Bernie Sanders: A Threat to American Democracy

[djzombie]

Not really sure if this deserved its own thread. I was going to post it in the youtube video thread, but I wanted it to get a bit more attention than that. The issue of wealth inequality isn't something that is really talked about in the media, but the monetary disparity between the richest and the rest of us is growing rapidly.

Today, Bernie Sanders stood up in the senate and asked America's oligarchs why they need to make billions more than they did last year while dodging taxes, stealing wages, and buying politicians who will enrich the 1% by taking the last remaining wealth meant for retirement and healthcare, and rig the political system to make everyone serve the billionaire class.

Article: http://readersupportednews.org/opini...y-vs-oligarchy

[Charismatic]

I saw the title and I got mad, I thought it was saying that Bernie was a threat to American democracy and I was about to come in here and post about how that man is a fucking saint.

I also have not watched the video as of this post... but I will!

[BaneTheBrawler]

i also thought that's what the thread was about and came in here expecting to learn about some lunatic republican.

[djzombie]

i half thought that was going to happen shortly after i posted it. i really shouldn't have used the colon lol.

[Uzor]

This man should be president

[Edelweiss]

Relevant: http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/ppb/2012/ppb121.htm

This brief investigates the mobility and income situation of family heads and spouses who have low long-term incomes, where long-term refers to average family income over a 10-year period. The data show that most of those in the poorest one-fifth of the long-term income distribution during the 1996–2006 period spent all or nearly all of the period’s years in the poorest fifth of the single-year income distribution, and those who escaped did not move far. Moreover, this situation has worsened over time, with the long-term poor more “stuck” at the bottom in the 1996-2006 period than they were in 1976–1986 and 1986–1996. At the same time, the real incomes of the long-term poorest fifth have not grown as fast as the incomes of those in higher fifths, both from year-to-year within a period and from one period to the next. While it is well known that income inequality has risen in the United States in terms of single-year incomes, this brief documents that limited mobility has led to an increase in the inequality of long-term incomes as well.

Also to build upon what Senator Sanders speaks about at 2:30ish, with the top 1% claiming 38% of the share of income. Between 1985 and 2007, the US slid in rankings in the top 1 percent shares of total income among the world’s 13 highest-income countries; in the early 1980s the US middle-class held about 55.2 percent of the income share, but over the two subsequent decades their holdings had declined to 51.8 percent (placing the US at the very bottom and suggesting a shrinking middle-class).

[Meresgi]

I listen to republican radio for kicks when driving around, I can't wait to hear Mark Levin, Michael Savage and others trying to rip into this guy because "hrrumph hrrumph poor people just don't work for it!"

[archibaldcrane]

As good a place as any to post the most important economic graph there is;

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//10-21-10inc-f3.jpg

The average American in the "bottom 90%" (all households making up to roughly 143k a year) has not made any inflation-adjusted income gains over our entire lifetime. The rich have figured out the exact level of comfort that will prevent rebellion, and kept y'all at that level for a couple generations.

[archibaldcrane]

But don't worry

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us...=politics&_r=0

The Supreme Court just ruled that individuals could give the maximum $2600 to a primary or election candidate to as many candidates as they like:

But it said that overall limits of $48,600 by individuals every two years for contributions to all federal candidates violated the First Amendment, as did separate aggregate limits on contributions to political party committees, currently $74,600.

There are now no limits to the number of candidates an individual can drop $2600 on. Make it rain, .01%ers!

[BaneTheBrawler]

As good a place as any to post the most important economic graph there is;

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//10-21-10inc-f3.jpg

The average American in the "bottom 90%" (all households making up to roughly 143k a year) has not made any inflation-adjusted income gains over our entire lifetime. The rich have figured out the exact level of comfort that will prevent rebellion, and kept y'all at that level for a couple generations.

shit like this fascinates me, thinkin about the various reasons why it happens. That dip in the 70s? I'd bet you that's labor unions (among other things). Then the unions won, got lax/a bad rep, and now the pendulum swings the other way.

[djzombie]

Yea i was just looking at that graph and wondering what happened in around 1998-2003 that caused that giant dip for the 1%.

[Uzor]

Well, around 2001 probably 9/11 and the war on terrorism, but it goes up after that.

[Roranora]

is it not sufficiently comfortable for you

[Acevalefor]

I am interested in a much longer time period. Preferably back to the industrial revolution in America and including the recent recession, because it will show the rise and fall from the greatest stock market boom and bust in American history as well as the effects of industrialization, unionization, depression, wartime, and post-war income that is not shown in archi's graph.

Also, is there a precedent from previous election cycles, long before our lifetimes which can show how unlimited money in politics creates and promotes corruption and plutocracy?

[Acevalefor]

Yea i was just looking at that graph and wondering what happened in around 1998-2003 that caused that giant dip for the 1%.

Wasn't there a recession when the .com bust happened? Is that the right time period?

[Uzor]

Wasn't there a recession when the .com bust happened? Is that the right time period?

lolwiki, but:

The dot-com bubble (also referred to as the dot-com boom, the Internet bubble and the information technology bubble[1]) was a historic speculative bubble covering roughly 1997–2000 (with a climax on March 10, 2000, with the NASDAQ peaking at 5,408.60[2] in intraday trading before closing at 5,048.62) during which stock markets in industrialized nations saw their equity value rise rapidly from growth in the Internet sector and related fields. While the latter part was a boom and bust cycle, the Internet boom is sometimes meant to refer to the steady commercial growth of the Internet with the advent of the World Wide Web, as exemplified by the first release of the Mosaic web browser in 1993, and continuing through the 1990s.

[ringthree]

Yea i was just looking at that graph and wondering what happened in around 1998-2003 that caused that giant dip for the 1%.

Tech bubble popped.

[Edelweiss]

As good a place as any to post the most important economic graph there is;

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//10-21-10inc-f3.jpg

The average American in the "bottom 90%" (all households making up to roughly 143k a year) has not made any inflation-adjusted income gains over our entire lifetime. The rich have figured out the exact level of comfort that will prevent rebellion, and kept y'all at that level for a couple generations.

The trends before 1950 were also elevated substantially; the whole arc of the 20th century is basically U-shaped. The New Deal/Progressive-era policies between the 1930s-early 1970s are what drastically reduced the disparity between Americans.