Home | About | Donate

Sanders and Warren Spearhead Call to Defeat Economic System That 'Deliberately' Creates 'Massive' Poverty in US


Sanders and Warren Spearhead Call to Defeat Economic System That 'Deliberately' Creates 'Massive' Poverty in US

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

A group of Democratic lawmakers—led by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)demanding that the Trump administration take immediate action to address deep poverty in the United States following the recent release of a U.N. report that details "massive levels of deprivation" and "the intense suffering this deprivation causes."


Why no mention of solutions, a Universal Basic Income and of cutting the gargantuan Pentagon budget to pay for it?


Of course, this is “DELIBERATE” –

Our poor are actually our impoverished citizens, deprived of education and jobs.

And, if anyone has the opportunity to see the movie, “I, David Blake” about the system
in England you will find the same “deliberate” attempts made to create poverty and
homelessness among their citizens. And it is not confined simply to US and UK.


The poor, homeless, sick and children should be seen as human beings not just as liabilities


What we need is an economic system that puts human (and other) life first. At the least, we need to change the incentives of the current system – one that rewards short-sighted greed. We need an economic/social system that at least:

Provides a good standard of living to everyone (which is certainty possible in the US), including food, clothing, housing, education, and medical care;

Ensures that no individual is wealthy enough to buy our representatives. That is, a system that forbids plutocracy and eliminates the oligarch class.

Rewards those who create healthy goods and services and punishes those who create unhealthy ones;

Rewards those who create in a way that benefits (or at least is neutral toward) the environment and punishes those who destroy the environment;

Rewards those who produce products designed to last and be fixable.

Rewards healthy innovation, but practices the precautionary principle that delays the spread of a new product until it has been proven safe.


Do you know that, for reasons which should be apparent, whole big chunks of the war budget are hidden away in other departments? For just one example, the entire US nuclear weapons program is ostensibly under the Dept. of Energy. It’s another Heritage Foundation shell game to skin the suckers.


Here’s How We Could Fund a UBI Program in the United States

Paying everyone and not just a select few is likely to make the system more popular and longer-lasting. Society as a whole should benefit as workers will be more readily able to change jobs or take on new pursuits. But how would we pay for this? $1,000 a month for everyone would cost approximately $2.7 trillion annually, which represents around four to five times the size of the defense budget and 15 percent of the GDP. In his book, Stern proposed paying for the $2.7 trillion as follows:

Cancel most existing antipoverty programs, which cost about $1 trillion a year, including food stamps ($76 billion a year), housing assistance ($49 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($82 billion)
Cut military spending
Phase out most tax expenditures (tax breaks), which currently cost $1.2 trillion a year
Implement a federal sales tax and a financial transaction tax
Establish a collective wealth fee and “Sky Trust” modeled after the highly successful Alaska Permanent Fund, which could pay a dividend of $5,000 per person annually


Capitalism, corporatism and croneyism create winners and losers, and vast income inequality.
Poverty is part of that, but individual poverty also comes from unwise personal choices.
The most unwise is to have children when you don’t have the job skills and financial resources to pay for them.


Because that would make sense. Schizophrenia dominates the US collective leadership. Then there’s a good dose of sociopaths to further the mayhem around the world.


The difference between Military spending in the USA and spending on Social Security and Medicare, is that the latter are funded through a special tax via FICA and the monies raised supposed to be held in trust fir the payee. As such you can not COUNT Social Security spending in the same way as it supposed to be already funded.


Sorry, wrong. The military is close to 60% of discretionary spending. We all paid taxes so we can have SS and Medicare when we get old. Those are NOT entitlements. We all paid taxes for those. And they are not running out of money as proposed by TV pundits and GOP Congress. Medicaid is to help the lowest classes here in the US. The tax scam just gave the corporations the biggest break in US history and all they are going to do is hoard it. Wages won’t increase as claimed by the neo-liberal policies that want to destroy the social safety nets being slowly being dismantled by these policies. The richest people in the US just got another huge break they don’t need.
Maybe this is a response to your quote, sorry my mistake. The whomever made that quote this response is directed to. Again, sorry I’m not attacking you. The quote seems to be lifted form a Fox News type of nonsense from one of their shows.


“There are 535 Members of Congress. Today 20 (all Democrats - signed) a letter regarding the UN report on extreme poverty and human rights in America”

Where are the other 175 “Democrats” and how has this obscene MO of gifting the rich by stealing from the poor and middle class so dominated “Republicans” and “conservatives” they abandon so many Americans and consign so many millions and their children to lives of misery and incredible struggle?

The answer is the DINO Dems are beholden to the vulture capitalism and corporate fascism that has our society and nation/republic by the throat. The so-called “conservatives” are mentally ill, and the quality of empathy is lost to them, replaced by greed, self-interest, and also serving vulture capitalism! Both parties and the corporations/banks/wall street they serve, are like parasites on the society, and any sustainable future ignored for short-term gratification and profits above all else!

The joke is that when the lives of those in need and marginalized are raised from poverty, ALL citizens and society benefit; but that inequality is exactly what drives the vulture capitalist blood-sucker! Apparently and obviously, wealth that isn’t enough for the greedy-rich and likes of the ginger pig who must take more and more and more, as he, through his regime of usury, destruction, exploitation destroys our environment and all he touches!

Yes, rampant poverty and incredibly skewed wealth distribution are obscenities, and the Golden Rule is as dead as empathy, along with the true meaning of “religion” so many “conservatives” claim to believe-in…clearly that is rubbish! Follow the money!


Great, FightBasicLogic is back. I want you to talk about the implications of that. Explain what the issue is with deficits in general. If you split the economy up into the public sphere and the private sphere, the public deficit is equal to the private surplus. Explain what the implications of that are, and explain what you would do about that. See, we could reduce the deficit, the state could start to take in more than it spends, but guess what that does Mr. Libertarian? That will result in a reduction in the private surplus, less money would be in the hands of the private economy. Now, since inequality has exploded, and since wages have stagnated for most while the costs of everything have grown exponentially for decades now, surely you would want to reduce that horrible deficit by taking money away from the rich, right? After all, they have high propensities to save, when you give them money, they don’t spend and inject that money into the economy like the poor and middle class do. This is a fact, countless studies and basic common sense would tell you that. I would also love to hear what you think the macroeconomic implications would be of taking even more from the poor. You want to take money out of the economy, and take money from people with high propensities to spend (I would guess as a silly libertarian you would take away programs that benefit the poor), what would you do about the massive amount of demand that you are then taking out of the economy? And if the government is no longer injecting demand into the economy, which you seem to object to, how exactly would the economy grow? We know that when governments cut back spending on basic services, the private savings rate increases. Risk is privatized, so people have to put more money away so they can pay when they get sick (if they can), or when they have an emergency. That further depresses demand, every dollar saved is not spent on goods and services that those lovely capitalists provide.

If you want Medicare to be cheaper (already is and has less waste/overhead than the private health insurance industry), then you would support traditional Medicare, not the inferior private spinoffs? You would allow Medicare to use its economies of scale to bargain down the price of drugs? And surely, if you are concerned about spending too much on healthcare, you would support single payer, which studies show would save us trillions in the next decade alone. I mean, it makes no sense to analyze public spending with our factoring in private spending at the same time. It makes no sense to discuss public debt without discussing private debt (and private debt is much larger). It makes no sense to talk about deficits without acknowledging that those deficits result in a private surplus. If the stupid right wing had their way, we would have a balanced budget amendment. That would make it so that the government couldn’t inject any more or demand into the economy. In that context, the only way the economy could grow, and the only way the monetary base could grow, would be private banks lending money and creating money out of thin air in the so called “fractional reserve banking system.” That would result in an explosion in private debt. We have massive trade deficits, so we shouldn’t expect an influx of money from trade, and a capital surplus would go towards the rich. Doesn’t make sense that they would invest domestically when people are getting paid low wages as is (so private demand is low) and when the state is then unable to inject money into the economy.

You libertarians seem to want everything to go to shit.


Listen, when you only read von Mises, Hayek, Rand, and Rothbard, reality isn’t part of the discussion to begin with. That silly economic worldview has never once been put into place, the freaking capitalists wouldn’t even allow it to be attempted because it would implode within minutes. Once reality, economic history and basic logic is ditched, you no longer base your arguments on objective reality. Things that are obvious to those in objective reality aren’t obvious to those that long ago ditched objective reality. If you are rich, if granddaddy left you a bunch of money, you can continue to believe in silly reality less bullshit and not have to face the consequences.


Fight –

That’s not true –
Social Security SURPLUS is in the budget to hide the immense amounts of MIC/Intelligence
spending which now costs citizens 70 cents of every tax dollar contribution we make.

The Government Pays NOTHING for Social Security – in fact, the Trust Fund pays the US
government 3% for administrative costs.

Medicare recipients also pay substantial amounts for Medicare –

and basically the PIE presented in our budgets is lying to you.

It is government spending on WARS, WARMONGERING and TAX CUTS for the rich which
take the major part of the PIE … not Social Security, Medicare nor Medicaid.

Complete elimination of the MIC/Pentagon would provide likely more than a return of 70 cents
of every tax dollar to the public.

The DEFICIT is built up by corrupt legislators acting for Elite/corporate interests who own them…
and they should be sued for the harm to nature and to humans that they cause by their legislation.

But the DEFICIT wasn’t mentioned by the GOP or Dem Party when they last stole from taxpayers
for TAX CUTS for the RICH …

You’re being lied to about the budget – Social Security Trust Fund SURPLUSSES exist in the
budget to hide the enormous amounts we spend on MIC – and there is no reason whatsoever to
include SS funds in the budget.

Again – the government pays NOTHING for Social Security.

And it should not be in the General Budget – it’s a lie.


The neocon elite’s plan for the poor is to treat them like factory farming animals, basically anhilate them through use of deprivation.
Since that stupid selfish smile clown Reagan the people’s economic rights have been systematically stollen from us by the likes of Wallmartization, Home Depot, Subway sandwiches, Mac burgers, gas station mini stores, etc monopolies. Virtually every possible avenue of economic independence, specifically family/small business, small farming opportunities have been taken from us by giant conglomerations with deep pockets to buy polititions.


Then it is about time the cap on SS be ELIMINATED. Period.


Yes, it isn’t simply more and more disposable income the wealthy demand but disposable people.


Notice that Bernie is incapable of naming that system,


Their priorities attest to their disdain for social needs, the poor, the working class. And, worse, they are busy misinforming and confusing those who would benefit from a strong social safety net.