Bernie Sanders talks Class war in Senate

[RGacky3]

H5OtB298fHY

Bernie Sanders has always been one of the good ones in the government, one of the very very very few good ones. I think its great that class warfare is starting to get talked about, he's also one of the few politicians trying to start public funding.

Any comments on his speach?

[#FF0000]

Well, he's about as good as one can expect in the Senate, at least.

[Revolution starts with U]

I hear class warfare in the Senate all the time... just from the side of power, not the people.

[cb9's_unity]

Sanders ideology might not be much more than social democracy, but the little I've seen of him seems to suggest that he genuinely supports the working class (or genuinely wants to). He often exposes and calls out the most despicable actions and beliefs of his fellow congressmen.

However it says something that the most basic facts about class divide being presented in senate is considered radical.

[RGacky3]

I hear class warfare in the Senate all the time... just from the side of power, not the people.


Its never admited for what it is though. Its only Sanders and sometimes a few others that actually call them out for it.


but the little I've seen of him seems to suggest that he genuinely supports the working class (or genuinely wants to). He often exposes and calls out the most despicable actions and beliefs of his fellow congressmen.

However it says something that the most basic facts about class divide being presented in senate is considered radical.

Him, Russ Fiengold and Al Franken, are really the only ones that consistantly try and look out for the working class, unfortunately Russ fiengolds seat was essencially bought, sometimes other people join them, but really those are the only consistant ones.

Sanders is probably the ONLY one that understands that capitalism is, overall, a unjust system, most of the other progressives jsut think it needs some oversight and regulation and a few industries might need to be public.

But thank God for Sanders being there.

[Revolution starts with U]

I used to listen to Sanders every week on Thom Hartmann's show. It made me wish he was my rep

[Bud Struggle]

He's pretty right in some respects. The problem is that the Class War only exists on paper--in reality the Working class already gave up.

[RGacky3]

He's pretty right in some respects. The problem is that the Class War only exists on paper--in reality the Working class already gave up.


Whether or not the working class is fighting does'nt make a difference, the Ruling class keeps kicking them when they are down.

But they're starting to get back up.

[Revolution starts with U]

The working class took a much needed break to celebrate what small victories they had gained. They tried to buy homes, and go on vacations, and send their children to higher education...
And over 30 years the ruling class snatched it right out from under them. First comes the "it's all my fault" phase (the Tea Party), and then the "no fuck you!" phase (I hope, and struggle for).
It's not like the whole of the working class just gave up. You're still talking 40-60% (depending on the polls) that fervently support leftist causes.

[Bud Struggle]

Whether or not the working class is fighting does'nt make a difference, the Ruling class keeps kicking them when they are down.

But they're starting to get back up.

I just heard today on NPR that 55% of the voters don't want taxes increased on people making over a million dollars a year.

That's the Working Class saying that.

There is NO death tax--there is no better way to continue wealth accumulation in the US than passing it on generation to generation--the Working class supports that, too.

And you wonder why I changed Classes. :)

[manic expression]

I just heard today on NPR that 55% of the voters don't want taxes increased on people making over a million dollars a year.

That's the Working Class saying that.
A new AP-CNBC poll (http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-CNBC%20Poll%20Topline1.pdf) showed a majority of respondents (50%) agreeing that Washington should "allow the tax cuts for people earning more than $250,000 to expire, but continue them for other people,"...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/polls-plurality-want-bush-tax-cuts-on-wealthiest-to-expire.php

[RGacky3]

I just heard today on NPR that 55% of the voters don't want taxes increased on people making over a million dollars a year.

That's the Working Class saying that.


Your wrong (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/17/cnn-poll-only-one-third-favor-tax-cut-extension-for-wealthy/) Based on (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016602-503544.html) Every single (http://www.gallup.com/poll/142940/americans-allowing-tax-cuts-wealthy-expire.aspx) Poll Taken. Most of then its around 65% ro 70% wanting the tax cuts for the rich to expire (which is a huge number).

The one you were talking about (I believe), was one where they asked would you rather ALL of the tax cuts expire or none of them.


There is NO death tax--there is no better way to continue wealth accumulation in the US than passing it on generation to generation--the Working class supports that, too.

And you wonder why I changed Classes.

I honestly doubt they do, and you'd have to put up some numbers to prove it, because I'll bet your wrong there too (based on how many times you've been wrong on this type of thing).

Sorry Bud, the United States, at least economically, is a center left country.

Its just the corporate media and the corporatist government is right wing economically.

[RGacky3]

Actually about the estate Tax (cute using death tax, just like maoists say AmeriKKKA, stop watching fox news bud). Your wrong there too (http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=140100009) with many (http://www.ombwatch.org/node/5173) different (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/23/poll-taxes-and-benefits-most-important-to-americans/) Polls.

So again, your absolutely wrong Bud.

[Bud Struggle]

Your wrong (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/17/cnn-poll-only-one-third-favor-tax-cut-extension-for-wealthy/) Based on (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016602-503544.html) Every single (http://www.gallup.com/poll/142940/americans-allowing-tax-cuts-wealthy-expire.aspx) Poll Taken. Most of then its around 65% ro 70% wanting the tax cuts for the rich to expire (which is a huge number).

The one you were talking about (I believe), was one where they asked would you rather ALL of the tax cuts expire or none of them.



I honestly doubt they do, and you'd have to put up some numbers to prove it, because I'll bet your wrong there too (based on how many times you've been wrong on this type of thing).

Sorry Bud, the United States, at least economically, is a center left country.

Its just the corporate media and the corporatist government is right wing economically.

Read Manic's post. He saida little less than 50% of people want tax cuts for rich people. That isn't the rich people talking, asshole. that's poor people! :D

95% of Americans are poor or have you noticed you douchbag?

[manic expression]

Read Manic's post. He said 50% of people want tax cuts for rich people. That isn't the rich people talking, asshole. that's poor people! :D
Of course I would have to correct you for a second time.

The analysis I posted simply established that at least a majority polled are against the tax cuts for the rich. RGacky3's polls gave us another perspective more directly based on the poll's findings: that only a third of Americans want to keep the tax cuts. Since I have to spoon-feed you facts:

A majority of Americans favor letting the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration expire for the wealthy. While 37% support keeping the tax cuts for all Americans, 44% want them extended only for those making less than $250,000 and 15% think they should expire for all taxpayers.

So according to Gallup it's about 60% firmly against the rich tax cuts vs around 37% for them.

CNN came up with 64% against the rich tax cuts vs 35% for them.

Which means we can all safely and comfortably say that you're wrong.

[Bud Struggle]

Of course I would have to correct you for a second time.

The analysis I posted simply established that at least a majority polled are against the tax cuts for the rich. RGacky3's polls gave us another perspective more directly based on the poll's findings: that only a third of Americans want to keep the tax cuts. Since I have to spoon-feed you facts:

A majority of Americans favor letting the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration expire for the wealthy. While 37% support keeping the tax cuts for all Americans, 44% want them extended only for those making less than $250,000 and 15% think they should expire for all taxpayers.

So according to Gallup it's about 60% firmly against the rich tax cuts vs around 37% for them.

CNN came up with 64% against the rich tax cuts vs 35% for them.

Which means we can all safely and comfortably say that you're wrong.

You can safely say that 95% of Americans earn uner $250,000 a year--if that was the case than one would espect that 95% of Americans would dislike a tax cut for the rich. It seems it isn't the case. At last almost 40% of Americans--lets say 35% of them POOR Like the rich to get their tax cuts. And another evern more want people making up to $250,000 to get tax cuts.

These are ALL poor people fucking themselves--you realize that.

And add onto that--most of these people don't even vote. And you can see what a bunch of sheep they are. Right?

[RGacky3]

Read Manic's post. He saida little less than 50% of people want tax cuts for rich people. That isn't the rich people talking, asshole. that's poor people! http://www.revleft.com/vb/bernie-sanders-talks-t146089/revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif

95% of Americans are poor or have you noticed you douchbag?

Man Bud what crawled up your ass and made you so grumpy?

Could it be the onslaught of statistics and polls that show that you were wrong in your analysis?

Maniac expression corrected you on the polls, so I won't further humiliate you. But heres a tip when it comes to debating, why not read the actual Polls Bud instead of just cherry picking whatever supports your team-richyrich and team-America.

And for goodness sake, don't be calling people assholes just for calling you out on the facts.


It seems it isn't the case. At last almost 40% of Americans--lets say 35% of them POOR Like the rich to get their tax cuts. And another evern more want people making up to $250,000 to get tax cuts.


Not 40%, 35% at best. (BTW, under the tax policy the rich still get a tax cut for their first $250,000).


These are ALL poor people fucking themselves--you realize that.

And add onto that--most of these people don't even vote. And you can see what a bunch of sheep they are. Right?

We'll say that probably 30% of them are poor (we'll say 5% probably are that rich percentage), and I would say that those 30% are people that watch Fox News and vote republican and yes, they probably are sheep (I'd say people that don't vote are probably smarter than those who vote and think its gonna make a difference), but I don't blame them considering the onslaught of right wing corporatist propeganda I'm suprised the US is so progressive .... But facts don't lie Bud.

So just be a mature adult, admit you were wrong, and if you want to continue having a discussion on bernie sanders' speach then we can continue.

[Bud Struggle]

Man Bud what crawled up your ass and made you so grumpy?

Could it be the onslaught of statistics and polls that show that you were wrong in your analysis?

Maniac expression corrected you on the polls, so I won't further humiliate you. But heres a tip when it comes to debating, why not read the actual Polls Bud instead of just cherry picking whatever supports your team-richyrich and team-America.

And for goodness sake, don't be calling people assholes just for calling you out on the facts. I said I heard it on the radio riding in the car today. (Onslought of STATISTICS!) I wasn't taking notes. I have no problem being wrong on the actual statistics. The facts of the matter were essentially correct.


We'll say that probably 30% of them are poor (we'll say 5% probably are that rich percentage), and I would say that those 30% are people that watch Fox News and vote republican and yes, they probably are sheep (I'd say people that don't vote are probably smarter than those who vote and think its gonna make a difference), but I don't blame them considering the onslaught of right wing corporatist propeganda I'm suprised the US is so progressive .... But facts don't lie Bud.

So just be a mature adult, admit you were wrong, and if you want to continue having a discussion on bernie sanders' speach then we can continue.


I don't know who watches what--but my point is essentially correct--a lot of poor people vote for rich people's tax breaks.

[scarletghoul]

As expected he refers to the middle class as the victims. It seems like in the USA its taboo to even acknowledge the existence of a working class, let alone stand up for them.

[Bud Struggle]

As expected he refers to the middle class as the victims. It seems like in the USA its taboo to even acknowledge the existence of a working class, let alone stand up for them.

That's a pretty good point.

[RGacky3]

I said I heard it on the radio riding in the car today. (Onslought of STATISTICS!) I wasn't taking notes. I have no problem being wrong on the actual statistics. The facts of the matter were essentially correct.


Fine, but either way, you were wrong in the sense that a large majority of Americans want the tax cuts for the rich to end, thats including republicans.


I don't know who watches what--but my point is essentially correct--a lot of poor people vote for rich people's tax breaks.

A pretty good minority of them, which is amazing that its a good minority considering the onslaught of propeganda.

As far as voting, it does'nt change anything, politicians work for who pay them.

[Pretty Flaco]

As expected he refers to the middle class as the victims. It seems like in the USA its taboo to even acknowledge the existence of a working class, let alone stand up for them.

Most Americans have ridiculously incoherent definitions of class.

In my history class today, my teacher took a poll to see what we defined as "Middle Class" (we're starting the unit on the Industrial rev.) and answers ranged from "a stable job, a house, and a little money left over for luxuries" to "having a pool and a nice car"

[scarletghoul]

Most Americans have ridiculously incoherent definitions of class.

In my history class today, my teacher took a poll to see what we defined as "Middle Class" (we're starting the unit on the Industrial rev.) and answers ranged from "a stable job, a house, and a little money left over for luxuries" to "having a pool and a nice car"
Yeah. The bourgeois world view is a metaphysical one of separate static things, so they will define class by the pieces of property and income someone has; whereas a Marxist/dialectical world view sees the truth in the relations between things, and therefore defines classes by their relation to each other and the productive process.. This of course means that we are in a better position to understand the universe and all of its movements

</dialectical chauvinism>

[Bud Struggle]

Fine, but either way, you were wrong in the sense that a large majority of Americans want the tax cuts for the rich to end, thats including republicans. Then then need to stop voting Republican.



A pretty good minority of them, which is amazing that its a good minority considering the onslaught of propeganda.

As far as voting, it does'nt change anything, politicians work for who pay them. Nonesense--all you have to do is call.

[Pretty Flaco]

Also, even if Sanders is more of a social democrat, his actions would work well to dispel a lot of the nonsense that people believe about socialism in the US.

[Dimentio]

You can safely say that 95% of Americans earn uner $250,000 a year--if that was the case than one would espect that 95% of Americans would dislike a tax cut for the rich. It seems it isn't the case. At last almost 40% of Americans--lets say 35% of them POOR Like the rich to get their tax cuts. And another evern more want people making up to $250,000 to get tax cuts.

These are ALL poor people fucking themselves--you realize that.

And add onto that--most of these people don't even vote. And you can see what a bunch of sheep they are. Right?

Not really. Given the information they have and "common sense" as taught by school and media, tax increases for the wealthy will hurt the economy, since that means investments would drop.

Actually, the big problem is that tax droppings would not affect so much in terms of US investments. If the tax is increased, the American billionaires would put their money into China, India and South Korea instead. But they are doing it anyway.

If the USA instead put very high tariffs on foreign-made goods, it would be amazing for the working people (though would mean less diversity of consumer products and increased prices, but at least less unemployment).

[Bud Struggle]

Not really. Given the information they have and "common sense" as taught by school and media, tax increases for the wealthy will hurt the economy, since that means investments would drop.


Not really. Because because emloyees have nothing to do with taxes. They are a debit to the bottom line. They aren't part of the tax situation.

Their propaganda is a bunch of Tea Party crapola.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I for one thoroughly dislike the idea of a tariff and other protectionist measures. I whole-heartedly believe that workers in this country, with the infrastructure we have, can compete if the playing ground was a bit more level.

Bud makes a point though. The anger in the poll-going populace was clearly out against the dems this last go round and a lot of people were claiming the (non-existent) big govt policies as the reason but really many people are just frustrated it seems. And let's face it, there really isn't a far left alternative to the right wing plaque that everyone seems to be catching.

It makes me appreciate mainstream kinda lefties like Sanders quite a bit.

[manic expression]

These are ALL poor people fucking themselves--you realize that.
Good thing, then, that they're in a distinct minority...even with capitalists controlling every ounce of the media.


And add onto that--most of these people don't even vote. And you can see what a bunch of sheep they are. Right?
Depends on the specifics, but anyway that's because they don't see any politicians stand up for them; they know the score, that capitalist parties aren't their friends. They'll become more involved in politics when revolutionary socialist parties become more prominent down the road.

[RGacky3]

Then then need to stop voting Republican.



They don't, most people don't vote.

They tried your pie in the sky solution of voting democrat and praying they'll fix it and they got a corporatist republican.

Nowerdays economic policy is ALWAYS corporatist, voting is just between people who support gay rights and those who don't and other social issues, and frankly, most people just don't really care that much about those things.

If the US was a real democracy we would have options when it came to economic policy.


Nonesense--all you have to do is call.

Only as important as your pocket book, but I"m amazed you still believe in the Broken American system, considering how it utterly totally failed with Obama and the democrats. Bud, VOTING DOES'NT CHANGE, (remember hope and change, remember the democrats sweeping power? We did'nt get anything a republican would'nt have given us).

[ComradeMan]

They don't, most people don't vote.

They tried your pie in the sky solution of voting democrat and praying they'll fix it and they got a corporatist republican.

How many people who could vote don't vote?


Bud, VOTING DOES'NT CHANGE, (remember hope and change, remember the democrats sweeping power? We did'nt get anything a republican would'nt have given us).

But NOT VOTING is tacit consent.

Are there no alternatives to the Republicans and the Democrats? Can people not stand for free election?

A lot of people however vote to "win" they feel like they "win" if the party they voted for gets elected, despite the fact that they are very often voting more against another party than they are voting for their own. This is part of the problem I think, because the smaller alternative parties don't get the votes they may well "deserve".

[RGacky3]

How many people who could vote don't vote?


In the US the voter turnout for the presidential was 63% (which was considered HUGE). Heres a graph for presidential races (http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm). Generally speaking the voter turnout for congressional elections is much lower.


But NOT VOTING is tacit consent.

Are there no alternatives to the Republicans and the Democrats? Can people not stand for free election?


If you read up on the electoral system in the US you'll realize why there is no significant third party nationally, and if you also read up about how much money is spent on elections you'll also see why blow joes putting themselves up is an unrealistic option.


A lot of people however vote to "win" they feel like they "win" if the party they voted for gets elected, despite the fact that they are very often voting more against another party than they are voting for their own. This is part of the problem I think, because the smaller alternative parties don't get the votes they may well "deserve".

The problem with that its argued that third parties on the left will take votes away from democrats which will end up putting repiblicans in power.

Either way your missing the whale in the fish bowl, which is money, money runs US elections, US elections are basically political investment markets.

The elctoral system is the must inefficent way to get any change done.

Again, Obama.

[ComradeMan]

Either way your missing the whale in the fish bowl, which is money, money runs US elections, US elections are basically political investment markets.

The elctoral system is the must inefficent way to get any change done.

Again, Obama.

How did that guy Sanders get into the Senate then?

[RGacky3]

Good quesion :), lots and lots of grass roots organizing, years of hard work, and a strong progressive base in vermont. In a place like vermont Bernie Sanders is not the cause of progressive change, he's the result of it, and now he's a leading progressive voice in the Senate.

[ComradeMan]

Good quesion :), lots and lots of grass roots organizing, years of hard work, and a strong progressive base in vermont. In a place like vermont Bernie Sanders is not the cause of progressive change, he's the result of it, and now he's a leading progressive voice in the Senate.


So it can happen if there is the will and the determination- even in America?

[Dimentio]

Not really. Because because emloyees have nothing to do with taxes. They are a debit to the bottom line. They aren't part of the tax situation.

Their propaganda is a bunch of Tea Party crapola.

Yes. But the important thing is not reality, but people's perception of reality. And the USA is not alone with that folly. Sweden actually has lower corporate taxes than the USA, but the companies are nevertheless deserting Sweden for India and China.

[RGacky3]

Again, a person like Bernie Sanders is not the cause of progressive change he's the result of it.

By the time we have a progressive government elected, one that is representative of the people, so much change will have already happened from the grass roots level.

The answer is'nt voting, nor is it just running for elections, the answer is grass roots organizing, working class struggle, forcing change, at that point electing someone like bernie sanders is possible.

It takes will and determination to get any change, but again, electing someone is one of the least efficient ways to get change, the progressive movement in vermont has done much more for change than Bernie Sanders has, he's just a part of it (He'd be the first one to admit that).

[Revolution starts with U]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdupUI8O7Rw

[manic expression]

How did that guy Sanders get into the Senate then?
Because Vermont.

[RGacky3]

Bernie Sanders will philibuster or do anything else to stop the tax brake for the rich (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/bernie-sanders-bush-tax-cuts_n_792987.html). THIS is progressive fighting, I'm gonna love to watch this, watch the republicans and even the obama democrats squeel and yelp, I really really hope Bernie Sanders hold strong, ultimately he may not win, but I think its wonderful that he's determinted to try rather than just capitulate.

Its time for progressives like Bernie to start fighting Obama.