Biden: "No One Questions Bernie's Authenticity" On These Issues

[What Would Jesus Do?]

He was talking about Bernie's stands on wealth inequality and how the bargain that working people should share wealth and progress in the nation has been broken.

No, he wasn't endorsing Bernie. Just part of a conversation on CNN.

 

[JRHawk2003]

 

[The Tradition]

He was talking about Bernie's stands on wealth inequality and how the bargain that working people should share wealth and progress in the nation has been broken.

No, he wasn't endorsing Bernie. Just part of a conversation on CNN.

What bargain? The only "bargain" is the wages, benefits, terms and conditions you negotiate upon accepting a job offer.

You want to be wealthy and set your own terms? Start your own business.

 

[JRHawk2003]

The question really is; Why do we as a country favor Capital (k) over Labor (l) as factors of production? The answer; Capital buys the politicians better.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The question really is; Why do we as a country favor Capital (k) over Labor (l) as factors of production? The answer; Capital buys the politicians better.

Especially after 30 years of union busting.

 

[icu81222]

Bernie has been a Senator for 25 years. He's as full of shit as any of them. He can make outrageous statements about what he would do or what is wrong with America all he wants. The fact remains, he has been a part of it for over two decades.

 

[22*43*51]

In other words, Biden said...

"We don't doubt that Bernie believes what he believes."

"We just think he's nutty like everyone else."

 

[unIowa]

What bargain? The only "bargain" is the wages, benefits, terms and conditions you negotiate upon accepting a job offer.

You want to be wealthy and set your own terms? Start your own business.

Part of the problem w stagnant wages is the we don't have a tax or regulatory Or competitive environment In which new small businesses can flourish at a high level.

Instead we have opted for a govt that likes to create an environment where these things can be taken away as to please their corporate financiers.

 

[naturalmwa]

Bernie has been a Senator for 25 years. He's as full of shit as any of them. He can make outrageous statements about what he would do or what is wrong with America all he wants. The fact remains, he has been a part of it for over two decades.

Not exactly. First because he was elected to the Senate in 2006. Second because he did it outside of the system as an independent. There may be lots of reasons to object to Sanders, but being part of the system isn't one of them.

 

[moral_victory]

Bernie has been a Senator for 25 years. He's as full of shit as any of them. He can make outrageous statements about what he would do or what is wrong with America all he wants. The fact remains, he has been a part of it for over two decades.

Guilty by association eh? Guess Ron Paul was just a part of the problem too.

 

[JRHawk2003]

Bernie has cast votes consistent with what he is saying. I don't hold him accountable for the Iraq War like I do Hillary. He voted against it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

In other words, Biden said...

"We don't doubt that Bernie believes what he believes."

"We just think he's nutty like everyone else."

That "everybody else" contingent is shrinking.

A whole lot of people are starting to realize that the GOP, FOX, the WSJ, and the Libertarian think tanks have been lying to them all these years. Socialism is not evil and, in fact, has good answers for some of what ails us.

This has created a tightrope situation for Hillary. She wants the right's ownership of terms like "liberal" a "socialism" to be broken. Because more Americans actually like those ideas if they permit themselves to hear them. But that means she can't attack Bernie on those grounds.

Other than guns - where Bernie's center-right stance doesn't play so well among Democrats - what can she criticize about Bernie?

We all know that Bernie can't win. Just as we know that Trump can't win.

Or can they?

 

[CeMar_Clone]

The question really is; Why do we as a country favor Capital (k) over Labor (l) as factors of production? The answer; Capital buys the politicians better.

There is very little labor in today's production. THis is not the 1960's. For example, Rockwell Collins had 15,000 people working in CR during the Vietnam war, and most of them were union shop type employees. Last time I looked there, they had about 8500 employees, and 4,000 of them were engineers, and probably less than 1,000 union people. Machines do almost all the work of production, and the union people do customizing, testing, and repairing of the product. In fact, most of the products they build could never be built by humans, humans can not meet the tolerance levels required.

Cedar River Paper spent over 2B on their facility in CR, and yet the workforce is very small, but highly technical. Humans take care of the machines, the machines do the work.

 

[JRHawk2003]

I agree that manufacturing is more automated and labor is more skilled. In Iowa our problem seems to be getting enough skilled labor. Our economic development focus really needs to be to recruit people to our state. We don't have lakes like Minnesota and Wisconsin, and ocean, or mountains so it is a challenge.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

Part of the problem w stagnant wages is the we don't have a tax or regulatory Or competitive environment In which new small businesses can flourish at a high level.

Instead we have opted for a govt that likes to create an environment where these things can be taken away as to please their corporate financiers.

This is not going to be popular, but I think that the major cause of stagnating wages in this country started in the 1960's. Women joining the workforce. I can remember as a child when most mothers stayed home, and most families had one car. Since this dramatically increased the number of people in the job pool, this has caused wage growth to stagnate. It is the law of supply and demand. Supply of labor was increased dramatically, so a lot of pressure to keep wages down. Take 50% of the workforce away today, and watch how the demand for the other half would rise dramatically.

 

[unIowa]

This is not going to be popular, but I think that the major cause of stagnating wages in this country started in the 1960's. Women joining the workforce. I can remember as a child when most mothers stayed home, and most families had one car. Since this dramatically increased the number of people in the job pool, this has caused wage growth to stagnate. It is the law of supply and demand. Supply of labor was increased dramatically, so a lot of pressure to keep wages down. Take 50% of the workforce away today, and watch how the demand for the other half would rise dramatically.

That and the work-force is global today but, in theory, we should have a lot of new markets to sell into.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

I agree that manufacturing is more automated and labor is more skilled. In Iowa our problem seems to be getting enough skilled labor. Our economic development focus really needs to be to recruit people to our state. We don't have lakes like Minnesota and Wisconsin, and ocean, or mountains so it is a challenge.

I have heard that CR and IC areas complain about not being able to lure in new companies because there is not enough workers here to fill the companies needs. They don't want to move into highly labor competitive markets, they want to find places that have higher unemployed pools to choose from.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

That and the work-force is global today but, in theory, we should have a lot of new markets to sell into.

I agree, but I don't think the markets changed to the same degree. Yes the households had twice as many people working, but they don't need twice as many appliances. So the supply increased faster than the demand.

 

[unIowa]

I agree, but I don't think the markets changed to the same degree. Yes the households had twice as many people working, but they don't need twice as many appliances. So the supply increased faster than the demand.