Why I love Hillary AND Bernie
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton at their first debate.
I was raised Republican. But grew disillusioned and switched to the Democrats.
Here’s why:
Partnership over hierarchy
Republicans tend toward a hierarchal, authoritarian mindset: For the most part, people deserve to be where they are. At the top: wealthy, white, straight, male Christians.
Much of Donald Trump’s appeal seems to stem from an extreme form of this: A bullying attitude and dominance over other candidates.
Half of Americans are drawn to that mindset.
Knowing that there’s a place for everyone and that everyone is in their place can feel safe.
Meanwhile, those “on top” of the hierarchy (the wealthy, whites, men, Christians) can get an ego-boost.
The other half of Americans are drawn to a partnership model. They mostly vote for Democrats.
Dems seek equal partnership among all segments of society. Historically, they have represented the interests of the less powerful: the working-class, people of color, women, LGBTQ. Each person has equal worth and dignity and should have equal opportunities and rights under the law.
And workers should get a fair share of the profits they help to create.
We don’t have true equal opportunity
Republicans believe that Americans have equal opportunity — if you’re poor it’s your own fault.
Yet poor children have the worst schools — including the worst teachers and inadequate course materials. They can’t afford tutors. And if they don’t have enough to eat, or can’t get adequate medical care, they have a hard time studying in school. They are also more likely to suffer from hunger or lack of medical care.
What to do? You can either leave things as they are, or you can make sure that children get adequate food, medical care, and schooling. The only way to really do that is to tax people with more money at a higher rate and give some of it to kids who have nothing.
Force the rich to give up money? Force poor kids to starve?
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Republicans say, “No fair: the government forces rich people to give up their money for poor people.”
Actually, either way someone is being forced. Poor kids are forced to starve, or die of medical problems, through no fault of their own.
Where there’s conflict, where’s the greater harm?
Where there is a conflict, Democrats ask where the greater harm is done. Rich people who are taxed more may need to give up a vacation — or stop keeping a helipad atop their penthouse. But on moral ground, that’s less harming than a child dying from hunger or lack of medical care. Or having their potential stunted from poor education.
We all lose if we don’t help these kids: We miss potential talent. There’s more teen pregnancy, more crime, and more costs for police, courts and prisons.
A trade-off between equality and freedom — whose freedom?
While Republicans say there’s a trade-off between equality and freedom, and favor freedom, Democrats ask “Freedom for whom?” The powerful? Or the powerless?
With greater equality, freedom increases for the more powerless members of society:
- Ending slavery increased equality, and Southern whites had less freedom. But former slaves had a whole lot more.
- Ending segregation increased equality, and Southern whites had less freedom. But Blacks had a whole lot more.
- Equality of health increased with Obamacare, and wealthier people paid more (less freedom to spend their $). But poorer people had better health and fewer died: more freedom. (The sick and dead have little to no freedom.)
Some say charity could make up the difference. But charity would need to be 10X higher to make up for the lack of funds.
What’s good for workers is good for business
Also, Republicans say that what is good for business is good for America. So they promote low regulations and low wages.
But Democrats point out that healthy, happy workers are more productive.
And, if Americans don’t have money in their pockets, they can’t purchase goods and services. And then sales and profits go down. Even the “Wall Street Journal” is starting to worry.
Bernie Sanders
Love Hillary and Bernie
Both Hillary and Bernie share this basic mindset.
Bernie is a Democratic Socialist, which is similar to Democrats, but more so. They want higher taxes in return for more services, like free education and free medical care.
Your pocket book could be better off:
If you don’t have to pay insurance companies — which is about $.20 on the dollar — you save all of that money on healthcare. Plus, it’s cheaper to get healthcare maintenance than to treat illness near death — which is what we do now for the uninsured poor.
Examples of Democratic Socialist countries include Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.
These countries have a strong safety net and a lot of equality. Yet they are among the stronger world economies, given a global downturn.
And Scandinavians are among the happiest in the world, says anti-socialist Forbes Magazine.
And so I love both Hillary and Bernie. They both share my basic values.
Related Posts
Share this:
Posted on March 11, 2016, in feminism, politics/class inequality and tagged Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialists, Democrats, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Bookmark the permalink. 49 Comments.
BroadBlogs 
I was raised in a low income home. My parents are still not considered the middle class but they do all that they can do with what they have. For being raised in a small town in bad neighborhoods, I feel that they raised me to be a caring human being. I cannot stand nor comprehend how some individuals can just put blame on others for situations that they have little o no control over. The wealthy 1% has the most power, have opportunities to go to charity events or travel around the world and give. However, for the majority of my life I have observed that a lot of wealthy (or wealthier) people are the ones who give the least. My hometown’s community was composed of mostly low class and minority groups who regardless of their situations, helped each other out. I admire Bernie and Hillary for chasing equality in our country. They are well off financially and are using their influence and titles to drive towards a change in our United States.
Thanks for sharing about your experience.
Hello! I’ve been reading the comments and I honestly cannot believe how uniformed people are on our country (the U.S.A.’s) poverty statistics. Since the Super Bowl came to the bay, the treatment of our homeless blew my mind. Hearing the stories of the people who need us most, the ones who have been through so much; the way they were being treated like “eye sores” and “problems” that needed to move from sight for the coming attractions absolutely disgusted me. The ignorance of the comments on a KQED article that outlined the cities plan to move a makeshift homeless encampment from a freeway underpass, the gateway from the South Bay to the city, said that they needed to move. It didn’t matter where and it wasn’t their concern as to where they went or what happened to these people. They poured thousands of dollars into city wide clean up programs, and took what “wasn’t needed” by homeless into their green trash trucks. This idea that the poor are leaches or bottom feeders is a big part of the problem with moving awareness of important issues regarding those who need the most help forward. 2 in 4 homeless people living in San Fransisco are dealing with some kind of mental illness and compare that to 14% of the general population… Something needs to change and it’s the system.
You make some great points!
I don’t believe in Hillary Clinton, she’s proving to be a liar & a flip-flopper. She started out as a republican working under another republican who was against civil rights. She was against gay rights, abortion, & was for NAFTA. She tends to go for what is popular at the moment to get people behind her. Meanwhile Bernie has seemed to have the same values since he was in college. Whom also has marched with MLK in the past.
I see things very differently. If that were her true feelings she would still be a Republican. Republicans are just as likely to win as Democrats are.
It’s true that she was a Goldwater girl when she was younger. But I was a Republican when I was younger.
People can grow and change, As Hillary and I both did. That’s not flip-flopping. That’s admitting you were wrong. And it takes a lot of courage to admit when you are wrong so I admire her courage.
I hope that people who take my classes and read my blog will change some of their opinions.
If people couldn’t change, we all might as well just give up now. But I know from personal experience that that is not the case.
Great post and way of breaking down the differences. I’m with you on which side of the fence I reside in. Have not decided yet who to pick. I really do pray that we don’t get a Republican in office this time around- esp. considering the contenders.
Me too! Considering the GOP worldview.
The opposition between a model of hierarchy and one association seems to be the key factor in this electoral battle… I absolutely agree with you in that point…
As to Donald Trump…. I have been watching the GOP Debates and… he is quite the bully… I remember when he made fun of Rubio because he seemed afraid, he poured away a bottle of water whilst he shouted … `Rubio´… and then said that Marco was literally pouring down sweat..
Also, I recall he sarcastically taunted Jeff Bush telling him … `okay, you are very tough, Jeff´… when of course he was trying to prove how weak he was in the polls…
anyway… I must admit I enjoyed that as the I can not avoid linking his father to an `unofficial 11-S´… and the Bush Family is blameworthy, i think
What I find hard to say is which is the Republican candidate I prefer…
It is curious… Trump seems to be teh master of crowds… I remembered when he was the hoster of the celebrity apprentice… He certainly liked to fire people- in a quite perverted way, so to speak- I have overall always noticed an obviously misogynous attitude since then…
I won´t keep on talking about him… But just to finish with him, I´d say that his position towards muslims and mexicans is depictable… He seems to be such a narcissist…
I am democrat … or would be if I were American … I like Sanders very much… and Clinton as well.
I truly like Sanders´ position concerning Latin America and anti interventionism there.
I pass you this video which features this aspect.
Sanders condemns U.S. intervention in Latin America http://wapo.st/1TNe0eA
Great post, thank you dear Georgia… All my best wishes. Aquileana 😉
Thanks for the link. And thanks for your thoughts on American politics. It’s always interesting to get the perspective of people from other countries, Like Argentina.
My opinion is that the only non-crazy Republican is Kasich. And you have to be nuts-so to win a Republican primary, Which explains why he’s pretty far behind. But the Republicans also really need someone who is focused on the interests of everyone, and not just the people at the top. Otherwise, they get the likes of Trump, who at least voices some of their concerns amidst all of his crazy talk.
I like how you brought up other first world nations that do have universal health care, because it shows us the readers that it is possible for such a change to occur. I also feel as though I have a democratic mindset when coming down on politics. I honestly like Bernie Sanders because his advocacy for everyone and he really wants to help the struggling poor/middle class. I honestly don’t feel for Hilary because of her past involvements with big companies/banks and her actions toward the African-American community. Although I like the idea of a women president I just don’t agree it should be Hillary.
Well, hopefully we won’t end up with Pres. Trump if the Democrats don’t unite.
Unfortunately, when candidates refuse to take money from powerful interests they usually end up losing. That’s because so many Americans form their political opinions based on advertisements. So we have to change the system — which is something that I have been working on. But if you look at the Supreme Court, all of the justices appointed by Democrats have ruled to get money out of politics whereas justices appointed by Republicans have ruled to make money in politics more powerful.
What actions toward the African-American community don’t you like? She’s extremely popular among African-Americans in the south who voted for her about 75% versus 25% for Bernie Sanders.
Perhaps the difference between Trump/Cruz and Bernie/Hillary can best be summed up thus: the latter appeal to our better angels, the former to our darker angels.
Sounds right to me.
I was raised Republican as well but in an earlier era. It was the sheer repulsiveness of Richard Nixon that cured me. I think the segment of the GOP that is educated and relatively sophisticated (meaning that they at least acknowledge evolution) often votes the way they do out of selfishness. I have a good friend who is a fairly successful small business owner. While she has generally liberal views on social issues it alwasy surprised me that she was a GOP supporter. In explaining her vote for McCain in the 2008 Presidential election, she told me “I actually think Obama would be good for the country, but I vote based on what’s best for me.”
Yeah, I have noticed that people on the Republican side tend to vote in what they at least think is their interest, even though it may actually be against their economic good. Whereas people on the Democratic side sometimes do and sometimes don’t. If they are working-class they are voting with their interests – and they certainly should. Because why let the powerful get everything? The wealthier Dems are voting based on their values and against their interests. And knowing full well that that is what they are doing.
Wow! I see you have drank the kool aid…LOL.
Consider this: 40% of Americans pay NO income tax! That’s right 40%!!!!! So, they contribute zippy to the system. Is that fair? Should not everyone pay something into the system?
Hillary Clinton is just another Establishment politician. As Bernie points out, she get HUGE sums of money from Wall Street. Are you that naive to believe she is going to be “tough on Wall Street”?
Btw, how many people have been indicted for financial crimes stemming from the financial collapse? NONE! Why? Because the Dems get just as much $$$$$ from Wall Street as the Republicans.
At least on the Republican side, we are challenging the leadership and its corruption. No so on with the Dems. Just business as usual.
Remember, if you follow the crowd, you’re going to end up like the crowd.
Those folks don’t pay income tax, but they do pay a large proportion of their income in taxes. As a portion of their income they pay much higher taxes on sales tax, property tax and the withholding taxes that support Social Security and Medicare — The biggest chunk of government spending. If you were to tax these people they would be working and ending up in poverty.
Meanwhile, billionaires like Mitt Romney pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than I do. Because so much of their wealth comes from capital gains – making money while you sit on your butt – is taxed at a lower rate than my tax rate.
Why do you think that people look to the so-called since of the poor instead of the sins of the rich, so often?
I am working with common cause (primarily) and other groups to get rid of money in politics.
Once you have money in politics everyone has to participate because if you don’t the other side wins. You can’t unilaterally disarm. Wall Street gets to both sides. So you need to elect someone who will appoints Supreme Court justices who will vote for clean politics. If you look at Supreme Court decisions in this area, like citizens United, you will see that Republican appointed justices vote to bolster the power of money in politics. Democratically appointed justices voted to get rid of the power of money in politics.
I also work with members of Congress on issues to bolster the middle class. The Democratic members I work with always support our policies. It’s like pulling teeth trying to work with the Republicans, though. The Republicans consistently boat in the interest of the wealthy.
And the Republicans have almost no policies I agree with in the mindset that I agree with so there’s no way I’m going to look for one of them.
Compared to the Republicans, we Democrats do have a much better selection of candidates, don’t we? Of course, that’s not a high bar to clear! But I agree Bernie and Hillary are both good candidates, although I also agree with others that Bernie is way better.
But I can’t overemphasize keeping fascist Trump out and the importance of the Supreme Court so if you feel tempted to think of Trump vs. Hillary as the choice of the lesser evil let me put this into perspective for you….
The “evil” of having to rid your fridge of moldy cheese to make room for fresh fruit and other goodies vs. the evil flesh eating, Nazi-saluting, undead screaming down the streets creating rivers of blood. Vote Blue (even if it has to be blue cheese)!
Amen!
Thanks for your short review of democrats vs. republicans. Since you mention Norway I thought I had to chime in on this one…those two “bastions” in the US cover a much greater span on the political scale than here (I’m from Norway btw). Americans that live over here have told me that the democrats would be comparable to the equivalence of having every political party from the left to the right (i.e. every major party in Norway) under the umbrella of a single party.
Yet, I’m not sure if I agree fully with that argument, as we do have a relatively large number of parties in the first place, to the extent that it’s logical that you’d find a much broader view of political opinions if they’d merge into one party.
Also, I think the current government is more conservative than most people would believe, especially foreigners. This government doesn’t consist of the average socialdemocrats…for example, one of the first tasks carried out was to reduce taxes on property and equity, in favour of those who already own most! Second they introduced new tax regulations. I won’t go into the technicalities on that one as they are somewhat intricate but let’s just say that those regulations hurt those in need of economic social support. Then they reduced the share of government ownership of large _profiltable_ companies (why the heck did they do that!?) and the list goes on and on….
No, this government may prove to be a disaster for the social democrat tradition… So far a female prime minister has done little to preserve that. Sigh..
Thanks for the update.
You are still far to the left of us, it seems, from my perspective.
A study was done where Americans were asked to compare two countries on income inequality — without knowing which two countries they were looking out, and asked where they would rather live. Turns out, most Americans would rather live in your sister country, Sweden. (The comparison was actually between the US and Sweden.)
Money in politics is moving the US to the right. I wonder if the same thing is happening in Norway. Wealthy interests give huge campaign contributions and so the politicians fall in line to make sure they keep getting the money. Legalized bribery.
Yup, we’re still further to the left, meaning that that most of the political spectrum is “shifted” towards the left – for the time being.
But even in this country, I wouldn’t underestimate the continous pressure from conservatives here, on everything from salaries, workers rights (legislation that protects employees working conditions), taxes, wealthfare and so on. Barely 2,5 years with a more conservative government has already degraded workers conditions severely all whilst assets and money have been transferred to the “higher classes”. Actually, the participants in that study may very well be wrong, the differences have never been higher in Norway than they are now, and Sweden’s conditions are comparable. Differences are still smaller than in the US, but for how long.
To me it seems that so many people don’t know what they’re voting for. Now this may sound condescending but I don’t think everyone knows their own best in terms of politics, as they willingly accept conservative arguments without questions. Political awareness seems scarce and I sincerely hope it hasn’t faded away in a few decades or so. And unforunately, Europe must deal with the Syrian refugee crisis too, leaving plenty of latitude for the conservative parties to gather support by the oldest trick in the book – by playing on fear, xenophobia and unemployment, which has – according to the stats – already proven effective. If that’s not enough, consider the descent of oil prices as well (Norway has been a net exporter of oil through the past decades), which has caused unemployment. In other words, timing couldn’t be worse, as all of these simultanous occurrences have granted the conservatives all the tools they need to fear-play the population. Of course, conditions will always vary and things have surely been rough in the past, but this is the first time I fear that things can actually turn out extremely bad, considering the combination of factors.
Your conservatives are probably learning from ours.
And yeah, people often don’t know what they’re voting for. In the US conservative think tanks message things and sends it out to conservative media in a way that leaves much of the working class voting in the interests of the wealthiest. One of the main things is using racism as a distraction: “Democrats want to take your hard-earned money and give it to lazy black and brown people — you don’t want that to you?” Yet if you look at the unemployment rate when the economy is going really well, it’s really low. People feel bad about themselves when they don’t work. It’s hard to get by. And the vast majority of people will work when they have the opportunity. But we are going through a global downturn right now, leaving a lot of people unemployed. And instead of blaming people at the top (outsourcing, off-shoring, low wages), many blame people who are even worse off than they are.
Commenting on your last response: Yes, they are probably looking at other political parties internationally, but that’ll just lead to repeating the very same mistake carried out by other conservative parties; their theories just don’t work. For example, while lower taxes in general _should_ imply more new business initiatives and employers hiring more people (and thus aiding in lowering the overall unemployment rate), these results are lacking. And what we see in reality is just more unspent capital and not much more in store in terms of places to work. There’s just a stark difference between their economic theories and reality which few dare to acknowledge, merely continuing the race to the bottom where most of overall equity falls into the hands of relatively few people.
And yes, the ancient tricks – setting weak groups up against each other (divide and conquer) and then some by intimidation, still works too well unfortunately.
Of governor of the state of Kansas tried the “lower taxes leads to better economy” trick. Didn’t work out so well. Economy’s not so hot and the government is bankrupt.
And: Too bad it’s so easy to divide and conquer. 😦
This post completely hit home for me. I grew up in a very Republican based household. My father owns his own small business, is a Vietnam Veteran, and is as Fox News obsessed as the best of them. If there is one thing we don’t talk about, it is politics, though it is very hard to do when I am on the opposite spectrum as him.
This country is failing in many ways, but the way we treat the poor is the worst. Poor school systems mean less children graduate high school and move onto college. Many cannot afford college or don’t think it is an option, therefore they never go and repeat the lives their parents had before them. They never progress. Thinking that people get what they deserver when they did not choose who they were born to is ludicrous. No one chooses to be born into a poor environment. If they were not educated as a child, why would they think it is an option? Why would they think they could do better than their parents? Every child deserves the opportunity for success, and if taxing the rich can help this become a reality, then it should be done. It’s the least they can do to help society.
Thanks. I agree.
I try not to classify myself as a democrat or republican but I personally do lean towards the liberal side. I’m all about equality and especially helping the kids. I get government programs like food stamps WIC Medical and welfare but better maintenance and a closer watch needs to be looked over for these programs. There should a time limit to these government programs. How is that people that have never worked a day in our country come from their country to retire and can collect SSI every month yet our generation most likely won’t have social security even though it is taken out of our pay.I know people that at least three times over the limit to qualify for free health care yet they still have it because review of these accounts are not as in depth as they should be. How about the woman who has three kids and another on the way because she can get a few extra hundred bucks a month every time she’s gets pregnant. People like this abuse our system and affect the people that are actually in need. If drug test are required to receive any type of government assistance, and a clause stating that funds will be revoked if you continue to procreate, or give a max of five years of assistance per lifetime then I think more people would be more open to raising taxes. Instead of milking the system these people need to put a plan in place to better themselves and their families instead of living off of the government. I am a single mother that had my child at age 17. I support myself by working a full time job and traveling 3 additional hours a day to get to and from this job. I am also a full time student. I do not take any government assistance. Yes it is hard I work hard and I am trying to better my future. By doing this I leave extra money for the people that actually need the assistance. Moral of the story is is that we can’t keep increasing taxes to help the less fortunate if we are not better regulating this programs to weed out the people abusing them.
The fraud level on food stamps is extremely low. And it’s hard to abuse Medicaid — why go to the doctor when you don’t need to? And there is already a time limit on welfare recipients of five years. Unfortunately, that time limit has not solved the root problem and more people are ending up in poverty as a result. And very little of our tax money goes to welfare — about 10% go to safety net programs, Which includes the child tax credit that everyone with the child gets and unemployment insurance.
I think we should put most of our money into children because they are in poverty through no fault of their own. And it’s easiest to help them. If someone doesn’t get adequate nutrition as a child their brain doesn’t developed correctly and it’s hard to help them when they’re older.
But I certainly admire your gumption! You go girl!
One other thing:
I wonder why people tend to look to those below them and blame them — so-called welfare queens — instead of noticing that the wealthiest pay very low taxes, AND noticing that, expect them to pay more.
Based on what tax returns we have seen, Mitt Romney is a billionaire who paid a much smaller percentage of his income in taxes than I did. I’m sure the same is true of Donald Trump, too — probably partly why he doesn’t want to release his taxes.
What I was talking about in terms of sacrificing having a helipad on top of your penthouse so that poor children can Live, Learn and be healthy.
While no presidential candidate in this 2016 election is perfect, I feel it a disservice to say that Bernie and Hillary are on the same level. At least not on the level of social justice advocacy. Bernie Sanders has shown himself to be constantly on the side of social justice, even having photos of him in the original marches with MLK, and showing sympathy with immigrants coming into this country. Hillary Clinton, however, has made it clear to the public that social justice is hardly a priority of hers, in fact, she has stated in one of the democratic debates that even children refugees are somehow dangerous to the country. During her husband’s presidency, the country saw more incarcerations of black americans than any other president, and she has even called black american youths “superpredators”. A few of Hillary’s white feminist followers have tried saying that any woman not voting for Hillary was not a feminist, but is that really true? Is Hillary Clinton really our feminist icon? I think not.
What worries me is dividing the party and ending up with President Trump.
And a conservative Supreme Court.
Yes, Bernie is further left — as I explained in the post.
But Hillary has done much for social justice too. And and Bernie says: any Democrat will do more for social justice than Republicans. Because of their basic mindset. Otherwise, they would be a Republican.
Both as First Lady and as Secretary of State, Hillary has highlighted women’s issues, proclaiming that women’s rights are human rights, visiting sex-trafficking survivors in India and meeting an activist against child marriage in Yemen, for instance. She has been a great advocate for both women and children.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/opinion/sunday/clinton-trump-and-sexism.html?emc=edit_tnt_20160124&nlid=41602665&tntemail0=y
I would need to take a look at the transcript that you are citing again but while Hillary said back in the 90s that there was an emergence of superpredators, I don’t remember her saying anything about them being any particular color. If you have a link to the transcript, please send it.
I don’t understand why some are seeking to divide the party, when that is so dangerous.
Very well said. It’s quite a time to be alive and alert. I remember nostalgically when the disparity between the parties seemed to be about taxes and government, instead of intelligence and hope versus willful blindness and cruelty.
Dang it’s hard not to get pessimistic in the face of this stuff! But if we believe that humans are gradually evolving towards a greater capacity for empathy and abstract thinking (beyond black & white dichotomies) then it’s inevitable that the Left will win in the end. Or at least that’s what I have to tell myself when I go to bed.
I think the general move has been toward partnership — accompanied by great backlash. Two steps forward and one step back.
You can either leave things as they are, or you can make sure that children get adequate food, medical care, and schooling. The only way to really do that is to tax people with more money at a higher rate and give some of it to kids who have nothing.”
What if those kids and families are the low lifes who are leeching off the system? True it’s sad for some who try to do well and work and have medical issues and such that cause hardships. But Hillary and Bernie want free college for everyone..well nothing is free. They can go to the military if they want free education. And if bernie and hillary are so giving, I mean they can “pick up the check so to speak right”. oh no waith, us middle class americans who are squeezed dry as it is, we have to pay taxes for others. If this is the issue how about the government pays for it,
I know they have more than enough $ from the politicians, democrats and republicans who aren’t doing anything. The problem is that not just the rich will be paying, but middle class for poor people. There has to be a better way, but corportations won’t pay or government, so we do. I like how hillary focused on the poor or minorites for free education in her one debate, and I;m thinking how us middle class are going to have to pick up the tab because of her brilliant idea, when democrats get involved it usually don’t help everybody. It usually might help the poor, but doesn’t help the middle class who have to pick up the tab for the poor and pay more taxes. Hillary, Bernie it’s easy to say what you want to do and look good, but guess what..you assholes aren’t paying the taxes and costs for all these ideas you have…WE are. Plus I don’t trust her and Bernies ideas are idealistic, not realistic.
What if they’re lowlifes leeching on the system?
Are the kids supposed to go out and get a job? When they don’t even have an education?
75% of families receiving food stamps fit into one of these categories: the working poor, the disabled, the elderly and families with children.
Actually, most people want to work. It’s really hard on people’s self-esteem to not work. It’s embarrassing to tell people that you don’t have a job. It’s embarrassing to use food stamps. And it’s really hard to survive.
When the economy is going well and there are lots of jobs to go around, unemployment rates are extremely low.
In 1999 when Bill Clinton was President and the economy was booming, the unemployment rate was only 4.2%. That’s virtually no unemployment because there are still layoffs and people who are seeking new jobs because they are unhappy with their present job. In Silicon Valley around that time the unemployment rate was around 1% — meaning that employers were having a really hard time finding enough workers to fill the jobs.
At the least, we need government policies to care for children’s well-being: Food and medical care. It is not the children’s fault that they do not have these things. And when they don’t get them they are more likely to drop out of school and end up in prison or pregnant — kids who lack hope for the future are much more likely than other kids to get pregnant. And then they aren’t prepared for life and up in poverty.
Bernie wants free education for everyone (meaning you would have free education at the University of California, but not at private schools like Harvard) but Hillary doesn’t. Hillary thinks that free education should be need-based.
Right now the Republican Party wants very low tax rates for investment income — making money while you sit on your butt. You could tax that at a higher rate to help young people get an education — At least offer low interest rates on student loans so graduates don’t end up hugely in debt by the time they graduate and have to dig their way out of the pit.
I realize that it seems commonsensical that no one will have money if you do the things that Clinton and Sanders want. But the rich benefit from people believing that. (Or they think they do.) Wealthy interests want to get rid of social security and Medicare and unemployment insurance etc. To bring down their own tax rates. Some of them want to also do away with public education — again, to keep down their tax rates.
If you keep tax rates really low then the wealthy tend to prosper much more than everyone else. But if people can’t afford education, we don’t have educated workers. If all the wealth goes to the top, people don’t have money in their pockets to spend — so businesses lose sales and profits. That’s why even the Wall Street Journal is beginning to post articles worrying that if all the money is at the top no one will have any money to spend and sales and profits will go down. Plus you get political instability like we’re seeing most starkly on the Republican side — and those who don’t like Sanders would also say on the Democratic side (since he’s more extreme left).
The interrelationship of things are more complex than many people realize.
And we have real-life examples of how well the democratic strategy works. Countries that do have free education, and which are democratic socialist, are better off economically than most countries — it helps to have an educated workforce. It helps businesses if people have money in their pockets to spend — then sales and profits go up. And they are also happier than in other countries. I included links to Sweden, Norway and Denmark that so you can check out their numbers.
I also included a link to the Forbes article on the happiest countries in the world. Three of the top five are Sweden, Norway and Denmark.
What Sweden? These countries are much smaller in population so you can’t always compare.What works in another country or makes it easier to work is because of the smaller population. The economy and population in america and land is pretty big in comparison to Sweden and other countries in europe. Obviously China, India population greatly outnumber America, and Russia is pretty big too, But the scandinavian countries and Sweden aren’t exactly the best comparison.
And I don’t blame the children, I blame the parents who I see at Walmart, with somehow a nice fancy purse, new cell phone, nice coat and their children just about barefoot and no coat or dirt, run down trodden clothes. There are more people like that who don’t seem to have the money and can’t find work, but they have no problem doing that or finding the money for some material stuff and then needing some for the children, when common sense any somewhat decent parent uses the money they do have or can find for their children first and priority of food and shelter and not some bullshit nice cell phone, purse, etc. People like that. There are more than you think. There are plenty who are trying to better themselves and have hardships and I feel for them, but there are a decent number who are like I described and you see it around sometimes.
I don’t know if the size of Sweden and Norway make the difference. If you look at their ancient mythology it is more egalitarian than most. And if you look at their history, there was much equality with in the general population – not including slaves – than among other groups. So that could play a role. Equality is more in their heads.
Since the children are innocent at the very least one could support things like school breakfast and lunch and after school snack, to make sure they can get enough to eat. Also medical care for children. But their parents also need these things so that they can adequately care for their children. The earned income tax credit is good to O — and was supported by Nixon and Reagan. It ensures that people who are working and living in poverty, and also role models work for children.
A deeper look into the policies of the past two decades reveals that government does not benignly sit idle in the distribution of wealth. The power and influence of corporate America and the uber-wealthy has resulted in policies that compound wealth at the top. It isn’t a question of taking away from the rich, so much as it is a question of reforming the policies to provide equal opportunity and adequate resources in the basics of opportunity. Feel the Bern.
Yes, we must stop redistributing wealth to the top.
So we have got to get the money out of politics that is basically legalized bribery.
So it is so important to get a Democrat in the White House because Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans vote to bolster legalized bribery, but justices appointed by Democrats have voted to dismantle it.
Agreed!
😃
I love Bernie as well for the plans he has for education and healthcare. I also love that he wants to change the gap between the rich and poor. It seems like the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting more poor. You can see it a lot in the area I live. I live in East Palo Alto and the head quarters of Facebook is just down the street. Our city is changing a lot and it is due to the big businesses like Facebook and Google that are growing rapidly. The more growth they have the more expensive it has become to live here. I never had to pay rent before as I lived with my parents but now it is necessary. There is new buildings and expensive apartments being built in East Palo Alto for the employees from these big companies. Many people commute to work here and now they are trying to provide a living for those employees so they won’t have to commute. It is helping those people who work for these big companies but it is kicking out the low-income group. It is not fair because they are not making it a better and safer place, they are replacing the people and turning it into a rich town for the rich. If this keeps happening East Palo Alto won’t longer be the town we know it as. It is a town with low-income minorities, I do not know where we would go if we can no longer afford living here. Bernie might be the only one to help stop this gap.
Over the years wealth has been redistributing to the top. And it’s connected to money in politics. The rich give large campaign contributions, and then our members of Congress do what they want so that they can keep Getting those contributions.
And you can’t just elect people with better ethics because it’s hard for them to get elected when they don’t have as much money to compete with advertising. Unfortunately, much of the electorate gets their information primarily from advertising. So you have to change the system.
I feel it’s really important to make sure a Democrat is in the White House because if you look at how past Supreme Court justices have voted on the money in politics issue, those who were appointed by a democrat have tried to create a cleaner campaign system. Those who were appointed by a republican have voted to strengthen be effect of money in politics. Probably because they are hierarchal and want to strengthen the power at the top.
But we are moving from a democracy to a plutocracy – rule by the wealthy. And we must do something to stop that.
In a diverse, multi-ethnic society, democratic ideals are more appealing. Hierarchies are a thing of the past, as the world is becoming flatter, affording more inclusivity and participation. Not that we have not seen great republican leaders; it is more that the scale is tilting towards democrats.
I always prefer partnership over hierarchy. There’s much more justice in that.
I love the point about Democrats believing that higher wages means happy workers and more productivity. I think it is very true that paying higher wages to workers gives them more incentive to work hard. And this is something that big businesses should strive for, because happy workers means a better looking company. The workers are the face of the company and the ones that everybody interacts with when they walk into a business. And, the more that these workers make at their job, the more likely they are to go out on a Friday night with family and contribute to other businesses and to be able to afford basic necessities that the wealthy take for granted. The one percent always complains about what they could losing, but they seem to forget how much they already have. They forget how difficult it is to make a living, because others are making their living for them. I love the Democratic view that everybody’s life could be made better if everybody was contributing fairly, especially since the wealthy would not be giving up much in proportion to how much wealth they already own. Everybody deserves equal opportunities, and it’s not as easy as the Republicans delusionally believe it is to reach the top. Two people could work just as hard as one another, and one person could still end up far ahead of the other.
Yes. Republicans tend to not realize that we don’t have an even playing field. Thanks so much for your thoughts on this.