Bernie Sanders on Income Inequality, Disappearing Middle Class..

cooltigger21 · October 13, 2015

As a 15 year veteran of the truckinhg industry, I can attest to a number of factors. Number onecid it still suffers from an image problem. People think of drivers as bubba, dirty and nasty. It's not an easy life, especially for OTR drivers. Then you have the hassle with shippers and receivers and traffic. People just get burned out. I can tell you that the industrywide shortage is only going to get worse. Now what you do is different in that your guys get home each night but even in that situation it can be highly stressful. This e-log rule that is about to kick in is going to exacerbate the problems as veterans are just going to say the hell with it and retire.

DKW 86 · October 13, 2015

later today.

japantiger · October 14, 2015

Point 1; agreed

Point 2; well, the $1T was presented as something it was not...shovel ready jobs..remember that? In fact, no jobs were created, no infrastructure built, nothing but a higher debt level to show for it...again, Keynesian stimulus in appropriate; that is not what this was ... it was a massive transfer payment and nothing else....

Point 3; smart people with means (means being money, lawyers, accountants, influence peddlers, etc.) will always find a means to beat whatever penalties a gov't tries to put in place to institute "fairness". In some cases just outright buying influence. It's called human nature. It's a fools errand to build your entire economic and tax policy around this group...you can't confiscate enough money from them to fund the rapacious appetite of our bloated system. We need policies that expand opportunity...I don't see any establishment politician with a plan to address this...I hear the outsiders say the right words...I haven't seen enough yet to know how they plan to deal with turning around the broken system.

DKW 86 · October 14, 2015

Jobs are only one part of the equation. We must address the shear un-believeable depth and breadth of the difference in wealth accumulation. To stop and talk about Income Inequality is to only address about 30-40% of the problem. Do i want to seize assets? NO, but we have to look at developing not just incomes, but WEALTH. Wealth is what carries the long term political strength to do battle against your foes. We must get the Middle Class to recognize the political truth here and to adapt to it. WEALTH, not controlled by the 1%ers is necessary. We must get trained-certified-credentialed Investors, not whomever answered the last ad, handling the Wealth of American Middle Class. In Europe, there is upto an 6-8 year Journeyman System for Investors to go thru. We need that here in America as well. The American Middle Class cannot take another hit like it did in 2008. Folks, they got away with it and if people are right, another bubble is about to burst in Student Debt.

Jobs:

We have to get the Unions overseas and organizing to get the comparative wages up in Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, etc.

We must put teeth into not allowing any company or org that doesnt adhere to our EPA Rules, even in foreign countries, cannot sell here. They have to pay to be certified.

Fix the ACA. Those of us that had good to great plans got slaughtered by the damn thing. "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" is the biggest lie of the 21st Century.

STHU about Repealing the ACA. It is here. It was needed. It is not going away. So quit the political masturbation and get back to reality. Get to Single Payer/Medicare-for-all and move on to something worth talking about.

It isnt just about Income Inequality: It is about Wealth Inequality.

1) Develop not just jobs for America, protect what is here and develop great paying jobs again. Develop a Wealth Mentality in the AMC. That we once again have great jobs. That politics and caring for others matters. Jobs should be part of of how you evaluate your Wealth in America.

2) Move the Middle Class into "Protected Wealth," IOW, Lets really regulate WS where we cannot have another HUGE WEALTH LOSS for the AMC. Start with bringing back Glass-Stegall. Really reform and put prosecution and asset reclamation back on the table. Regulate anyone that deals with SEC Transactions. Make them carry an umbrella liab policy equal to 30% of whatever they manage. That would be a great start. That is a Wealth Benefit to the American Middle Class.

3) Move the Middle Class into "Single Payer-Cant be taken from us ever again Health Care." That is a Wealth Benefit to the American Middle Class.

4) For most of the AMC, SS IS THEIR SINGLE RETIREMENT INCOME. Let's start slowly transforming or managing it into an asset, an annuity-like instrument.

A) Quit taking money from SS.

B )Develop a Tax Plan that repays SS.

c) Slowly Raise, as the Baby Boomers die away, the SS to make it more like a pension than a handout.

5) Power most of all that with a simple plan: If you want to go to college, trade school, etc, you get a free ride. All it will cost you is 1-2% of your gross if you want to buy-in.

You want Americans ready to buy-in? You want Americans happy with their lives and situation? You want Americans to Invest in what it means to be an American AND retain the Huge Wealth Creation Ability of a Jobs, Wozniak, or Gates. We just have to better managers of what we do. Unfortunately, i do not think that any party in DC is ready to do anything but line their own pockets.

channonc · October 14, 2015

#1- Problem here is ANY spending by the government is listed as harmful right now. Getting some of the conservatives to see SOME spending as investment has been a huge challenge. There are just simply too many who believe the government shouldn't spend any money at all.

#2- COMPLETELY FALSE! Right after ARRA, the CBO did a report which stated that ARRA lowered the unemployment rate between 0.7 and 1.8 percent, increased the number of employed between 1.4 million and 3.3 million and raised GDP between 1.7 and 4.5 percent.

Also, I work in the transportation sector, and let me tell you that there were several projects that had completely halted due to the fallout in the bond market in 2008. One in particular was in Las Vegas, and the job sent over 3K workers home because the markets froze, and there wasn't enough cash to keep paying the workers. Not only did the project receive a few dollars out of ARRA, but there was a tax provision that unlocked the bond market again. 3K workers were rehired and another few hundred added to complete the project. I helped work on that issue and had contractors calling me and thanking me for getting people back to work. This is only one example. Unfortunately, I think the Administration did a horrible job of communicating the successes of the the stimulus, but in transportation, it really did help.

Unfortunately, our system is being hijacked even more by the "haves" and are stacking the deck against the "have nots" all the while duping the average citizen that supporting the cause of the "haves" is in their best interest.

icanthearyou · October 14, 2015

I think you are somewhat lost on point 3. Yes, people who seek power will always seek out ethically weak politicians. That does not mean we should concede and make it easy for them, legal for them, to buy our government.

Yes, without real growth, inequality will not go away. However, the policies that produce inequality are also a big part of the reason for our rather anemic growth rate. They factor into the low labor participation rate.

As far as taxation goes, I have a real problem with both parties. I detest the concept that the idle rich, the truly wealthy, those who simply make money by the virtue of holding huge amounts of capital (all forms of capital) pay the lowest tax rate. I tend to blame mostly the Republicans for this one but, there are establishment Democrats who have aided this cause.

I also detest the idea that a very hard working entrepreneur who makes $400,000.00/year pays the highest rate. This person is NOT rich, not wealthy. Typically, these individuals work incredible hours under incredible stress. Paying the highest rate means, it is more difficult to reinvest or, ever become truly wealthy. I tend to blame the Democrats more for this situation. Many Democrats do not grasp the concept that these individuals are (relatively) as far from being truly wealthy, as everyone else.

I think we need to understand what "wealthy" means. I think that we need to think about taxation but, that is only one aspect of the policies that are driving both inequality and the slow growth/no growth economy. We need to realize that it is not a matter of the 1%, it is actually the .01%. One great thing about capitalism, we keep score. We know who is winning and why. We now have decades of data and information. The picture seems pretty clear.

I do not begrudge anyone achieving true wealth. In fact, I am quite happy for them. In many ways they achieve ultimate freedom. However, when the seek to take a disproportionate amount of representation in our government as a means to further their interests above the interest of others, I do take exception. When they drive a narrative of poor pitiful me, I take exception. When they disingenuously promote the narrative of "job creator" to a naive public, and naive politicians, who do not understand the meaning of investment versus the economic definition of "real investment", I take exception.

IMO, the problems, and the solutions, are obvious. But, because we are engrossed in the exaggeration and deception of narratives and rhetoric, we do not see them. I truly believe that as far apart as you and I are politically (in terms of rhetoric and narratives), if we honestly discussed solutions, we would find that the divide was not as great as we believe.

icanthearyou · October 14, 2015

I agree with your sentiment but, on point #2, I believe we could have done a much better job. I believe the idealistic side of liberals got the better of them in this case. We needed more immediate, more practical, projects. I believe we could have saved many more jobs and created an environment for broader, more robust growth.

channonc · October 14, 2015

Again, speaking on direct experience with this legislation, the transportation projects that were funded were already in the pipeline for federal funding. They were all grant eligible projects, and with ARRA they received additional funding to try to get the project done more quickly. Also, agencies who excepted ARRA money had to do additional paperwork with regards to the number of jobs created, cost of job, tracking ARRA $.

However, where I agree with you is ARRA (thanks to Dave Obey) became a Christmas tree for things outside of infrastructure. Some of the initiatives were important, just definitely not in the job creating context and overshadowed the transportation infrastructure piece. Had the bill stuck to infrastructure and tax related provisions, I think the PR around it would have been very different. Those provisions were incredibly successful.

cooltigger21 · October 14, 2015

There are still too many people looking to Washington DC to solve every problem. That's the biggest reason for the way things are. As long as we keep feeding that behemoth things ate going to continue as they have been. With a government this large and thus involved in every aspect of our lives, it's ripe for this.The ones that have the means to do so will use their money to gain favor and special breaks. A simple tax code without all the deductions, credits and other breaks isn't worth spending money to try to get all those exemptions. Same goes for all the regulations handed down by these agencies. In short a smaller government means fewer lobbyists since they don't have as much to gain by doing that.

icanthearyou · October 14, 2015

I do not agree that the problems with government are inherent and therefore, we must shrink the size of government.

However, the sentence above, IMO, is how, and why, we should thoughtfully cut out inefficiency. There are too many aspects of government, and it's agencies that are unnecessarily complicated. It feeds bureaucracy. It justifies the existence of too many bureaucrats and, as you pointed out, leaves holes for those who have influence.

So, I agree that we need to trim the size of government but, we should do it with the purpose of efficiency and effectiveness. We should not cut arbitrarily or, just for the sake of reducing regulations. I do not think we should forget the experience of deregulating the financial industry.

japantiger · October 14, 2015

Not confused at all on #3; growth and what you guys like to call income inequality are not related. The best studies attribute lower capital gains rates as the leading cause of exploding earnings growth among the top income bracket. That has nothing to do with industrial policies that promote foreign development over domestic development; service sector over manufacturing or an education system that is failing the industries that we do have left or throwing money away on a bloated gov't instead of spending the tax $$ we have on valuable programs.. Also, if what you really want is the wealthy paying their "fair" share; the top 1% is paying the highest % of total federal tax receipts in history...so you've already got your wish. How much of total tax receipts must come from the wealthy to make Bernie Sanders happy?

I agree that we could tweak rates and not collapse the economy; I've already called for a return to Clinton era rates. But, if we do that; we will not see one bit of change in income inequality. The rich will still be rich and growing richer, the middle class will still be shrinking, incomes will be stagnant, industries will still be fleeing to foreign shores...and whatever tax receipts come in over and above today will still be pissed away. So again, this fetish with punishing winners does nothing, not jack s***, to deal with the problems we need to deal with.

Only one candidate so far has proposed a plan that deals with both the lefts desire for more taxes on the ultra wealthy and pro growth plans...and that is Trump. I need to hear more about his growth plan...his tax proposal broadens the base and goes after the big banks and hedge fund guys that are making huge income gains and paying relatively low total tax $$.

aujeff11 · October 15, 2015

Yall should take it another step further and rewrite the penal codes too haha.

icanthearyou · October 15, 2015

Are you responding to my post? Did you actually read it? You are pretending to respond to statements I never made or, made the opposite statement. Who are "you guys"?

Are you serious when you assert that income inequality and economic growth have no relationship? You do not believe that outsourcing has contributed to the decline in economic growth and increased inequality? You cannot be serious. I cannot take you seriously.

I still contend you are lost on this part. I think you should try to think about economics in a manner that doesn't attempt to fit political narratives.

October 15, 2015

I usually come to this forum when I feel agrumentive. This has actually been a good thread. There are some good ideas for macro growth. IMO you need "organic" growth and not growth in areas dictated by politicians that usually don't understand "Main Street" business. Someone mentioned a small business owner being considered rich at a salary of 400 k per year. This nails the problem. A business owner that makes a decent wage and creates a few jobs is bad and should be taxed higher, some suggest up to the 90% level. The real rich are getting extremely rich during this administration due to central banking actions and have created zero jobs (other than attorneys and lobbyist). While the current administration and our future President complains about income inequality. That is freaking comical. And over half of the real rich contribute to these campaigns. What is left of the middle class will be locked into their 401k's while the .01 percent have shorted this fed juiced market bubble. We will blame Wall Street for the crash. The politicians would have blamed hedge funds because that would have been sexy but the hedge fund guys are getting their butts handed to them worse than the middle class. Buckle up. This is getting fun.

japantiger · October 15, 2015

We seem to be talking past each other...and maybe I misunderstood the points you were making...my point was Tax policy aimed at taxing the rich more; will do nothing to spur economic growth. So the proposed soak the rich more tax policies will not reduce income inequality. That is my point...you can tax hedge fund guys at 90%; the middle class will still be taking it in the ass from the Chinese worker and the US politician.

Both parties are to blame...Dem's now take more PAC and corporate money than Repubs...Obama was completely bought and paid for to the tune of over $1b. Bush, Hillary, etc., are all absolute whores to campaign $$.

The only way to increase domestic growth; is to stop disincentives for investing in US jobs...or said another way, start investing in US domestic industry, education, etc. Any candidate with a serious proposal to this effect gets my vote. Taxing rich people more has no effect on this...it is a placebo for the vindictive.

alexava · October 15, 2015

Japan you are making some sense. I would however if necessary use the tax hike as a threat to keep jobs here and wages up.

DKW 86 · October 15, 2015

Just as a point of form on the forum. I do not recall ever reading many posts on here that had more than two imbedded quotes in it that actually had any real meaning or substance to it.

I submit:

Number of Imbedded Quotes >2: The Hysterical-ness of those Posting

japantiger · October 15, 2015

Alexeva, I think the tax hikes should be made period; again, return to Clinton era rates and we will get some more receipts without tanking growth; most Repubs fear any hike hitting growth; but I think most of the scholarship on this says it would be a safe move...going after the hedge fund guys could also be effective at getting more $$; but I hate calling out specific classes to just go after because we don't like how much they are making..the gov't doesn't have a right to $$ just because they don't like you. But, there is probably some sensible middle ground....and Trump's proposal is reasonable.

I don't think you need a threat of tax hikes to help on growth...you need to align incentives. The reason we move jobs overseas now is because all the incentives line up that way. A business man is a fool if they don't. Our political class creates incentives for American business to move out of America. If our tax rates are 2x-3x foreign tax rates, the $$ will go offshore..period. I've been down this path myself too many times. Tax rates, more often than not, overcome other business considerations. NAFTA, China Permanent agreements, and now PTT all stack the deck to moving outside the US; thru tariff structures and other production and access incentives. They create incentives to screw the American worker in favor of the Chinese, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Mexican, etc., worker over our own citizens. You know what our politicians do in these agreements; they create a provisions to help those that they destroyed their jobs. That is how the political class protects the American worker. They create an agreement that destroys your job, they know it will destroy your job..and then write in a provision that says we'll help you find another one... Can you believe this crap? They create a program that will kill you; but don't worry, they'll give you medicine to treat your symptoms as you die.

The issue is the political class. They don't create value; they don't know how to create value. They don't have real jobs. They have made up jobs. Look at the people running for President...how many of them has ever had a real job where they dealt with the crush of regulation and bureaucracy gov't creates? where they created a job? where they sweated making a payroll, where they had to set across a table and tell a single Mom or a father of 3 that their job was moving to India or China because their gov't created incentives too sweet for the business to ignore....we've created this beast and we need to tear it down now. The more I see the more our gov't reminds me of Napoleon's gov't. It serves itself, it can be bought and it moves at the whim or the emperor...all without regard to the devastation it leaves in it's wake.

cooltigger21 · October 15, 2015

For FY 2015 the federal government took in 3.2 trillion in revenue. We are not short of money. The problem is allocation of resources. The only purpose of the taxes is to raise revenue. It's not for social engineering. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.comy

icanthearyou · October 15, 2015

I do not understand your comment. I agree with you. Tax policy is only one issue. I was very specific about exactly who is "wealthy". I was very specific about who is not paying their fair share of taxes. I was very specific about the effects of, and the hypocrisy of, outsourcing (trade policy in general).

I do not see you honestly and sincerely attempting to engage in discussion.

TitanTiger · October 15, 2015

This is overly simplistic. Of course tax policy has some social engineering aspect to it. For instance, we give tax exemptions for children to encourage people to have families. We have a mortgage interest exemption to encourage more home ownership. We have sin taxes on things like cigarettes to discourage smoking (and thus promote healthier lifestyles and lower our health care costs).

japantiger · October 15, 2015

Ichy, you say:

I do not understand your comment. I agree with you. Tax policy is only one issue. I was very specific about exactly who is "wealthy"

OK, so the 0.1%...what is your proposed policy? it seems like just tax the hell out of them because you don't like that they are making a lot of money...is that it? If not, please clarify. I see the complaint but struggle to understand your proposal and how it is relevant to growth, jobs, etc.

I was very specific about who is not paying their fair share of taxes.

Fair determined by whom? These folks are complying with current tax law and policy. So by the definition of the political chattering class; they are paying their fair share...how much is fair and why is that fair? what is the policy aim of additional taxes on this group and how would this increase growth?

I was very specific about the effects of, and the hypocrisy of, outsourcing (trade policy in general).

You've got to clarify then...because I see no references to trade policy or outsourcing in your notes...what is the hypocrisy?

As to your half assed comment on me not engaging seriously on a discussion, I'm going to assume you're having a bad week...I do not see you honestly and sincerely attempting to engage in discussion

OK, I think I've gone above and beyond on specifics...what would you like me to add clarity on...

japantiger · October 15, 2015

But his point is right...$3.2T (trillion, with a T) is enough. And yes, we do social engineering...but the majority is misguided bull****. It needs to be serious, reflect serious national priorities that keep us strong/competitive as a nation. Being everyone's Nanny is not a serious national priority.

icanthearyou · October 15, 2015

Sorry but, you aren't making a genuine effort. Everything you ask has already been answered. You have wasting your time and mine.

TitanTiger · October 15, 2015

The federal budget for 2015 is $3.8 trillion. $2.45 trillion of that is mandatory spending with another 0.29 trillion in interest payments. This mostly Medicare and Social Security. That leaves about $1.1 trillion in discretionary spending.

Here's the breakdown of that discretionary spending:

Military: $559 billion (53.71% of discretionary spending)

Government: $72.9 billion (6.54%)

Education: $69.98 billion (6.28%)

Medicare/Health: $66 billion (5.93%)

Veterans' Benefits: $65.3 billion (5.86%)

Housing/Community: $63.2 billion (5.68%)

No other category accounts for more than 3.67% of the discretionary spending (includes transportation, energy/environment, science, food/agriculture, international affairs)

So when you step back and look, three things eat up the total federal budget: Military spending, Social Security and Medicare. It's 76.5% of all spending.

Medicare is already one of the most efficient programs out there. It operates more efficiently than even private insurance companies. Social Security technically isn't regular tax dollars. It's meant to be paid back out to the folks that paid into it. That leave military spending. When is the last time you heard a conservative with even a modicum of power in government suggest serious cuts in defense spending? To the contrary, almost all of them want to spend more.

I don't claim that there isn't wasteful spending. But I don't see anyone talking seriously about cutting those Big Three budget items. So once you remove interest payments on debt and veterans' benefits (another area that no one is seriously saying is a waste and can be cut), you're talking about trying to squeeze huge savings out of only 13.2% of the federal budget. Bascially $500 billion divided among 8-10 categories like transportation, science, housing, agriculture, etc.

So it isn't really $3.2 Trillion we're truly working with here. It's about half a trillion.

Sign In

Bernie Sanders on Income Inequality, Disappearing Middle Class..

Recommended Posts

cooltigger21 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DKW 86 7,977

Link to comment

Share on other sites

japantiger 4,211

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DKW 86 7,977

Link to comment

Share on other sites

channonc 466

Link to comment

Share on other sites

icanthearyou 4,468

Link to comment

Share on other sites

icanthearyou 4,468

Link to comment

Share on other sites

channonc 466

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cooltigger21 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

icanthearyou 4,468

Link to comment

Share on other sites

japantiger 4,211

Link to comment

Share on other sites

aujeff11 6,243

Link to comment

Share on other sites

icanthearyou 4,468

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest NC1406

Link to comment

Share on other sites

japantiger 4,211

Link to comment

Share on other sites

alexava 6,980

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DKW 86 7,977

Link to comment

Share on other sites

japantiger 4,211

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cooltigger21 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

icanthearyou 4,468

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TitanTiger 21,682

Link to comment

Share on other sites

japantiger 4,211

Link to comment

Share on other sites

japantiger 4,211

Link to comment

Share on other sites

icanthearyou 4,468

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TitanTiger 21,682

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived

Members Online