The thing Bernie Sanders says that no other candidate will touch

[n2doc]

By Jim Tankersley

There are very few unspoken rules among major-party candidates for president, and Bernie Sanders is breaking one of them. He’s saying that America’s leaders shouldn’t worry so much about economic growth if that growth serves to enrich only the wealthiest Americans.

“Our economic goals have to be redistributing a significant amount of [wealth] back from the top 1 percent,” Sanders said in a recent interview, even if that redistribution slows the economy overall.

“Unchecked growth – especially when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent – is absurd,” he said. “Where we’ve got to move is not growth for the sake of growth, but we’ve got to move to a society that provides a high quality of life for all of our people. In other words, if people have health care as a right, as do the people of every other major country, then there’s less worry about growth. If people have educational opportunity and their kids can go to college and they have child care, then there’s less worry about growth for the sake of growth.”

Sanders’s position inverts decades of orthodoxy among liberal and conservative candidates alike, by prizing redistribution above all else. It taps into the mounting frustration in America, particularly among more liberal voters, with the widening gap between the rich and everyone else.

more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/13/what-bernie-sanders-is-willing-to-sacrifice-for-a-more-equal-society/

[HassleCat]

1. He's a socialist, not a liberal

Which is why I'm voting for him. So should you.

[R. P. McMurphy]

2. +1 nt

[oberliner]

9. That may hinder his chances in the general election

Being labeled a socialist, that is.

[frylock]

10. Did it hurt Obama in the GE?

[oberliner]

11. He was not a self-avowed socialist

In fact, when he was accused of being one, he would point out what a ridiculous claim that was.

[frylock]

12. No, but he's been called a Socialist nontheless..

just as Clinton will be labeled a Socialist by the right. Why are you letting the right determine what candidate you should vote for?

[oberliner]

14. Not suggesting the right should determine what candidate we vote for

Just suggesting that the socialist label (that he embraces) could be a hindrance to him in the general election.

Hillary certainly has hindrances of her own (as would any candidate).

[smokey nj]

17. That word isn't as scary as it used to be.

[eridani]

22. Indeed. And that we owe directly to Republicans. For the last 40 years--

--they have defined socialism as any public good not reserved for white people and/or for rich people. They've called both Clintons and Obama socialists so often that the term has become nearly meaningless.

[rhett o rick]

18. That's what Clinton's hench-woman McCatskill is counting on. Repeat it and keep

repeating it.

[truebluegreen]

3. A radical idea: the economy exists to serve us,

not vice versa.

[daleanime]

7. +1

[Enthusiast]

16. +1 You nailed it.

[Half-Century Man]

4. But things that grow explosively are so great.

That's why cancer is so popular

Let's grow in ways that help, like expanding off our planet, not like the 148th flavor of toothpaste.

[brewens]

5. The 1% comes out way in the black on tax dollars. I get very little response when I post that.

Am I wrong to think that should be emphasized? They have some people so wound up over all the money that goes to help poor people when it's a joke compared to where most of our tax dollars really go.

A lot of it is justified. Working for a blood service like I do, I suppose an analysis could show enough of my income comes from medicare and medicade dollars that I'm breaking even as far as that goes, but I'm really talking about federal and state tax dollars.

Some corporate officer working for a company that does a lot of business with the federal and state governments is easy. Of course their income comes mostly from our tax dollars. They rake it in big and use every trick in the book to get their tax liability below the percentage a lot of us pay. Even a good chunk of that ends up right back in their pocket. Then they have the nerve to whine about being taxed to death!

It's really like the ruling class taxing the peasants for their income!

[appalachiablue]

6. K & R Bernie sees it & talks about it unlike others for obvious reasons. Hear his W-O-R-D-S.

[daleanime]

8. K&R.....

[BrotherIvan]

13. BAM!

What politician in America says stuff like this? It makes all the platitudes look like a joke. He may not always be right, but he's got guts, and sometimes guts is enough.

[appalachiablue]

15. +5. Significant piece, should be distributed to millions! Love the July 4 Photo in the article.

Bernie with supporters at the July 4th Independence Day Parade in Waukee, Iowa relates well to Bernie's call for a non-violent political revolution now. I'll make a copy to keep of this great celebration image.

[rhett o rick]

19. We obviously have a problem with the definition of "the economy". Some equate the

rise in the stock market as a growing economy.

Redistribute the wealth from the 1% into the hands of the middle and lower classes and watch the real economy grow. They will spend it while the wealthy will horde it.

[hifiguy]

20. They already are.

I have seen perfectly plausible estimates that the world's ultra-rich have $30-40 trillion, and that is TRILLION with a T, stashed in various financial black holes around the world. I'd bet a big part of it is owned by US residents.

[Babel_17]

21. Yes, if most of the newly created wealth isn't significantly taxed

Yes, if most of the newly created wealth isn't significantly taxed, and doesn't go into the hands of the lower 90%, then what purpose does it serve? It becomes an instrument for those at the top to gobble up resources. It becomes a club that compels those without enough to serve those with too much.

The great fear of the 1% is that their wealth loses its relevance. If everyone has enough, and destructive practices aren't allowed, then a lot of billionaires won't be having as many jollies.

The wealth of a great nation needs to be invested in the nation. Instead we see the wealthiest compelling the government to allow them to benefit from a closed loop. We ease the monetary supply and money flows to the 1% instead of channeling away from the loop so as to grow the economy before recycling into investment capital.

[raouldukelives]

23. K&R We need growth, without the damage from growth. Tall order.

We have to provide more using less. I think it can be accomplished. But not if we never try.