And people wonder why we want a socialist for president
Bernie Sanders is a social democrat, not a socialist. It's insane that social democrats haven't rebranded considering how common the confusion is.
Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'
31–40 of 203 posts
Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Government at all levels already spends 35% of the GDP. It's hard to see how increasing that will make things better.
That's not an argument. You're just asserting that it's not possible.
The rise in government's share of the economy correlates with the rise in the economic ills. What is the basis for thinking there is an inflection point where the correlation reverses?
Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not an argument. You're just asserting that it's not possible.
The rise in government's share of the economy correlates with the rise in the economic ills. What is the basis for thinking there is an inflection point where the correlation reverses?
Economic ills? Well consider that numerous other developed nations have large amounts of state-owned industry and that if anything their economies are stronger than ours.
Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'
#34Isn't it also true that Millenials put less value on financial success and more value on fulfillment and life experiences than did previous generations? Could it be that Millenials are "set to earn less" because they are actually fine with earning less? Perhaps they watched their Baby Boomer parents chase after money and accumulate stuff and end up unhappy anyways and decided that they would pursue other more rewardi…
> Isn't it also true that Millenials put less value on financial success and more value on fulfillment and life experiences
Where did you get that from? Maybe that's all that's left when no financial success can be had, and they're trying to make do with the lemons.
Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if Millennials are earning less money, who will pay for socialism?
I'm not suggesting that I'm in favor of this, but the idea is that the country has plenty of wealth, it is just concentrated in older generations who were able to build it through decades of economic largesse, so, well, that's who should should be paying for it.
And I'm still not clear on how taxing the shit out of everyday working citizens somehow redistributes the wealth which is already hoarded by the 0.1%.
Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'
#36Meanwhile, 40-year-olds (firmly members of generation x) are committing suicides[1] in record numbers (males in particular), and 10 years from now the same will be said about millennials having it easier as compared to their younger counterparts.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-sur...
Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you are gluttons for punishment? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12115982
Venezuela is nowhere close to what Bernie Sanders believes in.
Now Bernie supporters wouldn't get caught dead with Maduro, but Hugo Chavez was quite popular with the American left back in the day:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hugo+chavez+american+celebri...
Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'
#38Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obama is not a socialist and there is very little that he could do with such strong opposition and control from the GOP in the house, and until recently, the senate.
Obama had filibuster-proof majorities for his first two years (when they passed the ACA with only one republican house vote and none in the senate) then a split congress for four. When measured by party control, Clinton, GHW Bush, and Reagan all faced more opposition in congress than Obama has.
Obama and the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority of the Senate for something like 60 days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#S...
Re: Millennials 'set to earn less than Generation X'
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any evidence that increased government spending harms economic growth? It seems like an a priori certainty in right wing thought, but what evidence I've seen suggests that the effect is minimal or even beneficial (within the spending ranges that we see in modern developed nations).
You're entirely right, government spending does not harm economic growth.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but I think it's important to note that if you make the reductio ad absurdum argument that a tax rate of 100% has strongly negative effects, sure I'll go with that, but if there's a claim that what we have right now is either too much or too little, then there needs to be some sort of evidence to support that claim.