Dear Bernie Sanders, Sorry I'm The Problem With America

[tooqk4u22]

http://fortune.com/2016/02/22/dear-bernie-sorry-im-the-problem-with-america/

[matchewed]

Bootstraps! You can too!

[mak1277]

It's really a very Mustachian POV in the article.

[Jeremy E.]

That is a reason I'm against free college as well, I think I'd be okay for paying for college if it was like a highschool, maybe with more specialized equipment to help students learn. But when colleges are paying college football coaches $7 million, spending many millions on decorations like fancy fountains etc. I don't think I should have to pay for that crap. People say one negative to having free college education is that the government would have more control over the schools, and democrats say no, the colleges won't change, and that scares me. I would want them to change, to become cheaper. I'll pay to educate these kids but I don't want to pay for their entertainment.

[tooqk4u22]

That is a reason I'm against free college as well, I think I'd be okay for paying for college if it was like a highschool, maybe with more specialized equipment to help students learn. But when colleges are paying college football coaches $7 million, spending many millions on decorations like fancy fountains etc. I don't think I should have to pay for that crap. People say one negative to having free college education is that the government would have more control over the schools, and democrats say no, the colleges won't change, and that scares me. I would want them to change, to become cheaper. I'll pay to educate these kids but I don't want to pay for their entertainment.

I agree with you, bare bones education oriented approach I would be open to....we kind of have that with the Community College model at least for the first two years. 

For the naïve people out there college is first and foremost a business and secondly about education....it wasn't always this way but as the necessity of being college educated increased over time, combined with the large millennial population coming of age (ie increased demand) over the last 10-15 years or so, and significant government support (directly and indirectly through grants, subsidies, and guaranteed loans) it is no wonder that it has run amuck. To entice kids (parents) to pay the excessive tuitions they needed to demonstrate that they could provide an adequate spa like experience while attending Suck U.

It will be interesting to see how this changes as the millennial wave winds down in the next 3-4 years as the generation of college kids coming after them is one of the smallest in history - that will surely put strain an many Suck U's which is already happening with some of the smaller liberal arts colleges scattered throughout the US.

[boy_bye]

this guy sounds like a twat. born on third base, thinks he hit a triple.

congratulations on being born white and raised in a middle-class family with success-oriented values with a strong father figure on hand to give you advice!

i really don't understand how people standing on such wide, generous shoulders of privilege so often don't see it at all.

he has this false equivalency set up like there are only two kinds of people in the world -- people like him, and kids who go to restaurants all the time and travel to cambodia are $100K in debt. meanwhile, almost a quarter of the wage-earners in the US make less than $10K a year!

ugh want to punch his face so baaaaaad.

[zephyr911]

A friend of mine posted this, and I'll reshare my response if I find it later.

Tl/dr: strawman fallacy. Either the guy doesn't really understand Sanders' stance on wealth and fiscal policy, or he's misrepresenting it.

[BlueHouse]

this guy sounds like a twat. born on third base, thinks he hit a triple.

congratulations on being born white and raised in a middle-class family with success-oriented values with a strong father figure on hand to give you advice!

i really don't understand how people standing on such wide, generous shoulders of privilege so often don't see it at all.

he has this false equivalency set up like there are only two kinds of people in the world -- people like him, and kids who go to restaurants all the time and travel to cambodia are $100K in debt. meanwhile, almost a quarter of the wage-earners in the US make less than $10K a year!

ugh want to punch his face so baaaaaad.

I disagree with your assessment.  People who work hard to get ahead have nothing to be ashamed of.  Do you want him to apologize for the color of his skin?  Because that's really all I get out of your comment. 

[matchewed]

It's okay to be for doing everything under your power to make your life better and still vote for Sanders. This concept that he's waging a class war isn't exactly correct. It's already being waged.

[zephyr911]

People who work hard to get ahead have nothing to be ashamed of.

That's the problem with the entire piece, that he somehow thinks the candidate in question disagrees with the above statement. That he thinks he's being called a bad person for having overcome the odds to achieve great things. My response to this piece is not just "no", but "how the fuck do you get that from clear and plain English that says something else"?

[boy_bye]

this guy sounds like a twat. born on third base, thinks he hit a triple.

congratulations on being born white and raised in a middle-class family with success-oriented values with a strong father figure on hand to give you advice!

i really don't understand how people standing on such wide, generous shoulders of privilege so often don't see it at all.

he has this false equivalency set up like there are only two kinds of people in the world -- people like him, and kids who go to restaurants all the time and travel to cambodia are $100K in debt. meanwhile, almost a quarter of the wage-earners in the US make less than $10K a year!

ugh want to punch his face so baaaaaad.

I disagree with your assessment.  People who work hard to get ahead have nothing to be ashamed of.  Do you want him to apologize for the color of his skin?  Because that's really all I get out of your comment.

I don't want him to apologize for the color of his skin.

I do want him to quit fucking mythologizing himself like he works so much harder than all the people who happen to be poor. I very much doubt he does.

[Psychstache]

this guy sounds like a twat. born on third base, thinks he hit a triple.

congratulations on being born white and raised in a middle-class family with success-oriented values with a strong father figure on hand to give you advice!

i really don't understand how people standing on such wide, generous shoulders of privilege so often don't see it at all.

he has this false equivalency set up like there are only two kinds of people in the world -- people like him, and kids who go to restaurants all the time and travel to cambodia are $100K in debt. meanwhile, almost a quarter of the wage-earners in the US make less than $10K a year!

ugh want to punch his face so baaaaaad.

I disagree with your assessment.  People who work hard to get ahead have nothing to be ashamed of.  Do you want him to apologize for the color of his skin?  Because that's really all I get out of your comment.

No, he doesn't need to apologize for being born into fortunate circumstances, just recognize that it is as clear cut as "work hard and you can succeed and you don't need help from anyone".

http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate

[PathtoFIRE]

I think we can all agree that with the type of privilege others are talking about here, it still matters what you do with it. No one is saying that being white/male in the USA is the equivalent of being a trust-funder or heir/heiress. So the hard work matters, but some people just get to start the game one or two steps ahead, that's all that is being said. I think it comes across as somewhat arrogant to some of us when "the other" is snidely derided for failing to achieve someone's own personal level of success, especially when anyone can appreciate that some of us have advantages that others don't.

[tooqk4u22]

this guy sounds like a twat. born on third base, thinks he hit a triple.

congratulations on being born white and raised in a middle-class family with success-oriented values with a strong father figure on hand to give you advice!

i really don't understand how people standing on such wide, generous shoulders of privilege so often don't see it at all.

he has this false equivalency set up like there are only two kinds of people in the world -- people like him, and kids who go to restaurants all the time and travel to cambodia are $100K in debt. meanwhile, almost a quarter of the wage-earners in the US make less than $10K a year!

ugh want to punch his face so baaaaaad.

Your link may not be the best reference as it is limiting in data - your statement based on that table is accurate though it doesn't allow for other factors to be weighed - age being possibly the most meaningful (a 15 year old will only make so much, a retired person may have a hobby job, certain people willingly work part time, who knows) - the point it is the table only represents those that have received a W-2 and is not necessarily representative, but it might be, of people who are disadvantaged.  Heck for all we know MMM paid himself $10k out of the $400k he made so it would only show up in your table at the lower end....this would apply to most business owners.

[Jack]

So this guy agrees that "the economy is rigged," but since he was able to beat the odds, that somehow makes it okay?!

That's bullshit.

If the game is rigged, you shouldn't just accept it; you should un-rig the game!

IMO, all these folks who love the system that abuses them must have some kind of psychological disorder: codependency? Stockholm syndrome? It's some kind of defect, at least.


Also, the idea that Sanders somehow thinks entrepreneurs are a problem is a total strawman. The people doing the rigging are the leaders of corporations big enough to buy their own laws, not small-timers like the author.

[trashmanz]

That is a reason I'm against free college as well, I think I'd be okay for paying for college if it was like a highschool, maybe with more specialized equipment to help students learn. But when colleges are paying college football coaches $7 million, spending many millions on decorations like fancy fountains etc. I don't think I should have to pay for that crap. People say one negative to having free college education is that the government would have more control over the schools, and democrats say no, the colleges won't change, and that scares me. I would want them to change, to become cheaper. I'll pay to educate these kids but I don't want to pay for their entertainment.

I don't know much about the details, but I have always heard that college football is extremely profitable for the universities?  If that is the case if they make enough to pay their coaches then is there a big problem?  (This is from someone who could care less about college sports generally). 

[Jeremy E.]

That is a reason I'm against free college as well, I think I'd be okay for paying for college if it was like a highschool, maybe with more specialized equipment to help students learn. But when colleges are paying college football coaches $7 million, spending many millions on decorations like fancy fountains etc. I don't think I should have to pay for that crap. People say one negative to having free college education is that the government would have more control over the schools, and democrats say no, the colleges won't change, and that scares me. I would want them to change, to become cheaper. I'll pay to educate these kids but I don't want to pay for their entertainment.

I don't know much about the details, but I have always heard that college football is extremely profitable for the universities?  If that is the case if they make enough to pay their coaches then is there a big problem?  (This is from someone who could care less about college sports generally).

Why not take that extreme profit and use it to reduce tuition rather than use it on consumer sucka stuff?

[trashmanz]

That is a reason I'm against free college as well, I think I'd be okay for paying for college if it was like a highschool, maybe with more specialized equipment to help students learn. But when colleges are paying college football coaches $7 million, spending many millions on decorations like fancy fountains etc. I don't think I should have to pay for that crap. People say one negative to having free college education is that the government would have more control over the schools, and democrats say no, the colleges won't change, and that scares me. I would want them to change, to become cheaper. I'll pay to educate these kids but I don't want to pay for their entertainment.

I don't know much about the details, but I have always heard that college football is extremely profitable for the universities?  If that is the case if they make enough to pay their coaches then is there a big problem?  (This is from someone who could care less about college sports generally).

Why not take that extreme profit and use it to reduce tuition rather than use it on consumer sucka stuff?

I don't disagree, but isn't that an issue that can be dealt with as a separate issue from Bernies college funding plan?  I mean, I know it will never change because people love their college sports, but it seems that it could theoretically be changed right now if there was enough of a push for it. 

[trashmanz]

I feel like this article could be summarized as:

"I worked hard and became successful despite the odds and I don't want to be forced to contribute a greater percentage of my money to the people that were not able to accomplish what I have." 

While I don't necessarily agree 100% it is a common viewpoint surprisingly even for people who haven't yet found success (because of the "american dream"). 

[Jeremy E.]

That is a reason I'm against free college as well, I think I'd be okay for paying for college if it was like a highschool, maybe with more specialized equipment to help students learn. But when colleges are paying college football coaches $7 million, spending many millions on decorations like fancy fountains etc. I don't think I should have to pay for that crap. People say one negative to having free college education is that the government would have more control over the schools, and democrats say no, the colleges won't change, and that scares me. I would want them to change, to become cheaper. I'll pay to educate these kids but I don't want to pay for their entertainment.

I don't know much about the details, but I have always heard that college football is extremely profitable for the universities?  If that is the case if they make enough to pay their coaches then is there a big problem?  (This is from someone who could care less about college sports generally).

Why not take that extreme profit and use it to reduce tuition rather than use it on consumer sucka stuff?

I don't disagree, but isn't that an issue that can be dealt with as a separate issue from Bernies college funding plan?  I mean, I know it will never change because people love their college sports, but it seems that it could theoretically be changed right now if there was enough of a push for it.

I think when we decide to start fully subsidizing colleges we are allowed to give them a budget, right now we are only partially subsidizing them and it would be harder to give them a budget. How it is currently I don't support Bernies plan at all.

[music lover]

One of Sanders promises...up to 15 weeks of paid leave per year. Yeah...that's realistic:

"Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.

[KCM5]

One of Sanders promises...up to 15 weeks of paid leave per year. Yeah...that's realistic:

"Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.

I like the way you characterize that. Like a more conservative leave policy than 90% of western nations is unrealistic.

[wepner]

America is an awesome country if a guy this bad at summarizing others ideas and this bad at formulating an argument without leaving out key pieces of information and/or creating ridiculous strawman arguments can be a millionaire just by trying hard then there is hope for a lot of people out there.

Lots of valid criticisms so far about what this guy is trying to sell but the absolute worst thing about this essay and others like it about how much it sucks to be a CEO is that being a CEO is obviously a choice and when all they do is talk about how stressful it is and how much it ruins their personal lives etc. etc. is that they are either leaving out the part about how being a CEO is rewarding and satisfying thing to do (which is pretty dishonest of them) or they are admitting that having a lot of money is more important to them than friends/familiy/health/whatever specific things they complain about it.

[Jeremy E.]

America is an awesome country if a guy this bad at summarizing others ideas and this bad at formulating an argument without leaving out key pieces of information and/or creating ridiculous strawman arguments can be a millionaire just by trying hard then there is hope for a lot of people out there.

Lots of valid criticisms so far about what this guy is trying to sell but the absolute worst thing about this essay and others like it about how much it sucks to be a CEO is that being a CEO is obviously a choice and when all they do is talk about how stressful it is and how much it ruins their personal lives etc. etc. is that they are either leaving out the part about how being a CEO is rewarding and satisfying thing to do (which is pretty dishonest of them) or they are admitting that having a lot of money is more important to them than friends/familiy/health/whatever specific things they complain about it.

This is partially your last point,  but I reckon some of them are victims of lifestyle inflation with million dollar homes, HUGE mortgages, and they don't know how to live any other way.

[arebelspy]

Some of that article was good, some was ridiculous.

Good for this guy for understanding that you need to work hard to get ahead.

Bad that he's okay with a rigged system.  If he understands that it's rigged, how about supporting a fix?

And all of the Bernie stuff at the end was flat out silly.

But when I hear Bernie speak, I feel like I’m the problem with America. I’m one of those millionaires he mentions who should pay more taxes.

No, Bernie isn't talking about you as the problem.  Were you one of the banking execs in 2008?

Yes, he thinks you should pay more taxes.  I think the rich can, and should, and I include myself in that.

Some disagree, obviously, but straw men aren't going to convince those that do agree that they're wrong.

Thanks for posting, was interesting.

[Jack]

I don't know much about the details, but I have always heard that college football is extremely profitable for the universities?  If that is the case if they make enough to pay their coaches then is there a big problem?  (This is from someone who could care less about college sports generally).

I suspect it's probably a profit center for the top-rated, popular teams, but a cost center for the lower-ranked ones.

[MandalayVA]

the necessity of being college educated

And THAT'S the mindset that needs to go away.  With the exception of medicine, law, education, engineering and science, with the fields related to them, college is not necessary, particularly in the internet age where the world's knowledge resides in a device the size of your palm.  Generation X (my generation) is probably that last where one could get a job with no degree and rise through the ranks based on performance.  A college degree used to mean something.  Now all it means is that you somehow found the money to pay for it.

As for the article, there's some truth to it and some bullshit.  I agree with Sanders that taxes need to be raised.  Whenever anyone raves about the healthcare in Canada or Europe, I point out that much higher taxes are paid in those places.  Nothing is for free.  Higher education is an for-profit industry just like oil, and institutions will happily rake it in as long as it's preached that a college education is "necessary."

[Jack]

As for the article, there's some truth to it and some bullshit.  I agree with Sanders that taxes need to be raised.  Whenever anyone raves about the healthcare in Canada or Europe, I point out that much higher taxes are paid in those places.  Nothing is for free.

Of course, the much higher taxes are paid mostly for things other than healthcare. The net cost of Sanders' healthcare plan -- the increase in taxes and the decrease in insurance premiums and out-of-pocket fees considered together -- is negative. Eliminating insurance industry middlemen is a real benefit, and the experience of other first-world (and less-than-first-world, for that matter) countries proves that lowering cost while maintaining quality of care is possible.

[MandalayVA]

As for the article, there's some truth to it and some bullshit.  I agree with Sanders that taxes need to be raised.  Whenever anyone raves about the healthcare in Canada or Europe, I point out that much higher taxes are paid in those places.  Nothing is for free.

Of course, the much higher taxes are paid mostly for things other than healthcare. The net cost of Sanders' healthcare plan -- the increase in taxes and the decrease in insurance premiums and out-of-pocket fees considered together -- is negative. Eliminating insurance industry middlemen is a real benefit, and the experience of other first-world (and less-than-first-world, for that matter) countries proves that lowering cost while maintaining quality of care is possible.

I just used healthcare as an example, since it gets the most eyeballs these days.

 

[FIRE me]

I do want him to quit fucking mythologizing himself like he works so much harder than all the people who happen to be poor. I very much doubt he does.

Actually I think he might. But that is the fallacy.

Not all people have high IQ's. Not all people all have the drive to found business after business, and the persistence to keep trying after multiple failures. We weren't all raised in families that extol the virtues of education, hard work, persistence, saving money, and self sufficiency.

There are a lot people out there who are not smart, not well educated, and don't have much drive. These people are human beings who deserve a decent living as long as they are law abiding and willing to put in their 40 hours at whatever job they have.

While the guy has point, it reminds me of the saying that “Republicans see half of what is wrong with the world. Democrats see the other half.”

[boy_bye]

I do want him to quit fucking mythologizing himself like he works so much harder than all the people who happen to be poor. I very much doubt he does.

Actually I think he might. But that is the fallacy.

Not all people have high IQ's. Not all people all have the drive to found business after business, and the persistence to keep trying after multiple failures. We weren't all raised in families that extol the virtues of education, hard work, persistence, saving money, and self sufficiency.

There are a lot people out there who are not smart, not well educated, and don't have much drive. These people are human beings who deserve a decent living as long as they are law abiding and willing to put in their 40 hours at whatever job they have.

While the guy has point, it reminds me of the saying that “Republicans see half of what is wrong with the world. Democrats see the other half.”

I agree with what you are saying, but I don't agree that this guy works harder than all or even most poor people do. For people without resources, even getting through the day takes a lot more work than I bet this guy has ever contemplated.

There are people who ride busses for hours every day to go work on their feet in hot, sweaty, greasy environments for 12 hours at a stretch and are still poor as hell. Does this guy work harder than them?

There are people who work on rooftops for 12 hours a day in the blazing sun, sweating their asses off and suffering a huge risk of personal injury, who are still poor as hell. Does he work harder than them?

There are people who work, go to school, and raise kids single-handedly all at the same time, who never have time to sit and think and write a whiny article for a website because they are too busy grocery shopping, fixing dinner, helping with homework, doing their own homework, taking sick kids to doctors, taking laundry to the laundromat, and all the million other things that you have to do in order to run your life. Does this guy work harder than them?

I seriously, seriously doubt it. Hell, I make 6 figures and even when I have busy times at work when I need to work 12 hours at a stretch, I'm still sitting on my ass in climate controlled comfort. My work is highly valued ... but I don't kid myself that I work harder than poor people do. I was a poor person, and everyone in my family busted their ass and still had nothing.

So, like you said, there's a lot more that goes into the equation besides "hard work."

[zephyr911]

While the guy has point, it reminds me of the saying that “Republicans see half of what is wrong with the world. Democrats see the other half.”

Partly true, but what's turned me against two decades of Republican upbringing was that most of what they see as problems these days involves freedom and empowerment of previously marginalized classes, often at no cost to anyone.

Not that I ran out and became a Democrat after realizing how stupid and wasteful that all was, because I have real issues with them too, but it does look, from my little corner of the world, like most of the stuff they want to invest time/energy/money in benefits either a very select few, or even nobody, and often demonstrably hurts others.

[Chris22]

I do want him to quit fucking mythologizing himself like he works so much harder than all the people who happen to be poor. I very much doubt he does.

Actually I think he might. But that is the fallacy.

Not all people have high IQ's. Not all people all have the drive to found business after business, and the persistence to keep trying after multiple failures. We weren't all raised in families that extol the virtues of education, hard work, persistence, saving money, and self sufficiency.

There are a lot people out there who are not smart, not well educated, and don't have much drive. These people are human beings who deserve a decent living as long as they are law abiding and willing to put in their 40 hours at whatever job they have.

While the guy has point, it reminds me of the saying that “Republicans see half of what is wrong with the world. Democrats see the other half.”

I agree with what you are saying, but I don't agree that this guy works harder than all or even most poor people do. For people without resources, even getting through the day takes a lot more work than I bet this guy has ever contemplated.

There are people who ride busses for hours every day to go work on their feet in hot, sweaty, greasy environments for 12 hours at a stretch and are still poor as hell. Does this guy work harder than them?

There are people who work on rooftops for 12 hours a day in the blazing sun, sweating their asses off and suffering a huge risk of personal injury, who are still poor as hell. Does he work harder than them?

There are people who work, go to school, and raise kids single-handedly all at the same time, who never have time to sit and think and write a whiny article for a website because they are too busy grocery shopping, fixing dinner, helping with homework, doing their own homework, taking sick kids to doctors, taking laundry to the laundromat, and all the million other things that you have to do in order to run your life. Does this guy work harder than them?

I seriously, seriously doubt it. Hell, I make 6 figures and even when I have busy times at work when I need to work 12 hours at a stretch, I'm still sitting on my ass in climate controlled comfort. My work is highly valued ... but I don't kid myself that I work harder than poor people do. I was a poor person, and everyone in my family busted their ass and still had nothing.

So, like you said, there's a lot more that goes into the equation besides "hard work."

The other half of "hard work" that admittedly goes unspoken is "at something that delivers value and is scarce."  I worked harder in a pure physical sense unloading trucks in high school than I ever had since, but there was no lack of people who were willing and able to do the job, so I made near-minimum wage.  The job I have now is extremely easy 95% of the time, but it's easy because I have almost two decades of training/education and experience.  There are very few people who could step into this role and be up and running in less than 6 months, and most of the ones who could already work here.  Not because I'm special or super smart, but because of that accumulated knowledge and experience. 

[Chris22]

If the game is rigged, you shouldn't just accept it; you should un-rig the game!

Serious question: do you believe you could actually "un-rig" the game, or would you be only re-rigging it in favor of a different set of people?  I am happy to try and remove roadblocks from a group of people being held back, but I am adamantly opposed to setting up roadblocks in front of others in order to "make it more fair" or remove some sort of perceived advantage.  I don't think that's good for anyone, and I don't think it's good for America (or the world) as a whole.

[boy_bye]

If the game is rigged, you shouldn't just accept it; you should un-rig the game!

Serious question: do you believe you could actually "un-rig" the game, or would you be only re-rigging it in favor of a different set of people?  I am happy to try and remove roadblocks from a group of people being held back, but I am adamantly opposed to setting up roadblocks in front of others in order to "make it more fair" or remove some sort of perceived advantage.  I don't think that's good for anyone, and I don't think it's good for America (or the world) as a whole.

I don't think raising taxes on only the top income received by top income earners or closing tax loopholes for corporations constitutes "setting up roadblocks" in the same way that "your school is a war zone and there are no jobs in your neighborhood and you are 10x more likely to be a trauma survivor" does.

[Jack]

It does look, from my little corner of the world, like most of the stuff they want to invest time/energy/money in benefits either a very select few, or even nobody, and often demonstrably hurts others.

Yep. Even on a local level, the Republicans around here are currently doing things like opposing Democrat-controlled urban counties' right to hold a referendum to decide whether to tax themselves to fund transit. To be clear: the Republican suburban counties themselves wouldn't even be subject to the tax! They just hate the prospect of an idea they oppose even being given the opportunity to be considered.

The other half of "hard work" that admittedly goes unspoken is "at something that delivers value and is scarce."

Good point. The trouble is that not everybody can find a way to deliver something that is scarce, almost by definition since if everybody tried to deliver it, it wouldn't be scarce anymore!

If the game is rigged, you shouldn't just accept it; you should un-rig the game!

Serious question: do you believe you could actually "un-rig" the game, or would you be only re-rigging it in favor of a different set of people?  I am happy to try and remove roadblocks from a group of people being held back, but I am adamantly opposed to setting up roadblocks in front of others in order to "make it more fair" or remove some sort of perceived advantage.  I don't think that's good for anyone, and I don't think it's good for America (or the world) as a whole.

Yes, I believe that it can be made less rigged without re-rigging it in a different way. (I don't believe it can ever be un-rigged completely because the world has too many sociopaths, and at any given point in time at least some of them will be winning.) The key to de-rigging without re-rigging is to identify and correct root causes of difference in opportunity, rather than trying to treat the resulting symptoms after-the-fact. Incidentally, that's why Sanders has had trouble with support among Black voters: he's not willing to support superficial and ineffective symptom-treating (e.g. reparations for slavery), and instead focuses on root causes (e.g. giving poor -- which is correlated with Black -- parents the opportunity to care for their kids by enabling them to support a household on 40 hours/week of work).

(Side note: anybody know how to put square brackets around an "I" without it turning into italics BBCode?)

[Chris22]

Good point. The trouble is that not everybody can find a way to deliver something that is scarce, almost by definition since if everybody tried to deliver it, it wouldn't be scarce anymore!

Not everyone needs to deliver the same scarce thing. 

[Chris22]

If the game is rigged, you shouldn't just accept it; you should un-rig the game!

Serious question: do you believe you could actually "un-rig" the game, or would you be only re-rigging it in favor of a different set of people?  I am happy to try and remove roadblocks from a group of people being held back, but I am adamantly opposed to setting up roadblocks in front of others in order to "make it more fair" or remove some sort of perceived advantage.  I don't think that's good for anyone, and I don't think it's good for America (or the world) as a whole.

I don't think raising taxes on only the top income received by top income earners or closing tax loopholes for corporations constitutes "setting up roadblocks" in the same way that "your school is a war zone and there are no jobs in your neighborhood and you are 10x more likely to be a trauma survivor" does.

Okay, but I don't necessarily see how those two things are related, either.  One doesn't inherently solve the other.

[arebelspy]

If the game is rigged, you shouldn't just accept it; you should un-rig the game!

Serious question: do you believe you could actually "un-rig" the game

Yes.  You can, at the very least, make it less rigged.

I am happy to try and remove roadblocks from a group of people being held back, but I am adamantly opposed to setting up roadblocks in front of others in order to "make it more fair" or remove some sort of perceived advantage.  I don't think that's good for anyone, and I don't think it's good for America (or the world) as a whole.

Straw man.  No one said anything about blocking others from success.

[Chris22]

If the game is rigged, you shouldn't just accept it; you should un-rig the game!

Serious question: do you believe you could actually "un-rig" the game

Yes.  You can, at the very least, make it less rigged.

Okay....how?

I am happy to try and remove roadblocks from a group of people being held back, but I am adamantly opposed to setting up roadblocks in front of others in order to "make it more fair" or remove some sort of perceived advantage.  I don't think that's good for anyone, and I don't think it's good for America (or the world) as a whole.

Straw man.  No one said anything about blocking others from success.

I'm not saying they did, but generally that is what most proposed solutions entail (quotas, affirmative action, etc).  Even things like a "liveable wage" or $15/hr minimum pay, most people like to pretend that only affects walMart and McD's and the like, how does it affect my buddy the pizza shop owner who in a good year might clear $40k? 

[arebelspy]

As soon as you posted the strawman, I knew your next post would contain the words "affirmative action," though no one else had mentioned anything of the sort.  You clearly have some sort of axe to grind, and I have no interest in arguing with you.  Mutual discussion where we learn is great.  You railing against injustices you see that have nothing to do with what we're talking about?  Not interested.

Have a good day Chris.  :)

[boy_bye]

If the game is rigged, you shouldn't just accept it; you should un-rig the game!

Serious question: do you believe you could actually "un-rig" the game, or would you be only re-rigging it in favor of a different set of people?  I am happy to try and remove roadblocks from a group of people being held back, but I am adamantly opposed to setting up roadblocks in front of others in order to "make it more fair" or remove some sort of perceived advantage.  I don't think that's good for anyone, and I don't think it's good for America (or the world) as a whole.

I don't think raising taxes on only the top income received by top income earners or closing tax loopholes for corporations constitutes "setting up roadblocks" in the same way that "your school is a war zone and there are no jobs in your neighborhood and you are 10x more likely to be a trauma survivor" does.

Okay, but I don't necessarily see how those two things are related, either.  One doesn't inherently solve the other.

Not inherently, but spending a little more money on neighborhoods and schools and a little less on CEO bonuses as a country certainly wouldn't hurt.

[Chris22]

As soon as you posted the strawman, I knew your next post would contain the words "affirmative action," though no one else had mentioned anything of the sort.  You clearly have some sort of axe to grind, and I have no interest in arguing with you.  Mutual discussion where we learn is great.  You railing against injustices you see that have nothing to do with what we're talking about?  Not interested.

Have a good day Chris.  :)

Is that not the way we've tried to de-rig the game in the past?  So why would it not be relevant?  I'm not interested in axe-grinding or anything else, I'm legitimately interested in how people think they can make the game more fair, and not just make it more fair for a different group.

[Chris22]

If the game is rigged, you shouldn't just accept it; you should un-rig the game!

Serious question: do you believe you could actually "un-rig" the game, or would you be only re-rigging it in favor of a different set of people?  I am happy to try and remove roadblocks from a group of people being held back, but I am adamantly opposed to setting up roadblocks in front of others in order to "make it more fair" or remove some sort of perceived advantage.  I don't think that's good for anyone, and I don't think it's good for America (or the world) as a whole.

I don't think raising taxes on only the top income received by top income earners or closing tax loopholes for corporations constitutes "setting up roadblocks" in the same way that "your school is a war zone and there are no jobs in your neighborhood and you are 10x more likely to be a trauma survivor" does.

Okay, but I don't necessarily see how those two things are related, either.  One doesn't inherently solve the other.

Not inherently, but spending a little more money on neighborhoods and schools and a little less on CEO bonuses as a country certainly wouldn't hurt.

I truly feel education is one of those areas where money doesn't necessarily matter all that much.  Not sure if it's still true, but at one point Washington DC schools had some of the highest per-student spending in the country, and the results were dismal.  The true problem in education is lack of parental/cultural involvement and/or stigmatizing intelligence and education in a given culture.  You can't really solve that via money.  I don't know how you do solve it, honestly. 

[GuitarStv]

Why does the guy in the article think that working hard and getting out of university with a small amount of money to start a business is preferable to working hard and getting out of university with more money to start a business?

Rather than going so heavily into debt with his first failure, he would have been immediately able to bounce back if he hadn't already shouldered the cost of paying for school.  He would have been able to be more productive to society sooner.

I'm a little fuzzy on the reason that this is a bad thing.

[arebelspy]

Why does the guy in the article think that working hard and getting out of university with a small amount of money to start a business is preferable to working hard and getting out of university with more money to start a business?

Rather than going so heavily into debt with his first failure, he would have been immediately able to bounce back if he hadn't already shouldered the cost of paying for school.  He would have been able to be more productive to society sooner.

I'm a little fuzzy on the reason that this is a bad thing.

Because he has no student loans now, but he's rich and doesn't want to pay taxes now, and that's all that's relevant to him personally.

[Jack]

If the game is rigged, you shouldn't just accept it; you should un-rig the game!

Serious question: do you believe you could actually "un-rig" the game, or would you be only re-rigging it in favor of a different set of people?  I am happy to try and remove roadblocks from a group of people being held back, but I am adamantly opposed to setting up roadblocks in front of others in order to "make it more fair" or remove some sort of perceived advantage.  I don't think that's good for anyone, and I don't think it's good for America (or the world) as a whole.

I don't think raising taxes on only the top income received by top income earners or closing tax loopholes for corporations constitutes "setting up roadblocks" in the same way that "your school is a war zone and there are no jobs in your neighborhood and you are 10x more likely to be a trauma survivor" does.

Okay, but I don't necessarily see how those two things are related, either.  One doesn't inherently solve the other.

Raising taxes on top earners and closing loopholes for corporations helps stop gigantic amounts of wealth concentrate into the hands of a few individuals, who can then spend that to unduly influence politics in ways that rig the game in favor of themselves (and coincidentally against everyone else). This should be intuitively obvious.

For example, consider that the Koch Brothers may have spent up to $6 million to help get Rick Snyder elected to governor of Michigan. Then his pro-corporate policies directly led to the Flint water crisis, which has substantially rigged the game against poor/black Flint children in the form of permanent brain damage from lead poisoning.

(That example is not an isolated incident; it is part of a larger pattern of extreme concentrated wealth translating directly into policies that cause further inequality of opportunity: public funding of private schools, union-busting, activist judges that destroy the public's ability to access the courts to redress grievances against corporations, treaties that destroy the ability of the public to oppose multinational corporations, etc.)

Is that not the way we've tried to de-rig the game in the past?  So why would it not be relevant?

This thread is about Bernie Sanders. Your attempt to deliberately conflate his policy proposals with other people's stupid, failed, and most importantly, different policy proposals is the strawman.