This is Why, Despite Everything Else, I am Willing to Vote for Bernie Sanders.

[WildBillKelsoe]

Yeah, even the Nazis had a few good ideas. Right?

Social Security is a good idea, but the politicians, as usual, are fucking it up.

Associating things with the Nazis does not in and of itself make the thing wrong.

What was shockingly evil about the Nazis was that they valued people purely by their genetic traits.

That Nazis appreciated math and science does not undermine the value or morality of math and science.

That Hitler painted some interesting art that a lot of people like does not mean that they are evil because they like it.

This argument 'Since Hitler and the Nazis like that, it must be evil' is classic 'ad hominem' and is irrational.

You use the same logic to defend failed socialist policies.

How is that?

I have never said that since the Nazis did something it was therefore good.

A few worthwhile social programs doesn't make socialism good.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Socialism doesn't work. It never has. Bernie Sanders as president be one more step towards destroying the country.

Social Security has been called socialism. It's worked for millions for the last almost eighty years. Maybe pure socialism wouldn't work, but we need a mix of socialism and capitalism.

In the same way as drinking doesn't mean drowning, the imposition of certain socialist regulations to prevent the hoarding of a nation's wealth by a few schemers and manipulators doesn't qualify as socialism. So thanks for your intelligent observation.

For the benefit of those who do not, or do not wish to, understand the difference, please consider the fact that absolute economic ruin is the prerequisite for the advent of socialism (e.g., Russia, China, et al). The United States is still the wealthiest nation in the world. The problem is this Nation's wealth has been improperly distributed (hoarded) by a select few. The way to properly re-distribute that wealth is via the restoration of those socialist-style regulations, the Glass-Steagall Act for one.

In the simplest terms, one very prominent example of the effect of certain socialist regulations on an otherwise healthy economy has been the Great American Middle Class -- which presently is being undermined by the actions of the One Percent. Certain socialist policies and regulations is the way to halt and reverse that.

So unless one is a member of the super-rich class, Bernie Sanders should be your choice for President. He knows what is wrong. He knows how to fix it. And he will!

That's exactly what socialism is. It's the regulation of private wealth and private property. It doesn't work.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I agree that once you're out of the job market, it gets more difficult to get back in somewhere, anywhere for that matter. Age and length of gaps in employment do make a difference. I've also seen that some employers tend to shy away from those with a history of disability as being a possible greater expense to them in the future. As in likelihood of another possible claim and also if that disability would interfere in some way with your ability to perform the job requirements.
I'm finding the best bet to get a decent job that offers a good compensation package would be to go back to school in order to stack the deck in your favor, but that too is difficult since there are still bills to pay with housing, utilities, transportation, food, etc, then you have to figure out how to pay for the schooling and those expenses associated with it.

 

[Indeependent]

Well, I am also 58 years old and just coming off of disability, and those are two big reasons that people circular file my applications, I am sure.

Besides why hire such an old fart when they can get a supposed boy genius right out of college in Hyderabad for less than half my cost?

Your age should be an asset for SQL work.

My experience leaves me less than impressed with the quality of work coming out of India. Anyone remember Office 2007? Microsoft not only crashed that product into the rocks, but killed their own Vista OS through the bugs in it. (When Outlook or Excel crashed, the average user blamed Vista.) M$ brought Office development back onshore, as have a lot of other companies. Not Evilcorp (Apple) of course, but many others have.

I was born the same year as you, and have a similar skill set, yet view myself as highly marketable. I will be awarded a Ph.D. in August, which helps, but the foundational skills are still IT.

It doesn't matter how you view yourself but whether or not the region and Industry of your credentials take you out of the Business Visa realm.

 

[MikeK]

That's exactly what socialism is. It's the regulation of private wealth and private property. It doesn't work.

Again, drinking is not drowning! Try to grasp that simple concept. The imposition of certain socialist regulations does not mean adoption of a socialist system.

Again, socialism in the commonly accepted sense of the term can only take form in an economically ruined society -- as was seen in Russia, China, and some other destitute nations. So your concern about socialism arising in the U.S. is based on a critical lack of understanding.

You should also understand that regulating private wealth and property does indeed work -- for the majority, which is the objective of socialist regulation. Consider the decades from the late '40s to the early '80s, the most prosperous and successful decades in our history. That era gave rise to the Great American Middle Class. You and your entire family probably benefited from the socialist influence of those golden years but awareness of that influence has been eliminated by such millionaire right-wing propagandists as Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, et al.

I urge you to research the political circumstances of that era. The first thing you will find is a 90+ percent tax rate on the super-rich and socialist-type controls which prevented the kind of financial maneuvering which is decimating the middle class. One prominent example of this is repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a very important socialist-type regulation which prevented the banks from taking elaborate risks with depositor's money. The result of that repeal was the near bankruptcy of the FDIC's total fund when the banks went broke from bad investments. And there is much more to learn.

So do yourself a big favor and spend the brief time it takes to view the Inside Job video which is available to you on my signature line (below). It is FREE and I assure you it is very interesting, well produced, and it will provide you with an important education.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
It doesn't matter how you view yourself but whether or not the region and Industry of your credentials take you out of the Business Visa realm.

I interact with an awful lot of industry professionals. I have a pretty good sense of my value. I am an ERP expert who is involved in some fairly sophisticated SPCM research (Tied to Dr. Goldblatts' work on time fences). I work with a very talented team on this, and we are well networked.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Besides why hire such an old fart when they can get a supposed boy genius right out of college in Hyderabad for less than half my cost?

Therein lies the tale. Age discrimination is rampant in the job market. It always has been and it always will be.

 

[MikeK]

You use the same logic to defend failed socialist policies.

Such as?

 

[jasonnfree]

Socialism doesn't work. It never has. Bernie Sanders as president be one more step towards destroying the country.

Social Security has been called socialism. It's worked for millions for the last almost eighty years. Maybe pure socialism wouldn't work, but we need a mix of socialism and capitalism.

In the same way as drinking doesn't mean drowning, the imposition of certain socialist regulations to prevent the hoarding of a nation's wealth by a few schemers and manipulators doesn't qualify as socialism. So thanks for your intelligent observation.

For the benefit of those who do not, or do not wish to, understand the difference, please consider the fact that absolute economic ruin is the prerequisite for the advent of socialism (e.g., Russia, China, et al). The United States is still the wealthiest nation in the world. The problem is this Nation's wealth has been improperly distributed (hoarded) by a select few. The way to properly re-distribute that wealth is via the restoration of those socialist-style regulations, the Glass-Steagall Act for one.

In the simplest terms, one very prominent example of the effect of certain socialist regulations on an otherwise healthy economy has been the Great American Middle Class -- which presently is being undermined by the actions of the One Percent. Certain socialist policies and regulations is the way to halt and reverse that.

So unless one is a member of the super-rich class, Bernie Sanders should be your choice for President. He knows what is wrong. He knows how to fix it. And he will!

That's exactly what socialism is. It's the regulation of private wealth and private property. It doesn't work.

Well, in this election cycle as in all previous ones, we see that vast wealth can buy the politicians to make things work greatly in their favor. The thousands of lobbyist in D.C. are evidence of that. So yes, private wealth does need a certain amount of regulation and overseeing, or the world would be owned by a handful of people that "gain wealth, thinking only of thyself" as the saying goes. This time, only Trump doesn't need to curry favor with anyone. Sanders also, however he does get union support so he can't say he doesn't have to return favors.

 

[jasonnfree]

Socialism doesn't work. It never has. Bernie Sanders as president be one more step towards destroying the country.

Social Security has been called socialism. It's worked for millions for the last almost eighty years. Maybe pure socialism wouldn't work, but we need a mix of socialism and capitalism.

Yeah, even the Nazis had a few good ideas. Right?

Social Security is a good idea, but the politicians, as usual, are fucking it up.

Why do you bring the nazis into the conversation? Social Security was began under FDR, one of the men of that WW2 generation that defeated naziism. Some social programs do work. Doesn't mean that the country is socialist and certainly not nazi or fascist.

 

[Indeependent]

[
It doesn't matter how you view yourself but whether or not the region and Industry of your credentials take you out of the Business Visa realm.

I interact with an awful lot of industry professionals. I have a pretty good sense of my value. I am an ERP expert who is involved in some fairly sophisticated SPCM research (Tied to Dr. Goldblatts' work on time fences). I work with a very talented team on this, and we are well networked.

Very nice. I wish you much good luck.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again, drinking is not drowning!

Holding one's head under water perpetually is not "drinking."

Try to grasp that simple concept. The imposition of certain socialist regulations does not mean adoption of a socialist system.

That is true, though most attempts to institute socialist provisions are pilot measures intended to expand the command economy.

Again, socialism in the commonly accepted sense of the term can only take form in an economically ruined society -- as was seen in Russia, China, and some other destitute nations. So your concern about socialism arising in the U.S. is based on a critical lack of understanding.

Socialism will generally ruin an economy, that much is true. But you claim is quite false. Marx outlined the progression of an economy from capitalism to socialism, viewing this as an evolutionary path.

You should also understand that regulating private wealth and property does indeed work -- for the majority, which is the objective of socialist regulation. Consider the decades from the late '40s to the early '80s, the most prosperous and successful decades in our history. That era gave rise to the Great American Middle Class. You and your entire family probably benefited from the socialist influence of those golden years but awareness of that influence has been eliminated by such millionaire right-wing propagandists as Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, et al.

I urge you to research the political circumstances of that era. The first thing you will find is a 90+ percent tax rate on the super-rich and socialist-type controls which prevented the kind of financial maneuvering which is decimating the middle class.

Again, not at all true. While there was a nominal rate of 89%, the myriad loopholes and deductions resulted in most of the millionaires of the day paying well under 10%. The remnants of the Roosevelt schemes were a bitter farce. The 1986 tax reform act closed most of the more obscene loopholes. Basically the tax code had been for sale to the highest bidder - a common feature of command economies. After the 1986 act, the actual percentage of income paid by the top 10% rose significantly.

One of the most powerful bit of corruption held by government is the ability to sell tax exemptions. The stated or nominal rate is irrelevant if exemptions are sold.

One prominent example of this is repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a very important socialist-type regulation which prevented the banks from taking elaborate risks with depositor's money. The result of that repeal was the near bankruptcy of the FDIC's total fund when the banks went broke from bad investments. And there is much more to learn.

ROFL

You have not a clue what you are yammering about. You are tossing out disjointed talking points from the leftist hate sites without any actual connection to a common theme.

To call Glass Steagall "socialist" is simple ignorance. It has utterly nothing to do with redistribution of wealth or with government ownership / control of the means of production. It deals with commercial banks using securities as investment vehicles. Steagle made a fair point that commercial banks underwriting securities represents and substantial conflict of interest in that it risks the assets of depositors without their knowledge.

It isn't even remotely "socialist."

Oh, and the repeal in 1999 was signed by Bill Clinton.

So do yourself a big favor and spend the brief time it takes to view the Inside Job video which is available to you on my signature line (below). It is FREE and I assure you it is very interesting, well produced, and it will provide you with an important education.

Ohh, conspiracy theories from the leftist hate sites..

Not that you had any credibility to begin with,

Even far left Ezra Klien takes exception to it.

What ‘Inside Job’ got wrong

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well, I am also 58 years old and just coming off of disability, and those are two big reasons that people circular file my applications, I am sure.

Besides why hire such an old fart when they can get a supposed boy genius right out of college in Hyderabad for less than half my cost?

Your age should be an asset for SQL work.

My experience leaves me less than impressed with the quality of work coming out of India. Anyone remember Office 2007? Microsoft not only crashed that product into the rocks, but killed their own Vista OS through the bugs in it. (When Outlook or Excel crashed, the average user blamed Vista.) M$ brought Office development back onshore, as have a lot of other companies. Not Evilcorp (Apple) of course, but many others have.

I was born the same year as you, and have a similar skill set, yet view myself as highly marketable. I will be awarded a Ph.D. in August, which helps, but the foundational skills are still IT.

Thank you for that post. It is very encouraging. Honestly, this whole thing is already quite frustrating and a bit intimidating as well.

 

[MikeK]

Well, in this election cycle as in all previous ones, we see that vast wealth can buy the politicians to make things work greatly in their favor. The thousands of lobbyist in D.C. are evidence of that. So yes, private wealth does need a certain amount of regulation and overseeing, or the world would be owned by a handful of people that "gain wealth, thinking only of thyself" as the saying goes. This time, only Trump doesn't need to curry favor with anyone. Sanders also, however he does get union support so he can't say he doesn't have to return favors.

What do you think the unions are? Some private interest? The unions are working class Americans -- the People! Why shouldn't Sanders do all he can to support the unions openly and proudly? There is nothing devious or insidious about that. It's about time some politician has shown an interest in breathing new life into the dying union movement.

What class do you belong to? If you belong to the class which will benefit from favoritism shown to the banks and Wall Street then Clinton will serve your interests best. But if you are an ordinary middle class working American you should understand why Sanders is your only hope for positive change -- whether or not you are or ever were a union member. The union movement was a tide that lifted all boats.

 

[MikeK]

Holding one's head under water perpetually is not "drinking."

When the word socialist is used, brainwashed right-wing acolytes hear "socialism." The idea of imposing what may be regarded as a socialistic regulation, one single, isolated element, on certain financial policies for the purpose of preventing exploitation, is to them a lapse into socialism.

With regard to this tendency I offered the simple analogy that "drinking is not drowning," meaning one socialist-type regulation is not socialism, per se. So I'd like to know what you mean by, "Holding one's head under water is not drinking."

 

[MikeK]

[...]

That is true, though most attempts to institute socialist provisions are pilot measures intended to expand the command economy.

[...]

Please provide examples of that.

Also, is the imposition of a categorical socialist regulation on a certain banking procedure for the purpose of preventing exploitation a "pilot measure intended to expand the command economy?" Please explain how imposing a regulation intended to prevent banks and investment firms from making plainly risky and questionable investments with depositors' and investors' money is an attempt to "expand the command economy."

 

[MikeK]

Socialism will generally ruin an economy, that much is true.

I neither said nor implied any such thing, so I don't know what you are referring to as "true."

What formerly successful economies can you name which have been ruined by socialism?

But you[r] claim is quite false. Marx outlined the progression of an economy from capitalism to socialism, viewing this as an evolutionary path.

Marx viewed the extreme example of socialism, which is communism, as being superior to the kind of imperialistic exploitation which inevitably results from unconstrained (laissez faire) capitalism, such as could very well occur in American society were it not for the ability of our electorate, via the Congress, to impose constraining regulations -- which are fundamentally socialist in nature.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Again, not at all true. While there was a nominal rate of 89%, the myriad loopholes and deductions resulted in most of the millionaires of the day paying well under 10%. The remnants of the Roosevelt schemes were a bitter farce. The 1986 tax reform act closed most of the more obscene loopholes. Basically the tax code had been for sale to the highest bidder - a common feature of command economies. After the 1986 act, the actual percentage of income paid by the top 10% rose significantly.

More right-wing brainwash nonsense.

FDR imposed a 94% marginal tax rate on the rich. While there were certain deductions the increased revenues derived helped to finance the WPA and CCC "make-work" programs that rescued many unemployed Americans, including my own father, from abject poverty. Unfortunately, FDR's policies are so despised by today's ruling class they have so thoroughly brainwashed the right-wing water-carriers that no effort is spared in denying and distorting the facts concerning the positive effects of the socialist policies and regulations that supported the union movement and gave rise to the middle class.

Or do you wish to assert that the union movement and the middle class are attempts to foster communism?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Holding one's head under water perpetually is not "drinking."

When the word socialist is used, brainwashed right-wing acolytes hear "socialism." The idea of imposing what may be regarded as a socialistic regulation, one single, isolated element, on certain financial policies for the purpose of preventing exploitation, is to them a lapse into socialism.

With regard to this tendency I offered the simple analogy that "drinking is not drowning," meaning one socialist-type regulation is not socialism, per se. So I'd like to know what you mean by, "Holding one's head under water is not drinking."

I think the true divide here is between democratic socialism vrs Marxism. Democratic Socialism can work well with capitalism, restraining its worst tendencies, while Marxism does not want the resolution of problems but only to destabilize society in order to bring about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Sanders is a Democratic Socialist while the far left is Marxist in several of its various permutations.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

ROFL

You have not a clue what you are yammering about. You are tossing out disjointed talking points from the leftist hate sites without any actual connection to a common theme.

To call Glass Steagall "socialist" is simple ignorance. It has utterly nothing to do with redistribution of wealth or with government ownership / control of the means of production. It deals with commercial banks using securities as investment vehicles. Steagle made a fair point that commercial banks underwriting securities represents and substantial conflict of interest in that it risks the assets of depositors without their knowledge.

It isn't even remotely "socialist."

The repeal of Glass-Steagall, as mentioned in my earlier message, resulted in an enormous amount of not only risky but criminally negligent investing by both the banks and many Wall Street investment firms, much of which contributed massively to the near collapse of the economy and the need for a federal "bailout."

Why do you suppose Sanders has promised to restore Glass-Steagall? The reason Obama has made no effort to do so is his proximity to the banks and Wall Street -- which financed both of his campaigns.

It appears that you've been well-schooled in the Rush Limbaugh technique of distorting facts and sounding like you know what you're talking about when you clearly do not. The simple fact is any policy which operates in the interest of the People as opposed to the interests of for-profit financial institutions is categorically socialist!