How did this work in 2018 when people were primaried on the left? Sanders has had a bully pulpit since 2016 and he can't crack 35% in the democratic primary. So you want Sanders to use the same fear tactics as Trump to get stuff through and not actually build a consensus?
You build consensus with a bully pulpit. That's how FDR got his reform and that's how Obama tried. There is no bully pulpit even close to the presidential bully pulpit. IF Bernie wins, it would be a giant wake up call for many mainstream senators and reps.
AOC is s pretty incredible story regardless of your ideological position. Do you know who she primaried and beat? Joe Crowley, one of the highest ranking Democrats in the House of Reps. He was in discussion to be the god damn Speaker of the House. A first time politican beat him. You have a tendency to dismiss arguments really easily. Nothing that Reeko said was absurd where it merited your type of dismissive response. You also seem to not form your own opinions and just latch on to people you already agree with.
I don't have a pitch on why they should exist I am not carping for billionaires in a perfect world that money would be distributed elsewhere. But I am not going to begrudge a guy just for creating something that made them a **** ton of money just because. So how do you see this working once you earn a certain amount you just stop? Why should millionaires like Bernie exist since we are asking how much wealth is too much?
Obama had a bully pulpit and how did that work out? Trump has a bully pullpit and he can't get everything through. So why would Bernie be different?
The taxation and economic system should do basically everything in it's power to push people into the middle class, because the middle class is the key driver of a successful economy, while high income inequality is basically the key feature of every historical empire's collapse. Its pretty obvious that the more income inequality we have here in the United States, as seen in recent years. the less functional our democracy is. Those who are poor should receive assistance to help remove the poverty and ascend into the middle class. This should be through education, debt relief, affordable housing, affordable healthcare, and living wage protections. Those who exceed it should be subject to extremely progressive tax rates to disincentivize obscene levels of wealth. All of this should be built on the backbone of a capitalistic system. Can you still be poor? Yes. Can you still be rich? Yes. I have no idea why anyone thinks billionaires, and soon trillionaires, are a good thing. In one form or another, all that wealth came at the expense of someone else.
Imagine being speechless after 4 years of Trump destroying this country. Kids in cages, Billionares getting tax cuts and poor people slowly seeing Trump attack every imaginable safety net he can. Must be nice in your ivory tower jiggly. Enjoy your grapes while we take care of that scumbag for you. I'm sure it's normal to see us brown folk to your dirty work for you anyway. So par for the course.
Don't do this. Don't take one statement Bernie and Warren have stated and ignore all the meat of their argument they have been staring for decades, especially Bernie. There is "no cut off point". Bernie and Warren for years have stated in nuance about reforming the system that creates billionaires and elaborate on that system many times. They aren't reffering to the individual billionaires as immoral but rather the system that allows billionares. The context isn't just billionares. The context is having billionares AT THE SAME TIME you have 40 percent of Americans having to finance or borrow from a friend or relative for a 400 dollar emergency. And they have discussed this ad nauseam.
“And the great owners, who must lose their land in an upheaval, the great owners with access to history, with eyes to read history and to know the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed. The great owners ignored the three cries of history. The land fell into fewer hands, the number of the dispossessed increased, and every effort of the great owners was directed at repression. The money was spent for arms, for gas to protect the great holdings, and spies were sent to catch the murmuring of revolt so that it might be stamped out. The changing economy was ignored, plans for the change ignored; and only means to destroy revolt were considered, while the causes of revolt went on.” ~ Grapes Of Wrath You are already seeing the anger. There is a reason why more and more younger generations are turning to socialism and at this rate if it won't be Sanders than it will be someone like AOC.
Dude just stop I don't think Bernie is a communist and I have always believed he could win the presidency. But saying stuff like Bloomberg should not exist makes it easier to call him a communist and it does not make him a better candidate to defeat Trump which is my issue.
You where the one claiming only 40% of people where insured don't move the goalpost now. Stop with the over exaggeration.
No one is saying that Bloomberg the human shouldn't exist. They are saying the system that allows Bloomberg to have 64 billion in wealth when half the country doesn't even have a thousand dollars in their checking and savings account shouldn't exist.
I agree with all of this and never said billionaires and trillionaires are a good thing, I just don't think they should be demonized especially when that money is being used for good purposes. So why can't millionaires not get this scrutiny, what's the cutoff?
The whole basis for their campaigns is demonizing Billionaires it was one of the 1st words to come out of Warrens mouth. If you can't even admit that you are being willfully dishonest and trying to obfuscate things with a lot of words. It's amazing when you where railling against this exact thing yesterday and accusing me of doing it. How hypocritical can you be.
Not sure what the cutoff is. Maybe the cutoff should be what you could realistically spend in a lifetime. I don't know what that number is. 50 million? 100? Perfectly fine with people having enough to not work, or their families not have to work, or even their decedents. Heck, in your lates 50s / 60s, should be a millionaire after saving for retirement. The fundamental problem with our system is that wealth creates wealth exponentially, and being poor traps you in a cycle of poverty. That is simply not sustainable.
Maybe its because Millionaires aren't too big to fail. We have had a lot of stories of people who were once millionaires that are now broke or close to broke, athletes, celebs, etc etc. Harden has a lot of money now but if he makes bad decisions with it he can very well be broke in 15 years. Bezos? Bezos can literally lose 46 billion dollars and still be a billionaire. Some of these people can never dream of spending all of the money they have and then they still viciously protect their vast amounts of wealth. A lot of these dudes are downright greedy to the point of sin. The Koch's have spent a lot of their money denying climate science and advancing climate science denial just so they could protect their wealth. Think about that, they would rather see the planet burn than part with some of their money.
He's trying to disingenuously reframe the argument into a "cut off point" rather than tackling the systemic issues which Bernie has been preaching for decades results in billionaires.
