Comments by "DEL J" (@IWLDELJ) on "For All | Bernie Sanders" video.
-
Four seconds in before stating a falsehood, or at least making a misleading statement. The middle class isn't "struggling." That's straight up not true. If you are struggling, you either have spending problems, or you are not middle class, but statistically, probably both.
Also, his statement "that's what happens when billionaires are able to control the political system," isn't evidence of causation. At all. Regardless, his understanding of the state of the middle class is incorrect. The middle class is shrinking for two reasons, they are getting richer, shrinking upward, while the lower class is growing, and the largest driving force of the lowest classes is the fact that they out breed every other demographic, which they do because they are low IQ and we give them money for having children, therefore the normal disincentive to breed due to lack of resources is nonexistent.
"Equal pay for equal work," is something that already exists, and has existed since women entered the work force. Women in the same job as men make 97-98% of what their male coworkers make, the remaining 2-3% difference is pay is because women have different work habits than men on average, and negotiate less vigorously than men when asking for raises.
"Healthcare for all," is too big of a can of worms to crack open in this comment section, but we have overwhelming amounts of evidence that almost decisively conclude that it's a bad idea.
The idea of an enforced "livable wage" is also ignorant populist horse shit that basically just admits to incredibly deep economic ignorance.
The economy DOES work for all of us, especially when the state stays out of the way. To think otherwise is to be dangerously ignorant. If a person is rich, and their wealth was acquired in any way other than force or fraud, then they got rich by enriching the lives of others. That is literally the whole story. To misunderstand this is to be economically ignorant. It may seem overly simplistic, but it turns out, if you do rigorous economic study, that it's the case, despite it's simplicity.
This man's entire platform is simply pandering to the envy of idiots.
4
-
2
-
@JC-hs5wf First of all, low wage workers are lazy. That's a statistical fact. Not all of them, but enough that the statistics reveal it as a truth. They work fewer hours than higher earners. Whole story.
Secondly, no one is compelled to take an ambulance.
Third, you don't require a hospital or a doctor to have a child, and the poorest among us don't have to pay for that, anyway, which will be related to a later point.
The social mobility discussion is pointless. Eighty percent of millionaires are self made, the middle class is disappearing upward, and the lower class is only growing because they out breed every other demographic.
Sixty percent of Americans can't afford an emergency medical bill because they have spending problems. If they actually were forward thinking and valued their healthcare, they would save for it. They don't, because they don't actually care very much. The average american overspends by fifteen hundred dollars every month. That's five hundred dollars more than that bill. Beyond that, the current state of medical expenses is the FAULT of people ignoring economic reality, as with my fish example. The state continues to constrain the supply of medical providers and facilities, while they subsidize demand in several ways. The most basic economic understanding would allow anyone to realize why the prices are rising.
Finally, while it's true that poor people in the US really do tend to be lazy, your false dichotomy is just that. Because Americans aren't being extorted by healthcare companies, and American laziness is irrelevant to medical prices. The truth is that Americans are bad spenders and that the government has inflated healthcare costs by interfering in the market, due to demands of their ignorant voter base.
Note that poor people in the US, who are statistically dumber, fatter, and lazier than other demographics out breed the other demographics by statistically significant rates. This is a major contributor to many of the other ills perceived by progressives. Until they acknowledge that fact, they won't see solutions to their problems.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaelhomes8049 Your comment is absolutely full of economic ignorance and misunderstanding.
Percentage of US considered low income in 1970: ~37%
Percentage of US considered middle income in 1970: ~53%
Percentage of US considered high income in 1970: ~9%
Percentage of US projected low income in 2020: ~28%
Percentage of US projected middle income in 2020: ~41%
Percentage of US projected high income in 2020: ~30%
Definitely shrinking upward.
https://www.census.gov/content/census/en/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.html
"Wages" are the term chosen by progressives to intentionally misrepresent economic reality. Overall compensation, as well as purchasing power, both more important than wages, have both risen consistently over time. I can't link you my paper, because it would reveal my personal information, but if I thought you'd care, I'd figure out a way to get it to you. I do not believe for one second that you are actually an empirically motivated person.
Full time working women in the US make 78% of what full time working men make on average. That's uncontrolled gender pay gap. For anyone with a brain, they use the controlled gender pay gap, which specifically compares compensation for the same job, in which full time working women make 98% of what a man makes int he same job. No one debates this. It's a FACT.
https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap#section02
http://www.statlit.org/pdf/2019-Schield-Gender-Pay-Gap.pdf
Rate of birth by income:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
You are bullshitting. If you think you've done actual research, you're a moron.
I'm not a republican.
1
-
@someanonymousguy Okay, there is too much ignorance to unpack here. First of all, I'm not going to discuss the campaign finance shit, as it's more complicated than you seem to think, and you people dismiss evidence and research as easily as a baseless comment.
Secondly, inequality isn't a worthwhile metric. It's pointless. The only reason progressives use that buzzword is because they realized too many people knew they were lying about how poor people are these days, so they had to find a new standard by with to stoke the flames of ignorant wrath.
The federal reserve caused the great depression.
FDR's actions prolonged the depression.
Statistically one paid those marginal tax rates. If you believe they did, you are very economically ignorant. If you state that they did, you are either ignorant or lying.
"Small government doesn't work long term." That's also provably false, as most of the problems of sustainability, when studied with actual objectivity, are easily able to be traced to government intervention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@someanonymousguy You're talking about taxation, not about wealth inequality. I challenged you to prove that some people being rich is what caused others to be unable to afford healthcare. Your current position is completely different from that, so it is not an answer to that.
Beyond that, rich people didn't pay extraordinarily high taxes in the 50s and 60s in the US. That's a myth. They had a marginal tax rate of 91% applied to income over $200,000, and only if they didn't have decent tax lawyers, which they did. Only 400,000 households were even in that tax bracket, and nearly none of them actually paid that tax rate, because of various deductions.
Furthermore, back then (1960) the top one percent of earners were responsible for 13% of all tax revenue. Now, the top one percent are responsible for 38% of all tax revenue. They are contributing a larger share today than they were back then.
Thanks for the warning about your English. Please don't feel offended if I ask for clarification, and please don't feel embarrassed to ask me for clarification if you can't understand me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@someanonymousguy First of all, and most importantly, it's not "good for society" unless you have a flawed metric. These ideas result in distorted markets and they create poverty.
Beyond that, billionaires generally don't literally have billions of dollars lying around.
As I mentioned in another comment, the state creates poverty by subsidizing poverty, the state has also distorted the higher education, housing, and medical markets. This is all visible in data.
No taxes, no government, and no military sounds great to me, personally.
1
-
1
-
@someanonymousguy Almost no one in the US is born too poor to afford security. The average American overspends by about $1,500 a month. Security insurance would cost about $50 a month. Beyond that, if you were extraordinarily poor, your landlord would probably cover it, with the intent of protecting their property.
Besides, without a government, there would be fewer poor people, as the government assistance programs in the US are, again, the cause of the number of poor people. The US government gives poor people money just for existing, which fucks up their mate selection process, which results in the trend we see where poor people outbreed all other demographics by a statistically significant margin.
Furthermore, security companies would protect people who weren't patrons, anyway. They do it IRL all the time.
You can drop the poor eyesight shit. YouTube frequently fails to load comments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nathan "In our society, most people don't have an opportunity to succeed because the economy is rigged for the benefit of corporations, like Exxon Mobile and Amazon and oligarchs, people like Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and Jeff Bezos. The government investing in the lower classes instead of catering to the oligarchs will make us a more just society by redistributing power from the oligarchs to the lower classes and strengthen the economy since the economy is not benefited from money sitting idle."
This is ignorance you are spewing. Downright disturbing. Have you ever actually done real, rigorous, objective economic research?
The government "investing" in the lower classes PROVABLY creates more poverty, unless by "investing" you mean eugenics. Redistributing "power" from the oligarchs provably makes things worse, because lower classes have lower IQ and vote for provably bad populist policies, which result in more poverty. This is a real phenomenon, it's not hypothetical, we have the data. This happened. Claiming that money sitting idle doesn't benefit the economy is extra retarded, because it reveals not just specific economic ignorance, but deep, general economic ignorance. Even the Keynesian school of thought acknowledges that money should be saved when it can be saved. Every major school of economic thought acknowledges the importance of saving money. More sharply, anyone who has ever studied economics with any level of rigor would know that the "oligarchs" don't have THAT much fluid cash just sitting around, their net worth is in the form of shares and property, it's PART of the economy already. It's what's measured in GDP and in net worth. It is part of the companies that produce jobs. Furthermore, even if they were just hoarding loose cash in vaults under their homes, then the value of the money in circulation (your money) would increase in purchasing power. That's supply and demand, one of the most basic, common, and well understood economic concepts. If you're thinking that supply and demand doesn't apply to money for some reason, then consider that the inflation rate of the US dollar is controlled by the minting of currency. So... short version, you, as with the overwhelming majority of Bernie supporters, are DANGEROUSLY economically ignorant, and you shouldn't even have an opinion on these matters, much less be advocating policies for voting.
1
-
1
-
1