . Do your research on Berry Goldwater. He was basically laid the blueprint politically for Ronald Reagan. Clinton don't have time for you negroes and never has.
Economics
Listen to Hillary Clinton speak about her economic policies. And I mean really close your eyes and listen. She supports giving companies "incentives" to bring their manufacturing to America. That is nothing more than fluffy new-age trickle-down economics. She wants to give tax breaks to corporations that decide to throw the American worker a bone or two....at their own leisure. Yeah okay. Clinton is the democrat candidate of choice for Big Oil and Wall Street so don't expect any kind of distance to be created from the status-quo under her presidency on that regard. The job market will continue its trend of shrinking
Money in Politics
If you get the majority of your money from millionaires and billionaires, then as a politician who are you going to be beholden to? While Hilliary Clinton has claimed to be an opponent of big money in politics she does not walk it how she talks it. She is backed by Super Pacs just like the rest of them. Couple that with the various "non-political" donations given to the Clinton Foundation, I'm sure she owes ALOT of favors. Bernie Sanders has up to this point launched a true old-school grass roots campaigned. Funded by donations that average around $30. He's not connected to any Super Pacs. @jjwalker pointed me to a superpac that was started that backs Bernie Sanders, but even the guy's founder admitted he doesn't even know Bernie Sanders and he just wants to see him in office. At the time of the article the guy had only raised $2000.
So yeah Bernie Sanders 2016.
Good, informative post (though, like Nubian ? , I would strongly disagree with your other post that capitalism led to the slave trade). Question for a lazy ? though: In your opinion, what exactly is Sanders's stance on gun rights?
Well, he's to the right of the democratic party on guns. He's from Vermont so he represents a blue state but it's a rural state where hunting is a big thing, so guns are pretty precious to them. From my take he doesn't support massive federal regulations on guns.
However, in the past he has voted in favor of banning assault rifles and he does support universal background checks. He differs from most democrats in that when there's a mass shooting he isn't so quick to bring up the idea of expanded gun control and instead focuses on the mental health aspect which is kind of how I always look at it as well. -
OtherThaNubianGod wrote: »
Huh? Colonialism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade. Not an economic policy. Especially one in it's infancy.ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Worked for Bill Clinton though......Out of all the candidates, Donald Trump seems the most sincere. He doesn't pander like Hillary.
Hillary is so phony. Her body language looks like somebody told her how to act in front of a camera.
So you would vote for a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? because he's sincere about being a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? ?
And what makes him more "sincere" than someone like Bernie Sanders who has been pretty consistent in what he says and does his whole career in politics?
And Bernie is sincerely fragile. Socialism is the worse type of economy for Black people.
ummm capitalism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade...that was a tad inconvenient for Black people i'd say
and then there's the whole privatized prison thing that's driving incarceration rates today but hey
The wealth gap is greater in socialist countries. The majority controls all, and the minorities get the short end of the stick. In America most of our rich are self-made. Black America alone has $1.1 trillion in economic power(would be #15 country in the world), we just squander it by not supporting our own businesses like Jews and Asians do. The ability to work ourselves up the ladder is the most important aspect of any economic system for Black people. Without it, do you think we would be allowed to move up? Tell me a socialist country, and then show me how Black people would benefit there. I would love to see it. White people will never give us ? . Look at public education, or any public serve, we ALWAYS get the short end of the stick, always.
Bernie Sanders is part of the minimum wage/welfare sect. We'll be Greece in a few years with him.
You can't compare socialist nations which are OVERWHELMINGLY ethnically uniform to a nation as diverse as America...it's apples and oranges
Capitalism is designed to have somebody at the bottom. Who is that going to be?? I would argue that capitalism is and always has been the MAIN driving force of modern day racism in this country. And regarding the trans-atlantic slave trade: Colonialism was driven by mercantilism...which is what capitalism evolved from.
All the more reason why socialism should never attain social, political or economic ascendancy in the united states of america. And ONE of the, if the driving force behind capitalism is human greed. So what are you going to do get rid of human greed??? impossible. socialism rarely works because it ultimately needs human beings to fit into an ideal that is impossible.
the person at the bottom IS the person who cannot compete WITH others in any market, under a fair capitalistic system government exists to ensure that everyone has the liberty to compete and that the rules are fair and clear for all actors in the marketplace. -
Bernie Sanders is a socialist and Socialism is evil disguised as good. He can never have my vote.
I wouldn't say that socialism is "evil" (whatever that really means) per se, especially if the people agree on a socialist state. But it does violate individual liberty (that is, in the negative sense) and is therefore "immoral" to such classical liberals.
But Sanders is a socialist, and for that reason, I don't like his domestic policies. But he does seem genuine and smart on many other issues, including the issue of foreign policy, which is, in my opinion, the single most important issue in America today. Nevertheless, he might not get my vote. Gary Johnson has consistently been better than the rest for several years now.Bernie Sanders and here's why:
Consistency
Bernie Sanders has held the same consistent positions since the 60's. A long time supporter of the Civil Rights Movement. Not that it matters to me, but he supported ? marriage before it was trendy as a democrat to do so while Clinton only supported marriage equality in the last 4 or 5 years or so. He stood by Obama through his ENTIRE presidency (history is going to look back kindly on all of the things Obama did for Black people on the low..namely working to undo some of the drug war damage done by Bill Clinton and Biden)
Stance on Gun Rights
Gun laws in this country have historically disproportionately effected Black people. Clinton believes in tighter gun laws which will ultimately keep weapons out of the hands of law-abiding Black people. Good luck with that. Look up Sander's record on gun control
Attention to Issues that Effect Black People in this Country
Sanders has released a comprehensive manifesto on racial inequalities and hostilities that effect the country on numerous levels and solutions on how to effectively combat them. Clinton? Ummmmmm not so much. She used the the Charleston church shooting as an opportunity to talk about stricter gun control laws. She had to be pressed for days to even acknowledge what transpired in Baltimore in the wake of Freddie Gray's killing. And again, I point to Sander's record as a supporter of the Civil Rights Movement as a person who actively participated. During this time, Clinton was a "GoldWater Girl" . Do your research on Berry Goldwater. He was basically laid the blueprint politically for Ronald Reagan. Clinton don't have time for you negroes and never has.
Economics
Listen to Hillary Clinton speak about her economic policies. And I mean really close your eyes and listen. She supports giving companies "incentives" to bring their manufacturing to America. That is nothing more than fluffy new-age trickle-down economics. She wants to give tax breaks to corporations that decide to throw the American worker a bone or two....at their own leisure. Yeah okay. Clinton is the democrat candidate of choice for Big Oil and Wall Street so don't expect any kind of distance to be created from the status-quo under her presidency on that regard. The job market will continue its trend of shrinking
Money in Politics
If you get the majority of your money from millionaires and billionaires, then as a politician who are you going to be beholden to? While Hilliary Clinton has claimed to be an opponent of big money in politics she does not walk it how she talks it. She is backed by Super Pacs just like the rest of them. Couple that with the various "non-political" donations given to the Clinton Foundation, I'm sure she owes ALOT of favors. Bernie Sanders has up to this point launched a true old-school grass roots campaigned. Funded by donations that average around $30. He's not connected to any Super Pacs. @jjwalker pointed me to a superpac that was started that backs Bernie Sanders, but even the guy's founder admitted he doesn't even know Bernie Sanders and he just wants to see him in office. At the time of the article the guy had only raised $2000.
So yeah Bernie Sanders 2016.
Good, informative post (though, like Nubian ? , I would strongly disagree with your other post that capitalism led to the slave trade). Question for a lazy ? though: In your opinion, what exactly is Sanders's stance on gun rights?
Well, he's to the right of the democratic party on guns. He's from Vermont so he represents a blue state but it's a rural state where hunting is a big thing, so guns are pretty precious to them. From my take he doesn't support massive federal regulations on guns.
However, in the past he has voted in favor of banning assault rifles and he does support universal background checks. He differs from most democrats in that when there's a mass shooting he isn't so quick to bring up the idea of expanded gun control and instead focuses on the mental health aspect which is kind of how I always look at it as well.
Cool, appreciate it.
+1 for Sanders then. -
Donald TrumpThaNubianGod wrote: »
Huh? Colonialism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade. Not an economic policy. Especially one in it's infancy.ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Worked for Bill Clinton though......Out of all the candidates, Donald Trump seems the most sincere. He doesn't pander like Hillary.
Hillary is so phony. Her body language looks like somebody told her how to act in front of a camera.
So you would vote for a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? because he's sincere about being a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? ?
And what makes him more "sincere" than someone like Bernie Sanders who has been pretty consistent in what he says and does his whole career in politics?
And Bernie is sincerely fragile. Socialism is the worse type of economy for Black people.
ummm capitalism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade...that was a tad inconvenient for Black people i'd say
and then there's the whole privatized prison thing that's driving incarceration rates today but hey
The wealth gap is greater in socialist countries. The majority controls all, and the minorities get the short end of the stick. In America most of our rich are self-made. Black America alone has $1.1 trillion in economic power(would be #15 country in the world), we just squander it by not supporting our own businesses like Jews and Asians do. The ability to work ourselves up the ladder is the most important aspect of any economic system for Black people. Without it, do you think we would be allowed to move up? Tell me a socialist country, and then show me how Black people would benefit there. I would love to see it. White people will never give us ? . Look at public education, or any public serve, we ALWAYS get the short end of the stick, always.
Bernie Sanders is part of the minimum wage/welfare sect. We'll be Greece in a few years with him.
You can't compare socialist nations which are OVERWHELMINGLY ethnically uniform to a nation as diverse as America...it's apples and oranges
Capitalism is designed to have somebody at the bottom. Who is that going to be?? I would argue that capitalism is and always has been the MAIN driving force of modern day racism in this country. And regarding the trans-atlantic slave trade: Colonialism was driven by mercantilism...which is what capitalism evolved from.
I respect that you put a lot of thought behind your points, but don't quite agree with the conclusions.
1) Let's not even look at laregly White socialist nations. How about Tanzania.Socialist Experiment in Tanzania^
The high rate of population growth was to frustrate economic development in Tanzania and other places. Tanzania had become independent from Britain in December 1961 and was led by Julius Nyerere, a man dedicated to the well being of his fellow countrymen, a man who believed in frugality and lived that way. Nyerere was against corruption. Under his leadership, government officials and officials in his political party were obliged not to have more than one salary, own rental property or own shares in or be directors of private companies.
In December 1962, Tanzania left the Commonwealth and became a republic, with Nyerere as its president. Nyerere created a single-party system and used "preventive detention" to eliminate trade unions and political opposition.
Tanzania had little mineral or other natural resources. It was divided among dozens of ethnicities scattered about the nation, most of them involved in small-scale subsistence farming. Nyerere believed that western-style economic policies were unsuited for Tanzania. He drew from the ancient African tradition of sharing in an effort to create what he saw as a special kind of African socialism. His idealism encouraged young volunteers from places such as the United States, Britain and Sweden to come to Tanzania to help develop the country. From the industrialized West came assistance in the form of loans. But Nyerere wished to develop Tanzania without depending heavily on Western assistance.
In the early 1970s, Nyerere ordered the forced transfer of people to collective farms, and there was resistance and the burning of villages. Nyerere's campaign pushed the nation to the brink of starvation and made it dependent on foreign food aid. In 1974, after ten years in office, Nyerere admitted failure. He spoke of Inequality and poverty in the cities. He described poverty as "the experience of the majority of our citizens." The country was experiencing shortages of cooking oil and gasoline. Hotels in his capital, Dar es Salaam, were falling into disrepair. There had been a movement of people to the big city, and in the capital street gangs were coming into existence. Nyerere deplored his country's continued dependence on foreign assistance and its deficit financing.
He made Swahili the national language. Literacy in Tanzania increased from 20 percent in 1961 to 90 percent by 1983. With good rural health services, life expectancy (at birth) in this period rose from 35 years to 52. But food production was not keeping up with population growth.
Exports of products such as tea and coffee were not enough to buy an abundance of new tools for agriculture – such as tractors – or enough to pay for the importation of oil. Fifty percent of the earnings from exports went to paying back money borrowed from abroad. Tanzania's tourist industry failed to develop, foreign vacationers preferring to go to Kenya because transportation to Kenya cost about half that of traveling to Tanzania's game parks.
In 1976, Nyerere abolished his country's 2,500 independent farming cooperatives, in part because they were politically uncontrollable. The organization that he put in their place ran deficits and soaked up most of Tanzania's investment capital.
Nyerere's socialism had produced what some described as a bloated government bureaucracy. In the early 1980s, communal agriculture was in ill-repute in the world, as in China where Deng Xiapeng was now leader. In 1983, Nyerere declared that the government would again permit private enterprise in farming, including companies investing in private commercial farms. Nyerere agreed to cut government subsidies and to cut state run organizations. Faced with famines and mass starvation, Nyerere resigned in 1985, after twenty-four years as his nation's president. He hand-picked his successor, Ali Hassan Mwinyi, and the new regime began dismantling government controls over the economy.
That's what socialism does. It can be Tanzania, Greece, Cuba, China. No matter the race, socialism never works economically.
2) Capitalism has people at the bottom, but the disparities are much worse under socialism. And to add, the ability to move up from the bottom is very fluid in America, while not much of a reality in socialist countries.
3) I really don't agree that Capitalism has ever driven racism in America. Colonization precedes mercantilism by centuries, and really one can say capitalism probably had a big influence in ending the trans Atlantic trade. It was far easier to fund production and hire workers with capitalism, and the need for slave labor dwindled, outside of the US South. The Industrial Revolution was fueled by capitalism. -
Bernie SandersThaNubianGod wrote: »ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Huh? Colonialism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade. Not an economic policy. Especially one in it's infancy.ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Worked for Bill Clinton though......Out of all the candidates, Donald Trump seems the most sincere. He doesn't pander like Hillary.
Hillary is so phony. Her body language looks like somebody told her how to act in front of a camera.
So you would vote for a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? because he's sincere about being a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? ?
And what makes him more "sincere" than someone like Bernie Sanders who has been pretty consistent in what he says and does his whole career in politics?
And Bernie is sincerely fragile. Socialism is the worse type of economy for Black people.
ummm capitalism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade...that was a tad inconvenient for Black people i'd say
and then there's the whole privatized prison thing that's driving incarceration rates today but hey
The wealth gap is greater in socialist countries. The majority controls all, and the minorities get the short end of the stick. In America most of our rich are self-made. Black America alone has $1.1 trillion in economic power(would be #15 country in the world), we just squander it by not supporting our own businesses like Jews and Asians do. The ability to work ourselves up the ladder is the most important aspect of any economic system for Black people. Without it, do you think we would be allowed to move up? Tell me a socialist country, and then show me how Black people would benefit there. I would love to see it. White people will never give us ? . Look at public education, or any public serve, we ALWAYS get the short end of the stick, always.
Bernie Sanders is part of the minimum wage/welfare sect. We'll be Greece in a few years with him.
You can't compare socialist nations which are OVERWHELMINGLY ethnically uniform to a nation as diverse as America...it's apples and oranges
Capitalism is designed to have somebody at the bottom. Who is that going to be?? I would argue that capitalism is and always has been the MAIN driving force of modern day racism in this country. And regarding the trans-atlantic slave trade: Colonialism was driven by mercantilism...which is what capitalism evolved from.
I respect that you put a lot of thought behind your points, but don't quite agree with the conclusions.
1) Let's not even look at laregly White socialist nations. How about Tanzania..^
That's what socialism does. It can be Tanzania, Greece, Cuba, China. No matter the race, socialism never works economically.
2) Capitalism has people at the bottom, but the disparities are much worse under socialism. And to add, the ability to move up from the bottom is very fluid in America, while not much of a reality in socialist countries.
3) I really don't agree that Capitalism has ever driven racism in America. Colonization precedes mercantilism by centuries, and really one can say capitalism probably had a big influence in ending the trans Atlantic trade. It was far easier to fund production and hire workers with capitalism, and the need for slave labor dwindled, outside of the US South. The Industrial Revolution was fueled by capitalism.
I'm not familiar with the case of Tanzania but based off of the article you gave it was a style of socialism that differed in many ways to socialism in other parts of the world..the article also spoke to Tanzania's lack of natural resources which contributed to its struggles.
Socialism isn't one thing where countries either subscribe to it or they don't..there's obviously varying degrees. Any socialist policies that would hypothetically be instated in America wouldn't include the forced movement of people to work farms like in Tanzania.
But to act as if every nation with socialist policies is failing is misleading..there are socialist nations with stronger and more effecient healthcare than ours, socialist countries with stronger and higher ranked school systems than ours, etc . Germany is socialist when stacked next to America and it has an extremely strong economy with a much better healthcare system and tuition free college.
Entrepreneurship is embedded in American culture moreso than most other nations. Expansion of public services wouldn't change or hinder that.
-
Bernie SandersThaNubianGod wrote: »ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Huh? Colonialism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade. Not an economic policy. Especially one in it's infancy.ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Worked for Bill Clinton though......Out of all the candidates, Donald Trump seems the most sincere. He doesn't pander like Hillary.
Hillary is so phony. Her body language looks like somebody told her how to act in front of a camera.
So you would vote for a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? because he's sincere about being a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? ?
And what makes him more "sincere" than someone like Bernie Sanders who has been pretty consistent in what he says and does his whole career in politics?
And Bernie is sincerely fragile. Socialism is the worse type of economy for Black people.
ummm capitalism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade...that was a tad inconvenient for Black people i'd say
and then there's the whole privatized prison thing that's driving incarceration rates today but hey
The wealth gap is greater in socialist countries. The majority controls all, and the minorities get the short end of the stick. In America most of our rich are self-made. Black America alone has $1.1 trillion in economic power(would be #15 country in the world), we just squander it by not supporting our own businesses like Jews and Asians do. The ability to work ourselves up the ladder is the most important aspect of any economic system for Black people. Without it, do you think we would be allowed to move up? Tell me a socialist country, and then show me how Black people would benefit there. I would love to see it. White people will never give us ? . Look at public education, or any public serve, we ALWAYS get the short end of the stick, always.
Bernie Sanders is part of the minimum wage/welfare sect. We'll be Greece in a few years with him.
You can't compare socialist nations which are OVERWHELMINGLY ethnically uniform to a nation as diverse as America...it's apples and oranges
Capitalism is designed to have somebody at the bottom. Who is that going to be?? I would argue that capitalism is and always has been the MAIN driving force of modern day racism in this country. And regarding the trans-atlantic slave trade: Colonialism was driven by mercantilism...which is what capitalism evolved from.
I respect that you put a lot of thought behind your points, but don't quite agree with the conclusions.
1) Let's not even look at laregly White socialist nations. How about Tanzania.Socialist Experiment in Tanzania^
The high rate of population growth was to frustrate economic development in Tanzania and other places. Tanzania had become independent from Britain in December 1961 and was led by Julius Nyerere, a man dedicated to the well being of his fellow countrymen, a man who believed in frugality and lived that way. Nyerere was against corruption. Under his leadership, government officials and officials in his political party were obliged not to have more than one salary, own rental property or own shares in or be directors of private companies.
In December 1962, Tanzania left the Commonwealth and became a republic, with Nyerere as its president. Nyerere created a single-party system and used "preventive detention" to eliminate trade unions and political opposition.
Tanzania had little mineral or other natural resources. It was divided among dozens of ethnicities scattered about the nation, most of them involved in small-scale subsistence farming. Nyerere believed that western-style economic policies were unsuited for Tanzania. He drew from the ancient African tradition of sharing in an effort to create what he saw as a special kind of African socialism. His idealism encouraged young volunteers from places such as the United States, Britain and Sweden to come to Tanzania to help develop the country. From the industrialized West came assistance in the form of loans. But Nyerere wished to develop Tanzania without depending heavily on Western assistance.
In the early 1970s, Nyerere ordered the forced transfer of people to collective farms, and there was resistance and the burning of villages. Nyerere's campaign pushed the nation to the brink of starvation and made it dependent on foreign food aid. In 1974, after ten years in office, Nyerere admitted failure. He spoke of Inequality and poverty in the cities. He described poverty as "the experience of the majority of our citizens." The country was experiencing shortages of cooking oil and gasoline. Hotels in his capital, Dar es Salaam, were falling into disrepair. There had been a movement of people to the big city, and in the capital street gangs were coming into existence. Nyerere deplored his country's continued dependence on foreign assistance and its deficit financing.
He made Swahili the national language. Literacy in Tanzania increased from 20 percent in 1961 to 90 percent by 1983. With good rural health services, life expectancy (at birth) in this period rose from 35 years to 52. But food production was not keeping up with population growth.
Exports of products such as tea and coffee were not enough to buy an abundance of new tools for agriculture – such as tractors – or enough to pay for the importation of oil. Fifty percent of the earnings from exports went to paying back money borrowed from abroad. Tanzania's tourist industry failed to develop, foreign vacationers preferring to go to Kenya because transportation to Kenya cost about half that of traveling to Tanzania's game parks.
In 1976, Nyerere abolished his country's 2,500 independent farming cooperatives, in part because they were politically uncontrollable. The organization that he put in their place ran deficits and soaked up most of Tanzania's investment capital.
Nyerere's socialism had produced what some described as a bloated government bureaucracy. In the early 1980s, communal agriculture was in ill-repute in the world, as in China where Deng Xiapeng was now leader. In 1983, Nyerere declared that the government would again permit private enterprise in farming, including companies investing in private commercial farms. Nyerere agreed to cut government subsidies and to cut state run organizations. Faced with famines and mass starvation, Nyerere resigned in 1985, after twenty-four years as his nation's president. He hand-picked his successor, Ali Hassan Mwinyi, and the new regime began dismantling government controls over the economy.
That's what socialism does. It can be Tanzania, Greece, Cuba, China. No matter the race, socialism never works economically.
2) Capitalism has people at the bottom, but the disparities are much worse under socialism. And to add, the ability to move up from the bottom is very fluid in America, while not much of a reality in socialist countries.
3) I really don't agree that Capitalism has ever driven racism in America. Colonization precedes mercantilism by centuries, and really one can say capitalism probably had a big influence in ending the trans Atlantic trade. It was far easier to fund production and hire workers with capitalism, and the need for slave labor dwindled, outside of the US South. The Industrial Revolution was fueled by capitalism.
The type of socialism implemented in Tanzania isn't what is currently being proposed in America. ? , the majority of what's currently being presented isn't even socialism at its core. These are largely positions that were backed by the Republican party pre-Reagonomics.
It makes little sense to compare a nation with little resources, according to your own citations, with the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. -
OtherI'll be moving like Bernie
-
Bernie SandersWebster's dictionary defines socialism as a form of society in which government owns or controls major industries. Marxist theory says socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.
Neither one of these definitions is what Sanders is talking about.
"What am I trying to do in this campaign is to tell Americans what many of them don't know: that the benefits for working people are a lot, lot stronger in many other countries around the world," he has said.
Sanders points out that in many races for mayor and Congress he ran and won as an independent, not as a member of any socialist party.
And he says the kind of socialism he advocates is the Democratic socialism seen in Scandinavia and other countries in Europe. Those governments support paid sick leave, universal health care and free higher education.
"How many Americans know that in virtually every major industrialized country people are guaranteed vacation time, paid vacation time? That when you have a baby, moms and dads are guaranteed ... family leave?" he said.
Garrison Nelson, a professor of political science at the University of Vermont, has observed Sanders throughout his political career.
"This is not communism; this is not five-year plans, collectivized agriculture and nationalized industry," he said.
Back in 1981 when Sanders was first elected mayor of Burlington, Nelson said reporters from Europe called him because what they viewed as normal in politics was considered an aberration in the States.
"It's a relatively mild, I would say a vanilla socialism," Nelson said Sanders told them. "It's basically focused on big businesses, and capitalist inequalities."
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/27/434872755/exactly-what-kind-of-socialist-is-bernie-sanders
So that Nyerere Socialism comparison couldn't be further off base. This is the inherent problem with a lot of these labels. We throw these people into a box and write them off without even slightly attempting to familiarize ourselves on their actual proposals. That's why you can hear people state, "Bernie Sanders is a socialist," and end up with folks making inaccurate comparisons to socialist experiments in Tanzania. -
OtherThaNubianGod wrote: »ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Huh? Colonialism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade. Not an economic policy. Especially one in it's infancy.ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Worked for Bill Clinton though......Out of all the candidates, Donald Trump seems the most sincere. He doesn't pander like Hillary.
Hillary is so phony. Her body language looks like somebody told her how to act in front of a camera.
So you would vote for a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? because he's sincere about being a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? ?
And what makes him more "sincere" than someone like Bernie Sanders who has been pretty consistent in what he says and does his whole career in politics?
And Bernie is sincerely fragile. Socialism is the worse type of economy for Black people.
ummm capitalism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade...that was a tad inconvenient for Black people i'd say
and then there's the whole privatized prison thing that's driving incarceration rates today but hey
The wealth gap is greater in socialist countries. The majority controls all, and the minorities get the short end of the stick. In America most of our rich are self-made. Black America alone has $1.1 trillion in economic power(would be #15 country in the world), we just squander it by not supporting our own businesses like Jews and Asians do. The ability to work ourselves up the ladder is the most important aspect of any economic system for Black people. Without it, do you think we would be allowed to move up? Tell me a socialist country, and then show me how Black people would benefit there. I would love to see it. White people will never give us ? . Look at public education, or any public serve, we ALWAYS get the short end of the stick, always.
Bernie Sanders is part of the minimum wage/welfare sect. We'll be Greece in a few years with him.
You can't compare socialist nations which are OVERWHELMINGLY ethnically uniform to a nation as diverse as America...it's apples and oranges
Capitalism is designed to have somebody at the bottom. Who is that going to be?? I would argue that capitalism is and always has been the MAIN driving force of modern day racism in this country. And regarding the trans-atlantic slave trade: Colonialism was driven by mercantilism...which is what capitalism evolved from.
I respect that you put a lot of thought behind your points, but don't quite agree with the conclusions.
1) Let's not even look at laregly White socialist nations. How about Tanzania..^
That's what socialism does. It can be Tanzania, Greece, Cuba, China. No matter the race, socialism never works economically.
2) Capitalism has people at the bottom, but the disparities are much worse under socialism. And to add, the ability to move up from the bottom is very fluid in America, while not much of a reality in socialist countries.
3) I really don't agree that Capitalism has ever driven racism in America. Colonization precedes mercantilism by centuries, and really one can say capitalism probably had a big influence in ending the trans Atlantic trade. It was far easier to fund production and hire workers with capitalism, and the need for slave labor dwindled, outside of the US South. The Industrial Revolution was fueled by capitalism.
I'm not familiar with the case of Tanzania but based off of the article you gave it was a style of socialism that differed in many ways to socialism in other parts of the world..the article also spoke to Tanzania's lack of natural resources which contributed to its struggles.
Socialism isn't one thing where countries either subscribe to it or they don't..there's obviously varying degrees. Any socialist policies that would hypothetically be instated in America wouldn't include the forced movement of people to work farms like in Tanzania.
But to act as if every nation with socialist policies is failing is misleading..there are socialist nations with stronger and more effecient healthcare than ours, socialist countries with stronger and higher ranked school systems than ours, etc . Germany is socialist when stacked next to America and it has an extremely strong economy with a much better healthcare system and tuition free college.
Entrepreneurship is embedded in American culture moreso than most other nations. Expansion of public services wouldn't change or hinder that.
The United states of America is not Germany or Tanzania. Germany is also part of the European union there economy and society is totally different from ours.
Who is going to pay for these increased public services??? The tax payer. Increase taxes on the rich you say, but who defines what's rich. -
Bernie SandersThaNubianGod wrote: »ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Huh? Colonialism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade. Not an economic policy. Especially one in it's infancy.ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Worked for Bill Clinton though......Out of all the candidates, Donald Trump seems the most sincere. He doesn't pander like Hillary.
Hillary is so phony. Her body language looks like somebody told her how to act in front of a camera.
So you would vote for a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? because he's sincere about being a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? ?
And what makes him more "sincere" than someone like Bernie Sanders who has been pretty consistent in what he says and does his whole career in politics?
And Bernie is sincerely fragile. Socialism is the worse type of economy for Black people.
ummm capitalism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade...that was a tad inconvenient for Black people i'd say
and then there's the whole privatized prison thing that's driving incarceration rates today but hey
The wealth gap is greater in socialist countries. The majority controls all, and the minorities get the short end of the stick. In America most of our rich are self-made. Black America alone has $1.1 trillion in economic power(would be #15 country in the world), we just squander it by not supporting our own businesses like Jews and Asians do. The ability to work ourselves up the ladder is the most important aspect of any economic system for Black people. Without it, do you think we would be allowed to move up? Tell me a socialist country, and then show me how Black people would benefit there. I would love to see it. White people will never give us ? . Look at public education, or any public serve, we ALWAYS get the short end of the stick, always.
Bernie Sanders is part of the minimum wage/welfare sect. We'll be Greece in a few years with him.
You can't compare socialist nations which are OVERWHELMINGLY ethnically uniform to a nation as diverse as America...it's apples and oranges
Capitalism is designed to have somebody at the bottom. Who is that going to be?? I would argue that capitalism is and always has been the MAIN driving force of modern day racism in this country. And regarding the trans-atlantic slave trade: Colonialism was driven by mercantilism...which is what capitalism evolved from.
I respect that you put a lot of thought behind your points, but don't quite agree with the conclusions.
1) Let's not even look at laregly White socialist nations. How about Tanzania..^
That's what socialism does. It can be Tanzania, Greece, Cuba, China. No matter the race, socialism never works economically.
2) Capitalism has people at the bottom, but the disparities are much worse under socialism. And to add, the ability to move up from the bottom is very fluid in America, while not much of a reality in socialist countries.
3) I really don't agree that Capitalism has ever driven racism in America. Colonization precedes mercantilism by centuries, and really one can say capitalism probably had a big influence in ending the trans Atlantic trade. It was far easier to fund production and hire workers with capitalism, and the need for slave labor dwindled, outside of the US South. The Industrial Revolution was fueled by capitalism.
I'm not familiar with the case of Tanzania but based off of the article you gave it was a style of socialism that differed in many ways to socialism in other parts of the world..the article also spoke to Tanzania's lack of natural resources which contributed to its struggles.
Socialism isn't one thing where countries either subscribe to it or they don't..there's obviously varying degrees. Any socialist policies that would hypothetically be instated in America wouldn't include the forced movement of people to work farms like in Tanzania.
But to act as if every nation with socialist policies is failing is misleading..there are socialist nations with stronger and more effecient healthcare than ours, socialist countries with stronger and higher ranked school systems than ours, etc . Germany is socialist when stacked next to America and it has an extremely strong economy with a much better healthcare system and tuition free college.
Entrepreneurship is embedded in American culture moreso than most other nations. Expansion of public services wouldn't change or hinder that.
The tax payer. Increase taxes on the rich you say, but who defines what's rich.
This would be negotiated in the national budget the exact same way the current tax brackets are negotiated on an annual basis.
The proposed figures and percentages are already out there for you to find. And once finalized they likely won't be, because they never are, the original amounts presented. -
Donald TrumpThaNubianGod wrote: »ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Huh? Colonialism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade. Not an economic policy. Especially one in it's infancy.ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Worked for Bill Clinton though......Out of all the candidates, Donald Trump seems the most sincere. He doesn't pander like Hillary.
Hillary is so phony. Her body language looks like somebody told her how to act in front of a camera.
So you would vote for a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? because he's sincere about being a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? ?
And what makes him more "sincere" than someone like Bernie Sanders who has been pretty consistent in what he says and does his whole career in politics?
And Bernie is sincerely fragile. Socialism is the worse type of economy for Black people.
ummm capitalism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade...that was a tad inconvenient for Black people i'd say
and then there's the whole privatized prison thing that's driving incarceration rates today but hey
The wealth gap is greater in socialist countries. The majority controls all, and the minorities get the short end of the stick. In America most of our rich are self-made. Black America alone has $1.1 trillion in economic power(would be #15 country in the world), we just squander it by not supporting our own businesses like Jews and Asians do. The ability to work ourselves up the ladder is the most important aspect of any economic system for Black people. Without it, do you think we would be allowed to move up? Tell me a socialist country, and then show me how Black people would benefit there. I would love to see it. White people will never give us ? . Look at public education, or any public serve, we ALWAYS get the short end of the stick, always.
Bernie Sanders is part of the minimum wage/welfare sect. We'll be Greece in a few years with him.
You can't compare socialist nations which are OVERWHELMINGLY ethnically uniform to a nation as diverse as America...it's apples and oranges
Capitalism is designed to have somebody at the bottom. Who is that going to be?? I would argue that capitalism is and always has been the MAIN driving force of modern day racism in this country. And regarding the trans-atlantic slave trade: Colonialism was driven by mercantilism...which is what capitalism evolved from.
I respect that you put a lot of thought behind your points, but don't quite agree with the conclusions.
1) Let's not even look at laregly White socialist nations. How about Tanzania..^
That's what socialism does. It can be Tanzania, Greece, Cuba, China. No matter the race, socialism never works economically.
2) Capitalism has people at the bottom, but the disparities are much worse under socialism. And to add, the ability to move up from the bottom is very fluid in America, while not much of a reality in socialist countries.
3) I really don't agree that Capitalism has ever driven racism in America. Colonization precedes mercantilism by centuries, and really one can say capitalism probably had a big influence in ending the trans Atlantic trade. It was far easier to fund production and hire workers with capitalism, and the need for slave labor dwindled, outside of the US South. The Industrial Revolution was fueled by capitalism.
I'm not familiar with the case of Tanzania but based off of the article you gave it was a style of socialism that differed in many ways to socialism in other parts of the world..the article also spoke to Tanzania's lack of natural resources which contributed to its struggles.
Socialism isn't one thing where countries either subscribe to it or they don't..there's obviously varying degrees. Any socialist policies that would hypothetically be instated in America wouldn't include the forced movement of people to work farms like in Tanzania.
But to act as if every nation with socialist policies is failing is misleading..there are socialist nations with stronger and more effecient healthcare than ours, socialist countries with stronger and higher ranked school systems than ours, etc . Germany is socialist when stacked next to America and it has an extremely strong economy with a much better healthcare system and tuition free college.
Entrepreneurship is embedded in American culture moreso than most other nations. Expansion of public services wouldn't change or hinder that.
1) It was the socialist policies that doomed Tanzania. And again, I've already referenced other socialist nations. I just wanted to show it in an African country.
2) Germany is not a socialist country, it's business sector is run by capitalism. You're not going to find successful socialistic nation because they don't exist. Perhaps China if you discount all of it's issues.
3) Having social programs is not anti-capitalism. Nothing wrong with smart social services. Bernie Sanders and Clinton however, are not who you want monitoring these expenses. -
Bernie SandersThaNubianGod wrote: »ThaNubianGod wrote: »ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Huh? Colonialism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade. Not an economic policy. Especially one in it's infancy.ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Worked for Bill Clinton though......Out of all the candidates, Donald Trump seems the most sincere. He doesn't pander like Hillary.
Hillary is so phony. Her body language looks like somebody told her how to act in front of a camera.
So you would vote for a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? because he's sincere about being a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? ?
And what makes him more "sincere" than someone like Bernie Sanders who has been pretty consistent in what he says and does his whole career in politics?
And Bernie is sincerely fragile. Socialism is the worse type of economy for Black people.
ummm capitalism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade...that was a tad inconvenient for Black people i'd say
and then there's the whole privatized prison thing that's driving incarceration rates today but hey
The wealth gap is greater in socialist countries. The majority controls all, and the minorities get the short end of the stick. In America most of our rich are self-made. Black America alone has $1.1 trillion in economic power(would be #15 country in the world), we just squander it by not supporting our own businesses like Jews and Asians do. The ability to work ourselves up the ladder is the most important aspect of any economic system for Black people. Without it, do you think we would be allowed to move up? Tell me a socialist country, and then show me how Black people would benefit there. I would love to see it. White people will never give us ? . Look at public education, or any public serve, we ALWAYS get the short end of the stick, always.
Bernie Sanders is part of the minimum wage/welfare sect. We'll be Greece in a few years with him.
You can't compare socialist nations which are OVERWHELMINGLY ethnically uniform to a nation as diverse as America...it's apples and oranges
Capitalism is designed to have somebody at the bottom. Who is that going to be?? I would argue that capitalism is and always has been the MAIN driving force of modern day racism in this country. And regarding the trans-atlantic slave trade: Colonialism was driven by mercantilism...which is what capitalism evolved from.
I respect that you put a lot of thought behind your points, but don't quite agree with the conclusions.
1) Let's not even look at laregly White socialist nations. How about Tanzania..^
That's what socialism does. It can be Tanzania, Greece, Cuba, China. No matter the race, socialism never works economically.
2) Capitalism has people at the bottom, but the disparities are much worse under socialism. And to add, the ability to move up from the bottom is very fluid in America, while not much of a reality in socialist countries.
3) I really don't agree that Capitalism has ever driven racism in America. Colonization precedes mercantilism by centuries, and really one can say capitalism probably had a big influence in ending the trans Atlantic trade. It was far easier to fund production and hire workers with capitalism, and the need for slave labor dwindled, outside of the US South. The Industrial Revolution was fueled by capitalism.
I'm not familiar with the case of Tanzania but based off of the article you gave it was a style of socialism that differed in many ways to socialism in other parts of the world..the article also spoke to Tanzania's lack of natural resources which contributed to its struggles.
Socialism isn't one thing where countries either subscribe to it or they don't..there's obviously varying degrees. Any socialist policies that would hypothetically be instated in America wouldn't include the forced movement of people to work farms like in Tanzania.
But to act as if every nation with socialist policies is failing is misleading..there are socialist nations with stronger and more effecient healthcare than ours, socialist countries with stronger and higher ranked school systems than ours, etc . Germany is socialist when stacked next to America and it has an extremely strong economy with a much better healthcare system and tuition free college.
Entrepreneurship is embedded in American culture moreso than most other nations. Expansion of public services wouldn't change or hinder that.
1) It was the socialist policies that doomed Tanzania. And again, I've already referenced other socialist nations. I just wanted to show it in an African country.
2) Germany is not a socialist country, it's business sector is run by capitalism. You're not going to find successful socialistic nation because they don't exist. Perhaps China if you discount all of it's issues.
3) Having social programs is not anti-capitalism. Nothing wrong with smart social services. Bernie Sanders and Clinton however, are not who you want monitoring these expenses.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding and misrepresenting exactly what it is that Bernie Sanders is proposing. He is not proposing that America should become a socialist country. He isn't proposing we extinguish capitalism in our business sector. He's proposing that we regulate it.
See my previous post. You can't just say "socialism!" and then paint every single proposal with one broad stroke. -
Holland is the most capitalistic, entrepeneur/trade country on the planet. Yet its considered a 'social democracy'...due to the relatively high tax system, social securities and facilities are top notch...(from public transport/infrastructure to healthcare, education etc)...Im talking high speed trains, Mercedes Benz hybrid busses, superb roads, top ranking universities and hospitals....and job benefits(secundary work benefits ftw), pensions etc etc.
Holland is also the most multicultural country on the planet...your broke? Doesnt matter your kids can go to any university they want, get the best healthcare and make a shitload of money
but the system only works, in small countries like Holland, countries with transparent political systems, America is to one sided, to violent and to big...but states could follow the scandinivian or Dutch models...individual states can pull it off... -
And seriously yall, da ? is up with this 'socialism vs capitalism vs communism' discussion? Its 2015 man not 1987...industrial and truelly developed nations like South Korea, The Netherlands etc have already gone beyond that ? ...
time yall catch up. -
OtherHundredEyes wrote: »And seriously yall, da ? is up with this 'socialism vs capitalism vs communism' discussion? Its 2015 man not 1987...industrial and truelly developed nations like South Korea, The Netherlands etc have already gone beyond that ? ...
time yall catch up.
South Korea is a capitalist nation. In nations that run what can be considered a mixed economy capitalism and the free market have supremacy but the government does provide some welfare services, most of these nations also have a multiparty system most of these nations that successfully implement these socialist policies are also very small or resource rich and sonewhat or very homogeneous
American does not have a multiparty system is and is not small or homogeneous. therefore you should understand why electing a socialist president is problematic -
OtherHundredEyes wrote: »Holland is the most capitalistic, entrepeneur/trade country on the planet. Yet its considered a 'social democracy'...due to the relatively high tax system, social securities and facilities are top notch...(from public transport/infrastructure to healthcare, education etc)...Im talking high speed trains, Mercedes Benz hybrid busses, superb roads, top ranking universities and hospitals....and job benefits(secundary work benefits ftw), pensions etc etc.
Holland is also the most multicultural country on the planet...your broke? Doesnt matter your kids can go to any university they want, get the best healthcare and make a shitload of money
but the system only works, in small countries like Holland, countries with transparent political systems, America is to one sided, to violent and to big...but states could follow the scandinivian or Dutch models...individual states can pull it off...
There are individual states in America that are larger and more economically powerful than whole European nations. Americans cannot just copy western Europe and it makes no sense to do so -
Bernie SandersLow-Income Workers Have Nowhere Affordable To Live, New Report Shows
Low-income workers and their families do not earn enough to live in even the least expensive metropolitan American communities, according to a new analysis of families’ living costs published Wednesday.
The analysis, released by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, is an annual update of the think tank’s Family Budget Calculator that reflects new 2014 data. The Family Budget Calculator is a formula designed to determine the income “required for families to attain a secure yet modest standard of living” in 618 different communities across the country that the U.S. Census Bureau defines as metropolitan areas. The formula uses data collected by the government and some nonprofit groups to measure costs of housing, food, child care, transportation, health care, “other necessities” like clothing, and taxes for families of 10 different compositions in these specific locales.
The updated Family Budget Calculator shows that even the most affordable metropolitan areas in the country are beyond the reach of millions of American families with incomes above the official federal poverty level. The official federal poverty level for a family of two parents and two children in 2014 was $24,008, according to the EPI. But the least expensive metropolitan area in the country for this family type is Morristown, Tennessee, where a family needs an income of $49,114, according to the Economic Policy Institute’s budget calculator.
The Economic Policy Institute also estimates that minimum-wage workers -- who almost universally earn less than the federal poverty level -- lack the income needed to make an adequate living in any of the communities surveyed, even if they are single and childless. The think tank notes that this includes minimum-wage workers living in cities or states with a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour, or $15,080 a year for a full-time worker.
Even families with incomes closer to the middle of the earnings spectrum lack the means to maintain an adequate standard of living. The nation’s median household income was $51,939 in 2013 -- the most recent year in which data were available -- not much higher than the cost of living in the relatively inexpensive Morristown.
The median household income nationwide is also significantly less than is needed to live in the metropolitan area of Des Moines, Iowa, which is the median in costliness for a family with two parents and two children among the communities included in the Economic Policy Institute’s budget calculator. A family of that makeup in Des Moines requires an income of $63,741 to live adequately.
In addition, the updated Family Budget Calculator found that Washington, D.C., is the most expensive metropolitan area in the country for a family to raise children. A family with two parents and two children requires $106,493 to maintain an adequate living standard in the D.C. metropolitan area. Following D.C., the most expensive metropolitan areas for a family of the same makeup were Nassau-Suffolk, New York (Long Island); Westchester County, New York; New York City; Stamford-Norwalk, Connecticut; Honolulu; Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, New York; Ithaca, New York; San Francisco; and Danbury, Connecticut....
“Wage growth has been stagnant for most workers for decades and, as a result, there is a mismatch between what workers are paid and what it takes to live and support a family,” said Elise Gould, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, in a statement. “We need a variety of policies to boost wage growth, which includes a higher minimum wage, stronger overtime rules, collective bargaining rights, and enforcement of labor standards as well as the pursuit of a full-employment economy.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/low-income-workers-have-nowhere-to-live-new-report-shows_55de2b29e4b029b3f1b17e4c
-
OtherThaNubianGod wrote: »ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Huh? Colonialism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade. Not an economic policy. Especially one in it's infancy.ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Worked for Bill Clinton though......Out of all the candidates, Donald Trump seems the most sincere. He doesn't pander like Hillary.
Hillary is so phony. Her body language looks like somebody told her how to act in front of a camera.
So you would vote for a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? because he's sincere about being a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? ?
And what makes him more "sincere" than someone like Bernie Sanders who has been pretty consistent in what he says and does his whole career in politics?
And Bernie is sincerely fragile. Socialism is the worse type of economy for Black people.
ummm capitalism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade...that was a tad inconvenient for Black people i'd say
and then there's the whole privatized prison thing that's driving incarceration rates today but hey
The wealth gap is greater in socialist countries. The majority controls all, and the minorities get the short end of the stick. In America most of our rich are self-made. Black America alone has $1.1 trillion in economic power(would be #15 country in the world), we just squander it by not supporting our own businesses like Jews and Asians do. The ability to work ourselves up the ladder is the most important aspect of any economic system for Black people. Without it, do you think we would be allowed to move up? Tell me a socialist country, and then show me how Black people would benefit there. I would love to see it. White people will never give us ? . Look at public education, or any public serve, we ALWAYS get the short end of the stick, always.
Bernie Sanders is part of the minimum wage/welfare sect. We'll be Greece in a few years with him.
You can't compare socialist nations which are OVERWHELMINGLY ethnically uniform to a nation as diverse as America...it's apples and oranges
Capitalism is designed to have somebody at the bottom. Who is that going to be?? I would argue that capitalism is and always has been the MAIN driving force of modern day racism in this country. And regarding the trans-atlantic slave trade: Colonialism was driven by mercantilism...which is what capitalism evolved from.
I respect that you put a lot of thought behind your points, but don't quite agree with the conclusions.
1) Let's not even look at laregly White socialist nations. How about Tanzania..^
That's what socialism does. It can be Tanzania, Greece, Cuba, China. No matter the race, socialism never works economically.
2) Capitalism has people at the bottom, but the disparities are much worse under socialism. And to add, the ability to move up from the bottom is very fluid in America, while not much of a reality in socialist countries.
3) I really don't agree that Capitalism has ever driven racism in America. Colonization precedes mercantilism by centuries, and really one can say capitalism probably had a big influence in ending the trans Atlantic trade. It was far easier to fund production and hire workers with capitalism, and the need for slave labor dwindled, outside of the US South. The Industrial Revolution was fueled by capitalism.
I'm not familiar with the case of Tanzania but based off of the article you gave it was a style of socialism that differed in many ways to socialism in other parts of the world..the article also spoke to Tanzania's lack of natural resources which contributed to its struggles.
Socialism isn't one thing where countries either subscribe to it or they don't..there's obviously varying degrees. Any socialist policies that would hypothetically be instated in America wouldn't include the forced movement of people to work farms like in Tanzania.
But to act as if every nation with socialist policies is failing is misleading..there are socialist nations with stronger and more effecient healthcare than ours, socialist countries with stronger and higher ranked school systems than ours, etc . Germany is socialist when stacked next to America and it has an extremely strong economy with a much better healthcare system and tuition free college.
Entrepreneurship is embedded in American culture moreso than most other nations. Expansion of public services wouldn't change or hinder that.
The tax payer. Increase taxes on the rich you say, but who defines what's rich.
This would be negotiated in the national budget the exact same way the current tax brackets are negotiated on an annual basis.
The proposed figures and percentages are already out there for you to find. And once finalized they likely won't be, because they never are, the original amounts presented.
link to these numbers because i know mr sanders has said he would tax the rich something crazy which would be ? stupid on so many levels -
OtherLow-Income Workers Have Nowhere Affordable To Live, New Report Shows
Low-income workers and their families do not earn enough to live in even the least expensive metropolitan American communities, according to a new analysis of families’ living costs published Wednesday.
The analysis, released by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, is an annual update of the think tank’s Family Budget Calculator that reflects new 2014 data. The Family Budget Calculator is a formula designed to determine the income “required for families to attain a secure yet modest standard of living” in 618 different communities across the country that the U.S. Census Bureau defines as metropolitan areas. The formula uses data collected by the government and some nonprofit groups to measure costs of housing, food, child care, transportation, health care, “other necessities” like clothing, and taxes for families of 10 different compositions in these specific locales.
The updated Family Budget Calculator shows that even the most affordable metropolitan areas in the country are beyond the reach of millions of American families with incomes above the official federal poverty level. The official federal poverty level for a family of two parents and two children in 2014 was $24,008, according to the EPI. But the least expensive metropolitan area in the country for this family type is Morristown, Tennessee, where a family needs an income of $49,114, according to the Economic Policy Institute’s budget calculator.
The Economic Policy Institute also estimates that minimum-wage workers -- who almost universally earn less than the federal poverty level -- lack the income needed to make an adequate living in any of the communities surveyed, even if they are single and childless. The think tank notes that this includes minimum-wage workers living in cities or states with a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour, or $15,080 a year for a full-time worker.
Even families with incomes closer to the middle of the earnings spectrum lack the means to maintain an adequate standard of living. The nation’s median household income was $51,939 in 2013 -- the most recent year in which data were available -- not much higher than the cost of living in the relatively inexpensive Morristown.
The median household income nationwide is also significantly less than is needed to live in the metropolitan area of Des Moines, Iowa, which is the median in costliness for a family with two parents and two children among the communities included in the Economic Policy Institute’s budget calculator. A family of that makeup in Des Moines requires an income of $63,741 to live adequately.
In addition, the updated Family Budget Calculator found that Washington, D.C., is the most expensive metropolitan area in the country for a family to raise children. A family with two parents and two children requires $106,493 to maintain an adequate living standard in the D.C. metropolitan area. Following D.C., the most expensive metropolitan areas for a family of the same makeup were Nassau-Suffolk, New York (Long Island); Westchester County, New York; New York City; Stamford-Norwalk, Connecticut; Honolulu; Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, New York; Ithaca, New York; San Francisco; and Danbury, Connecticut....
“Wage growth has been stagnant for most workers for decades and, as a result, there is a mismatch between what workers are paid and what it takes to live and support a family,” said Elise Gould, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, in a statement. “We need a variety of policies to boost wage growth, which includes a higher minimum wage, stronger overtime rules, collective bargaining rights, and enforcement of labor standards as well as the pursuit of a full-employment economy.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/low-income-workers-have-nowhere-to-live-new-report-shows_55de2b29e4b029b3f1b17e4c
Housing cost is a result of mostly SUPPLY AND DEMAND increasing wages without increasing supply will do nothing except maybe drive the cost up nyc is the perfect example of this Here the demand is higher than the supply so housing cost are higher but workers in nyc also make a higher dollar amount for doing the same work people in other areas do for less.
-
Donald Trump
No, actually Bernie is definitely trying to make America a socialist country. Go look at the policies he pushes, he's not shy about it. I'm all for regulation in the private sector, BUT.....also in the public sector too. And that's an area people like Bernie ignore. We spends billions on programs and 90% of them are full of corruption and mismanagement. At some point people need to look at who's profiting from this massive social programs. See, in the private sector, if there's mass mismanagement, the company goes under. In the public sector, politicians will just push for more spending/taxes and not fix the actual problems.ThaNubianGod wrote: »ThaNubianGod wrote: »ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Huh? Colonialism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade. Not an economic policy. Especially one in it's infancy.ThaNubianGod wrote: »
Worked for Bill Clinton though......Out of all the candidates, Donald Trump seems the most sincere. He doesn't pander like Hillary.
Hillary is so phony. Her body language looks like somebody told her how to act in front of a camera.
So you would vote for a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? because he's sincere about being a virulent racist, sexist , spiteful, petty and vindictive ? ?
And what makes him more "sincere" than someone like Bernie Sanders who has been pretty consistent in what he says and does his whole career in politics?
And Bernie is sincerely fragile. Socialism is the worse type of economy for Black people.
ummm capitalism led to the trans-atlantic slave trade...that was a tad inconvenient for Black people i'd say
and then there's the whole privatized prison thing that's driving incarceration rates today but hey
The wealth gap is greater in socialist countries. The majority controls all, and the minorities get the short end of the stick. In America most of our rich are self-made. Black America alone has $1.1 trillion in economic power(would be #15 country in the world), we just squander it by not supporting our own businesses like Jews and Asians do. The ability to work ourselves up the ladder is the most important aspect of any economic system for Black people. Without it, do you think we would be allowed to move up? Tell me a socialist country, and then show me how Black people would benefit there. I would love to see it. White people will never give us ? . Look at public education, or any public serve, we ALWAYS get the short end of the stick, always.
Bernie Sanders is part of the minimum wage/welfare sect. We'll be Greece in a few years with him.
You can't compare socialist nations which are OVERWHELMINGLY ethnically uniform to a nation as diverse as America...it's apples and oranges
Capitalism is designed to have somebody at the bottom. Who is that going to be?? I would argue that capitalism is and always has been the MAIN driving force of modern day racism in this country. And regarding the trans-atlantic slave trade: Colonialism was driven by mercantilism...which is what capitalism evolved from.
I respect that you put a lot of thought behind your points, but don't quite agree with the conclusions.
1) Let's not even look at laregly White socialist nations. How about Tanzania..^
That's what socialism does. It can be Tanzania, Greece, Cuba, China. No matter the race, socialism never works economically.
2) Capitalism has people at the bottom, but the disparities are much worse under socialism. And to add, the ability to move up from the bottom is very fluid in America, while not much of a reality in socialist countries.
3) I really don't agree that Capitalism has ever driven racism in America. Colonization precedes mercantilism by centuries, and really one can say capitalism probably had a big influence in ending the trans Atlantic trade. It was far easier to fund production and hire workers with capitalism, and the need for slave labor dwindled, outside of the US South. The Industrial Revolution was fueled by capitalism.
I'm not familiar with the case of Tanzania but based off of the article you gave it was a style of socialism that differed in many ways to socialism in other parts of the world..the article also spoke to Tanzania's lack of natural resources which contributed to its struggles.
Socialism isn't one thing where countries either subscribe to it or they don't..there's obviously varying degrees. Any socialist policies that would hypothetically be instated in America wouldn't include the forced movement of people to work farms like in Tanzania.
But to act as if every nation with socialist policies is failing is misleading..there are socialist nations with stronger and more effecient healthcare than ours, socialist countries with stronger and higher ranked school systems than ours, etc . Germany is socialist when stacked next to America and it has an extremely strong economy with a much better healthcare system and tuition free college.
Entrepreneurship is embedded in American culture moreso than most other nations. Expansion of public services wouldn't change or hinder that.
1) It was the socialist policies that doomed Tanzania. And again, I've already referenced other socialist nations. I just wanted to show it in an African country.
2) Germany is not a socialist country, it's business sector is run by capitalism. You're not going to find successful socialistic nation because they don't exist. Perhaps China if you discount all of it's issues.
3) Having social programs is not anti-capitalism. Nothing wrong with smart social services. Bernie Sanders and Clinton however, are not who you want monitoring these expenses.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding and misrepresenting exactly what it is that Bernie Sanders is proposing. He is not proposing that America should become a socialist country. He isn't proposing we extinguish capitalism in our business sector. He's proposing that we regulate it.
See my previous post. You can't just say "socialism!" and then paint every single proposal with one broad stroke. -
Bernie SandersThaNubianGod wrote: »No, actually Bernie is definitely trying to make America a socialist country. Go look at the policies he pushes, he's not shy about it. I'm all for regulation in the private sector, BUT.....also in the public sector too. And that's an area people like Bernie ignore. We spends billions on programs and 90% of them are full of corruption and mismanagement. At some point people need to look at who's profiting from this massive social programs. See, in the private sector, if there's mass mismanagement, the company goes under. In the public sector, politicians will just push for more spending/taxes and not fix the actual problems.
Like I stated previously...Webster's dictionary defines socialism as a form of society in which government owns or controls major industries. Marxist theory says socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.
Neither one of these definitions is what Sanders is talking about.
Bernie Sanders isn't advocating governmental ownership and administration of production and distribution of goods. He's setting reasonable parameters in which privately owned businesses are allowed to operate. It's more or less the exact same system we have now with a higher standard set for our employers.
What do you believe to be the cause of the widening income gap between the upperclass and the lower 90% of Americans and what do you suggest should be done about it, if anything at all?
-
OtherI will never vote republican
-
OtherBernie Sanders is a social democrat like they have over in Europe which basically means he's going to steal from businesses through high taxes so that he can fund wasteful government programs that fail.
