What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (5 Viewers)

I completely agree with you there are ways to overcome it. But it seems you also agree with me - there are actual barriers folks need to overcome and those are barriers are much more significant for some. There will always be some barriers. But I believe it's a good idea to give a relatively simple path to success. Not uber rich success (that still takes more than simply working your 40 hours a week), but I think it's a very bad society when we have an increasing wealth gap. I don't care if billionaires want to become multi billionaires. More power to them, really. But I don't think he's preying on jealousy as much as he's calling a spade a spade. The bottom levels aren't really rising and that is not something we can have happen if we're going to progress as a society. It's not only wrong from a human standpoint, it's long term just a piss poor investment in ourselves and going to cost us a lot more money in the long run. I find what has happened to us be the ugly #### and it needs to be tweaked. Not thrown out the window, but not kept status quo. He's not advocating for either of those. He's pushing for some of the changes we need for the long term health of our nation and its citizens.

 
The guy sounds like a Communist. Let the free market economy reign and stop demonizing the people who have earned their money with the same opportunities that everyone else had. People talk about Trump being dangerous, my god, this kind of talk is more dangerous to the long term freedom of the country than anything Trump espouses.
I'm not necessarily saying Bernie has the right solution, or even that a solution is needed, but to pretend everyone has had similar opportunities is unrealistic.
What types of barriers are you talking about?
Economic is an undeniable one that can set someone behind the eight ball in life. Its effects are far reaching. It often limits education, health, and employment.
There are plenty of ways to overcome this. There's an awful lot of Asians who come here with nothing and through hard work and determination they overcome all those obstacles. And then they get screwed by colleges like Harvard who have forced quotas. We've got a pretty healthy safety net and welfare system in this country that more than compensates for any financial disadvantages kids are born into. And more to the point, what Sanders is advocating isn't lifting people up who are disadvantaged. He wants to rob the people who have earned and worked for those higher paying jobs. He prays on avarice and jealousy. It's ugly ####.
I completely agree with you there are ways to overcome it. But it seems you also agree with me - there are actual barriers folks need to overcome and those are barriers are much more significant for some. There will always be some barriers. But I believe it's a good idea to give a relatively simple path to success. Not uber rich success (that still takes more than simply working your 40 hours a week), but I think it's a very bad society when we have an increasing wealth gap. I don't care if billionaires want to become multi billionaires. More power to them, really. But I don't think he's preying on jealousy as much as he's calling a spade a spade. The bottom levels aren't really rising and that is not something we can have happen if we're going to progress as a society. It's not only wrong from a human standpoint, it's long term just a piss poor investment in ourselves and going to cost us a lot more money in the long run. I find what has happened to us be the ugly #### and it needs to be tweaked. Not thrown out the window, but not kept status quo. He's not advocating for either of those. He's pushing for some of the changes we need for the long term health of our nation and its citizens.
if the free market dictates that a CEO is worth $20 million who am I to say that is wrong? Personally I think these jobs are overvalued, but I'm not on the Board of Directors who freely pay these salaries without a gun to their head. Maybe the shareholders should start putting more pressure of the Board to justify the exorbitant salaries. I just don't want the Government getting into the business of dictating prices or salaries. History has shown repeatedly that this leads to corruption and inefficiencies.I think most people in this country, even hard core conservatives, are ok with smoothing out the rough edges of capitalism. But I ah e to be honest, Bernie at times sounds like he wants to do way more than that. He sounds downright hostile to the idea of free market capitalism.

 
The guy sounds like a Communist. Let the free market economy reign and stop demonizing the people who have earned their money with the same opportunities that everyone else had. People talk about Trump being dangerous, my god, this kind of talk is more dangerous to the long term freedom of the country than anything Trump espouses.
I'm not necessarily saying Bernie has the right solution, or even that a solution is needed, but to pretend everyone has had similar opportunities is unrealistic.
What types of barriers are you talking about?
Economic is an undeniable one that can set someone behind the eight ball in life. Its effects are far reaching. It often limits education, health, and employment.
There are plenty of ways to overcome this. There's an awful lot of Asians who come here with nothing and through hard work and determination they overcome all those obstacles. And then they get screwed by colleges like Harvard who have forced quotas. We've got a pretty healthy safety net and welfare system in this country that more than compensates for any financial disadvantages kids are born into. And more to the point, what Sanders is advocating isn't lifting people up who are disadvantaged. He wants to rob the people who have earned and worked for those higher paying jobs. He prays on avarice and jealousy. It's ugly ####.
I completely agree with you there are ways to overcome it. But it seems you also agree with me - there are actual barriers folks need to overcome and those are barriers are much more significant for some. There will always be some barriers. But I believe it's a good idea to give a relatively simple path to success. Not uber rich success (that still takes more than simply working your 40 hours a week), but I think it's a very bad society when we have an increasing wealth gap. I don't care if billionaires want to become multi billionaires. More power to them, really. But I don't think he's preying on jealousy as much as he's calling a spade a spade. The bottom levels aren't really rising and that is not something we can have happen if we're going to progress as a society. It's not only wrong from a human standpoint, it's long term just a piss poor investment in ourselves and going to cost us a lot more money in the long run. I find what has happened to us be the ugly #### and it needs to be tweaked. Not thrown out the window, but not kept status quo. He's not advocating for either of those. He's pushing for some of the changes we need for the long term health of our nation and its citizens.
if the free market dictates that a CEO is worth $20 million who am I to say that is wrong? Personally I think these jobs are overvalued, but I'm not on the Board of Directors who freely pay these salaries without a gun to their head. Maybe the shareholders should start putting more pressure of the Board to justify the exorbitant salaries. I just don't want the Government getting into the business of dictating prices or salaries. History has shown repeatedly that this leads to corruption and inefficiencies.I think most people in this country, even hard core conservatives, are ok with smoothing out the rough edges of capitalism. But I ah e to be honest, Bernie at times sounds like he wants to do way more than that. He sounds downright hostile to the idea of free market capitalism.
We have to recognize that the market for CEO is not an efficient market. Governemnt actions to control markets are not the right remedy. Whatever can be done to make the markets more efficient would be a good course to take IMHO

 
I don't disagree with letting the CEO get paid 20 million or more. When it's coming at the expense of the public, I do believe the government sometimes needs to set standards for a floor. The game is clearly rigged and it's coming at the expense of the lower class (which ultimately costs us). They don't need to promise mansions to everyone, but the market clearly hasn't set standards that are sufficient so it's time to put some floors in place.

He may come across that way to you but I doubt it's his intent. I think perhaps the socialist label is the initial cause for concern. Which is understandable. He isn't really a socialist. Not in the traditional sense. Think of him more as a Democrat Socialist Capitalist.

 
We have to recognize that the market for CEO is not an efficient market. Governemnt actions to control markets are not the right remedy. Whatever can be done to make the markets more efficient would be a good course to take IMHO
It seems we agree there need to be tweaks but perhaps disagree over how to get there. What tweaks would you suggest?

 
We have to recognize that the market for CEO is not an efficient market. Governemnt actions to control markets are not the right remedy. Whatever can be done to make the markets more efficient would be a good course to take IMHO
It seems we agree there need to be tweaks but perhaps disagree over how to get there. What tweaks would you suggest?
I'm open to suggestions...I haven't seen any strong proposals on this issue....

 
We have to recognize that the market for CEO is not an efficient market. Governemnt actions to control markets are not the right remedy. Whatever can be done to make the markets more efficient would be a good course to take IMHO
It seems we agree there need to be tweaks but perhaps disagree over how to get there. What tweaks would you suggest?
I'm open to suggestions...I haven't seen any strong proposals on this issue....
How do you disagree with Bernie?

 
The US Government has become much bigger and much more involved in regulating the economy in the last 15 years. The best measure of this is the Economic Freedom Index. In 2000 the US ranked #2. In 2015 we ranked #16. So the Government has gotten bigger and there are more regulations. And how is the economy today compared to 2000? There's a lot of talk that we are at the turning point where this will be the first generation of Americans whose standard of living will actually be less than their parents. https://mises.org/blog/2015-economic-freedom-index-us-ranking-falls

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The US Government has become much bigger and much more involved in regulating the economy in the last 15 years. The best measure of this is the Economic Freedom Index. In 2000 the US ranked #2. In 2015 we ranked #16. So the Government has gotten bigger and there are more regulations. And how is the economy today compared to 2000? There's a lot of talk that we are at the turning point where this will be the first generation of Americans whose standard of living will actually be less than their parents. https://mises.org/blog/2015-economic-freedom-index-us-ranking-falls
https://data.oecd.org/gdp/gross-domestic-product-gdp.htm#indicator-chart

 
The guy sounds like a Communist. Let the free market economy reign and stop demonizing the people who have earned their money with the same opportunities that everyone else had. People talk about Trump being dangerous, my god, this kind of talk is more dangerous to the long term freedom of the country than anything Trump espouses.
I am going to share a story about when I changed my views on capitalism - at least the way it is pursued here.

I am going to take you back to the year 2007 - I was working for a major media conglomerate. This was/is a family owned business, with fewer than 100 shareholders, and 85+% controlled by a single family. The patriarch of the family started the business in the 1950s, and built it into one of the largest media companies in the country. By the early 2000s the business was largely divided into three units. In the mid-2000s the patriarch was retiring, and the family was looking to divest itself of its holdings. They sold one of the business units for $3.5B in 2008. They were actively looking to sell the unit I worked at for the same price point, and had reached the 2nd stage of bidding when the credit market collapsed - leading them to call off the sale.

I started my career at the company in the M&A department, where we were tasked with spending money every year on worthwhile business ventures - in the three years I worked there, I led 3 acquisitions, and led an internal start-up business. After one acquisition, I left the department to go run the business we acquired. The business I acquired was in the automotive division, where we had 10 companies who provided various services to automobile dealers and others in the automotive industry. Things went very well until the fall of 2007 - when the bottom fell out, and between October and March 2008 we saw 20% of our customers go out of business.

Being in the automotive division, all of our companies were hit hard - some more than others. We had a couple of growth-businesses that were still not making money, and this just made it worse. My particular business saw revenues and profits drop - we went from $5M in profits to a $4M run-rate in early 2008. From a top-of the business perspective, the entire division implemented austerity measures early in 2008 - we had a wage and hiring freeze implemented, all employees from the President on down, took a 2% pay cut, in the form of a 1 week unpaid furlough scattered throughout the year.

At that point, senior management decided that each business must cut 15% of expenses. For many businesses, this made a lot of sense - there was some bloat, with fewer customers, it was easy to cut back on some staff - like customer support - without affecting the quality of service. For my particular business, I had no real excess expense to cut - outside of personnel. I could not cut any of the cost of goods expenses - as without that we had no product, and we primarily had single sources for our goods - so we could not go elsewhere, or threaten to go elsewhere. But, my business was still in excellent financial shape - even after seeing our profits decline by 20%, we still operated at 40+% net profits - a really rare business that could maintain high profit margins, with virtually no competitors. So, bottom line, we were well positioned to weather the storm, no danger of losing money, and no excess fat to trim. I made my pitch to the president - but was told no exceptions, every business had to cut 15%.

So, in the middle of the great recession - I had to lay off 6 employees, and add to the workload of existing employees, at no additional pay, to meet my quota. In total I saved about $250K in expenses, including payroll and benefits, but put 6 people out of work.

To get to the end of the story quicker - our division finished 2008 with ~$15M in net profits. (Our Business Unit had two other divisions, that posted similar net profit numbers). In other words, the overall business took a hit in profits, but was never close to losing money.

Unfortunately, I am not the good guy in the story - I am more like the CEO in the story above. A part of my annual comp was my annual bonus that was based largely on how well we performed to budget. If you know anything about budgeting, you know that we started the budget process for 2008 in the summer of 2007, and were largely done by October. We made some minor last minute adjustments but the guidance was to assume a flat 2008. Needless to say, we missed budget on revenues and profits by a significant margin. But, because I, and others in my position, were deemed important employees - we got our full annual bonuses - enough to have funded 2 of those employees I laid off. I was just as greedy as the next guy - I never offered to put my bonus on the chopping block (though I did not anticipate that it would ever have been the full bonus).

I still think about this nearly 8 years later. In our drive to maintain corporate profits - that would benefit a single family who happened to sell one business for $3.5B, we put 100's of people out of work. People who could least afford it. And, while I am angry with some of the decisions we made as a company, I was a willing participant, and these types of decisions were being made all across America. We were so driven by bottom-line profits for shareholders - that we lost sight of the impact on employees. And, I think from a macro-economic standpoint, the economic recovery would have been better had companies sacrificed profits for the sake of keeping employees.

I believe very strongly that our economic and tax policies are too tilted toward shareholder benefits, that it hurts our economy when we see the impact on the vast majority of Americans - who are employees that are working harder, longer hours, and seeing real income stagnate over the last 30 years.

I now have my own business, and while its just me, I'd like to think that when I am ready to expand I will recall these lessons, and ensure that I find the right balance between employees and profits.

In the end, I think that corporate greed goes far deeper than just rewarding hard work of shareholders - many of whom do nothing to generate the wealth. It is simply greed for the sake of greed. I was once one of the greedy - I hope that has changed. I hope that Bernie's revolution takes hold, and we do see a dramatic shift in economic and tax policies.

Sorry for the long post.
good post, and I respect your opinion. Years ago I had to do something similar while in a management capacity. There are some parts to free market capitalism that really go against my Christian values, no doubt. But overall I believe in capitalism serving the greater good. Who knows. Maybe I'm wrong. What I can say is that I do like Bernie, even though I don't like his politics.
How do you reconcile our current version of capitalism with your Christian values? The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil down?

Great story Sinn - between outsourcing, offshoring and just general greed, Amercian corporations are taking a huge #### on the middle class and things are even worse for the lower class. I've already said that Bernie's policies probably won't be good for my personal bottom line but I don't care, I think it's the right thing to do.

 
Very long video but pretty good seeing Bernie and Hillary throughout the years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpm4rjejFgQ
Fantastic video. Worth every minute.We are so lucky to have this guy running. He was fighting for what he believed in even when it was him against the world and nobody was listening. I am so happy he didn't give up and I am so proud to support him for President. And I am more than a little ashamed that it took me this long to get on board.

I am convinced now more than ever that the War on Terror has been one of the biggest wastes of time, energy and treasure that this country has undertaken and that it has served only to distract us from the real existential threat to our democracy, that being the influence of big money on politics. Once you view our political system through that lens all other issues pale in comparison.

How long have we been #####ing about the undue influence of lobbyists and complaining about how Washington has sold out to special interests? Yet we have failed to undertake any serious reform and just accepted the status quo as "politics as usual" (at least I have). Thank God Bernie has kept this issue alive before we all just rolled over to king WalMart.
:goodposting:

 
Unfortunately, I am not the good guy in the story - I am more like the CEO in the story above. A part of my annual comp was my annual bonus that was based largely on how well we performed to budget. If you know anything about budgeting, you know that we started the budget process for 2008 in the summer of 2007, and were largely done by October. We made some minor last minute adjustments but the guidance was to assume a flat 2008. Needless to say, we missed budget on revenues and profits by a significant margin. But, because I, and others in my position, were deemed important employees - we got our full annual bonuses - enough to have funded 2 of those employees I laid off. I was just as greedy as the next guy - I never offered to put my bonus on the chopping block (though I did not anticipate that it would ever have been the full bonus).
Reminds me of the French movie 'Two Days, One Night'.

 
Very long video but pretty good seeing Bernie and Hillary throughout the years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpm4rjejFgQ
Fantastic video. Worth every minute.

We are so lucky to have this guy running. He was fighting for what he believed in even when it was him against the world and nobody was listening. I am so happy he didn't give up and I am so proud to support him for President. And I am more than a little ashamed that it took me this long to get on board.

I am convinced now more than ever that the War on Terror has been one of the biggest wastes of time, energy and treasure that this country has undertaken and that it has served only to distract us from the real existential threat to our democracy, that being the influence of big money on politics. Once you view our political system through that lens all other issues pale in comparison.

How long have we been #####ing about the undue influence of lobbyists and complaining about how Washington has sold out to special interests? Yet we have failed to undertake any serious reform and just accepted the status quo as "politics as usual" (at least I have). Thank God Bernie has kept this issue alive before we all just rolled over to king WalMart.
Love the opening of the video when he's giving a passionate speech against the first Iraq war and at some point the camera shows he's giving a great speech to an empty room. It's fantastic when he tears into the gentleman from California and goes to bat to defend gay soldiers currently serving in the military.

If you watch the entire video it's just moment after moment after moment of Bernie being right - years before everyone else realized he was right. Years before it was popular to say what he was saying. And Hillary hedging her bets and being wrong because things were not politically advantageous at the time and tentatively supporting things once it's kind of acceptable.

We need a leader who has a vision. Bernie has clearly shown a history of just that. It's been decades of Bernie forging a path for a better society long before anyone was following him. That's what we need in a leader.

I can't imagine someone watching that video and still lean toward Clinton over Sanders. Heck, I think even many who are not supporters of Democrats will at least have a level of respect for Bernie after watching that. It's a man who has a clear set of beliefs and convictions and will stand up for them at every turn.

He's fighting this battle without lobbyists or super PAC's. He's relying on you and me to throw $20 at the campaign or volunteer some time.

I'm tired of us looking back over the years and realizing how right Bernie has been and wishing we had listened to him. This guy deserves your vote. Or at the very least your respect and admiration.

“A lot of people here talk about what they be­lieve in, but they don’t act on it. He al­ways acts on what he be­lieves. “¦ We can agree or dis­agree, but you know where he stands.” - Senator Mark Warner. How many politicians can you really say that about?

I know some folks are skeptical of his stances. That socialist term he uses scares some potential voters. Don't be. He's not against capitalism. Here is where he stands on things and how he will pay for things.

Here's an Evangelical Pastor making an argument for why he's backing Bernie. after Bernie gave a speech at Jerry Falwell's university.

 
It's fantastic when he tears into the gentleman from California and goes to bat to defend gay soldiers currently serving in the military.
Just a little anecdote about the "gentleman" from California - my Mom ran into him one day when she was visiting a family friend.

They were both (family friend and Cunningham) serving time in Butner Federal Correction facility in North Carolina....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obviously he has a point, but again, it bothers me how he demonizes an entire group of people. I also question how he's going to "stop" that- by taxing and regulating businesses more?
He's not demonizing an "entire group of people" -- he's demonizing corporations. Bernie's rhetoric is, adjusted for the language of the day, near identical to that which you would hear from FDR in the 1930's. We're very much fighting the exact same fight we had back then. Just read some of the stuff FDR was saying to congress about "corporate greed" in 1938 (excerpt):

Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.

Both lessons hit home.

Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.

This concentration is seriously impairing the economic effectiveness of private enterprise as a way of providing employment for labor and capital and as a way of assuring a more equitable distribution of income and earnings among the people of the nation as a whole.
 
Very long video but pretty good seeing Bernie and Hillary throughout the years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpm4rjejFgQ
That Iraq War II speech by Hillary is so overlooked.

And so is iraq War I, which has had so many unfolding, cascading consequences.

By the way, has Hillary changed her policy since her Iraq War vote? If Iran started up its WMD program again, and if we knew that, what would be different from Iraq in 2003, for her, assuming that she thought there might be WMD at the time she voted for the Iraq DOW/AUMF (even though she didn't even read the intelligence estimate)?

eta - Helluva standup move putting Cunningham on the floor like that. Wow.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let the free market economy reign and stop demonizing the people who have earned their money with the same opportunities that everyone else had.
I agree that demonizing rich people is a form of bigotry we'd be better off without.

But we shouldn't pretend that everyone has the same opportunities. Some people die in plane crashes when they are fourteen; others don't. That's just one example. I could probably come up with a few others as well, if pressed.

 
I don't think anyone literally thinks we all have the same identical/equal opportunities. I think we all intrinsically understand that the kid born to the drug addicted mom is starting from behind compared to your average middle class kid...let alone...upper class wealth with private schools.

But at the end of the day there is so much bull#### being peddled by some posters in these threads as if there is some utopian alternative that will make everything equal and that will never be so.

So in lieu of hearing respect and appreciation for the fact that we live in a society where there are immense opportunities for anyone to climb and achieve success in a material sense, anyway, we get this avalanche of whining and shrill arguments about how the United States is so flawed or imperfect.

It is such bull####. And the fact of the matter is that the lion share of people who are not successful in this country are not successful for one very simple reason. Their own actions/choices.
 
And the fact of the matter is that the lion share of people who are not successful in this country are not successful for one very simple reason. Their own actions/choices.
True, but we should be mindful that growing up in a dysfunctional home encourages poor decision making.

 
I don't think anyone literally thinks we all have the same identical/equal opportunities. I think we all intrinsically understand that the kid born to the drug addicted mom is starting from behind compared to your average middle class kid...let alone...upper class wealth with private schools.

But at the end of the day there is so much bull#### being peddled by some posters in these threads as if there is some utopian alternative that will make everything equal and that will never be so.

So in lieu of hearing respect and appreciation for the fact that we live in a society where there are immense opportunities for anyone to climb and achieve success in a material sense, anyway, we get this avalanche of whining and shrill arguments about how the United States is so flawed or imperfect.

It is such bull####. And the fact of the matter is that the lion share of people who are not successful in this country are not successful for one very simple reason. Their own actions/choices.
This isn't true though....and it's not whining, it's reality. I know I have been given so many more opportunities than half this country. All I can do is work to exploit them and take advantage of them. I don't apologize for them, but I am very thankful for them.

 
It is such bull####. And the fact of the matter is that the lion share of people who are not successful in this country are not successful for one very simple reason. Their own actions/choices.
This is utter bull####.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obviously he has a point, but again, it bothers me how he demonizes an entire group of people. I also question how he's going to "stop" that- by taxing and regulating businesses more?
He's not demonizing an "entire group of people" -- he's demonizing corporations. Bernie's rhetoric is, adjusted for the language of the day, near identical to that which you would hear from FDR in the 1930's. We're very much fighting the exact same fight we had back then. Just read some of the stuff FDR was saying to congress about "corporate greed" in 1938 (excerpt):

Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.

Both lessons hit home.

Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.

This concentration is seriously impairing the economic effectiveness of private enterprise as a way of providing employment for labor and capital and as a way of assuring a more equitable distribution of income and earnings among the people of the nation as a whole.
He's demonizing the CEO's of corporations and Wall Street- essentially the super wealthy.

Your quote is supporting my argument IMO- Sanders, like FDR, has a valid point. However, I don't see anything in there from FDR about how one group of people and their never ending greed is ruining the lives of millions of Americans like you hear from Sanders.

 
We have to recognize that the market for CEO is not an efficient market. Governemnt actions to control markets are not the right remedy. Whatever can be done to make the markets more efficient would be a good course to take IMHO
It seems we agree there need to be tweaks but perhaps disagree over how to get there. What tweaks would you suggest?
I might be jumping in at the wrong time and place, but I think the solution is allow for back and forth, where first the floor is raised and then the ceiling is raised. I don't think anyone cares all that much how high the ceiling goes, as long as the floor is maintained and moderately improved along the way.

Everything is connected to everything.

:mmmbeer:

 
Obviously he has a point, but again, it bothers me how he demonizes an entire group of people. I also question how he's going to "stop" that- by taxing and regulating businesses more?
He's not demonizing an "entire group of people" -- he's demonizing corporations. Bernie's rhetoric is, adjusted for the language of the day, near identical to that which you would hear from FDR in the 1930's. We're very much fighting the exact same fight we had back then. Just read some of the stuff FDR was saying to congress about "corporate greed" in 1938 (excerpt):

Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.

Both lessons hit home.

Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.

This concentration is seriously impairing the economic effectiveness of private enterprise as a way of providing employment for labor and capital and as a way of assuring a more equitable distribution of income and earnings among the people of the nation as a whole.
He's demonizing the CEO's of corporations and Wall Street- essentially the super wealthy.

Your quote is supporting my argument IMO- Sanders, like FDR, has a valid point. However, I don't see anything in there from FDR about how one group of people and their never ending greed is ruining the lives of millions of Americans like you hear from Sanders.
I mean, he does basically call them Fascists by the third sentence. Like I said, the style of communication has changed over the years, we're more direct and well, "simple" with our language these days in politics, but I think the sentiment behind FDR's words is barely different - if at all.

 
Obviously he has a point, but again, it bothers me how he demonizes an entire group of people. I also question how he's going to "stop" that- by taxing and regulating businesses more?
He's not demonizing an "entire group of people" -- he's demonizing corporations. Bernie's rhetoric is, adjusted for the language of the day, near identical to that which you would hear from FDR in the 1930's. We're very much fighting the exact same fight we had back then. Just read some of the stuff FDR was saying to congress about "corporate greed" in 1938 (excerpt):

Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.

Both lessons hit home.

Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.

This concentration is seriously impairing the economic effectiveness of private enterprise as a way of providing employment for labor and capital and as a way of assuring a more equitable distribution of income and earnings among the people of the nation as a whole.
He's demonizing the CEO's of corporations and Wall Street- essentially the super wealthy.

Your quote is supporting my argument IMO- Sanders, like FDR, has a valid point. However, I don't see anything in there from FDR about how one group of people and their never ending greed is ruining the lives of millions of Americans like you hear from Sanders.
I mean, he does basically call them Fascists by the third sentence. Like I said, the style of communication has changed over the years, we're more direct and well, "simple" with our language these days in politics, but I think the sentiment behind FDR's words is barely different - if at all.
He was talking about "Unhappy events abroad", but even that isn't close to what Bernie is saying now IMO. FDR was making a rational argument there, and it wasn't all one sided. Bernie is basically blaming the elite for all of our problems- it's very different. Not buying the "style of communication has changed" bit either, you don't have to demonize people to make your point that things are tilted too far in one direction. I know politicians these days love to divide and conquer, but I'm tired of it.

I know people are angry and many are glad that he's attacking the rich, but I personally would prefer a much less divisive approach (like FDR's, ironically).

 
I find that to be an oxymoron.

This guy (Sanders) rubs me all wrong. We are having a one term president this go around. No doubt in my mind about that.

We have to do better than the crop before us on both sides. I have never been this disengaged in my voting life than with the set of candidates we have.

It's downright awful this election year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And the fact of the matter is that the lion share of people who are not successful in this country are not successful for one very simple reason. Their own actions/choices.
True, but we should be mindful that growing up in a dysfunctional home encourages poor decision making.
I agree, but there is no way to legislate a fix to that.

There's no way to legislate even levels of opportunity. Some are not going to have the stable home that others have, some aren't going to have parents who are as well off, some aren't going to have the same intelligence as others, some are going to have lingering or terminal illness, these are things that will never be equal for everyone. Everyone isn't born with the same level of ability and therefore they truly will never have the opportunity that others have from that aspect alone.

There are things I agree with Bernie on like war and intervention overseas and reform for lobbyists and campaign finance. Those are policy based and can be addressed. I think sometimes there is an overreach though on what can actually be done "opportunity" wise and the supposed cure can be worse than the disease.

I do give him credit though for being the most authentic and genuine guy running in the major parties.

 
I know people are angry and many are glad that he's attacking the rich, but I personally would prefer a much less divisive approach (like FDR's, ironically).
Less divisive? Like Hillary, Trump and Cruz?
No idea how you came up with that- did I misspell FDR?
FDR is in this election? I'd vote for him for sure.
Guy's in a wheelchair. Trump would make fun of him, then trounce him.
 
I know people are angry and many are glad that he's attacking the rich, but I personally would prefer a much less divisive approach (like FDR's, ironically).
Less divisive? Like Hillary, Trump and Cruz?
No idea how you came up with that- did I misspell FDR?
FDR is in this election? I'd vote for him for sure.
Guy's in a wheelchair. Trump would make fun of him, then trounce him.
Last time someone mocked a candidate in a wheelchair, it was a Democrat (Wendy Davis vs Abbott).

- On a more serious note - FDR had Huey Long on his left, Coughlin on his far right, and Hirohito, Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini abroad. The stock market was under 100. The guy was holding the country together on a shoestring.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GROOT said:
One hurdle Bernie has is negotiating/making peace in the middle east. Good luck with that.
SF posted Sanders' arguments surrounding Iraq War I, he seems to have been more right in retrospect than everyone else. I will say IMO that consistency and an actual "policy" is more important than anything else right now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Todem said:
I find that to be an oxymoron.

This guy (Sanders) rubs me all wrong. We are having a one term president this go around. No doubt in my mind about that.

We have to do better than the crop before us on both sides. I have never been this disengaged in my voting life than with the set of candidates we have.

It's downright awful this election year.
Out of curiosity, have you read up on his stances? Which of them rubs you all wrong?

 
Idiot Boxer said:
humpback said:
AAABatteries said:
humpback said:
I know people are angry and many are glad that he's attacking the rich, but I personally would prefer a much less divisive approach (like FDR's, ironically).
Less divisive? Like Hillary, Trump and Cruz?
No idea how you came up with that- did I misspell FDR?
FDR is in this election? I'd vote for him for sure.
You guys are on a roll.

Just giving my opinion on his approach. I respect him for his honesty and agree with some of his points but IMO the vilification is unnecessary (and counterproductive). I know others eat it up- different strokes and all that.

 
Idiot Boxer said:
humpback said:
AAABatteries said:
humpback said:
I know people are angry and many are glad that he's attacking the rich, but I personally would prefer a much less divisive approach (like FDR's, ironically).
Less divisive? Like Hillary, Trump and Cruz?
No idea how you came up with that- did I misspell FDR?
FDR is in this election? I'd vote for him for sure.
You guys are on a roll.

Just giving my opinion on his approach. I respect him for his honesty and agree with some of his points but IMO the vilification is unnecessary (and counterproductive). I know others eat it up- different strokes and all that.
I think the point being made is that while you might prefer that Bernie take a less divisive approach (is that even possible these days), he is BY FAR the least divisive candidate in this current election with any real shot at the job.

 
New CBS/YouGOV polls put Sanders ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire - but the most interesting result may be South Carolina

Clinton: 60

Sanders: 38

Clinton is +22, but the same poll a month ago had Clinton +36 (and she was +47 in November). Sanders has made up 14 points - without the benefit of real momentum generated if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire.

 
New CBS/YouGOV polls put Sanders ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire - but the most interesting result may be South Carolina

Clinton: 60

Sanders: 38

Clinton is +22, but the same poll a month ago had Clinton +36 (and she was +47 in November). Sanders has made up 14 points - without the benefit of real momentum generated if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire.
That's very similar to the New Democrats poll in SC which had a +19 number for Hillary, and also a steep decline from her prior ~+40 number.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top