Evidence for God from Science

Questions to Bernie Sanders

I like Charlie Rose's program very much; I watch it and learn from it, nearly every weekday.
On October 26, during an interview with Charlie Rose, Bernie Sanders agitated for tuition-free public universities, for raising minimum wage, etc. How can a moral person disagree with such proposals? But his agitation for social justice via a progressive socialist revolution against the top one percent of American private property owners scared me. It reminded me of Lenin's agitation agains injustice in Russia, and of a Polish revolutionary song "Burzhujow do pracy zagnamy." My father, a Polish communist, also believed that the only way to eliminate social injustice was to destroy capitalism. But he was arrested in Moscow, and sent to a Gulag camp, where he died, two years later, at the age of 36.

My questions to Sanders, if I had a chance of interviewing him, would be different from those asked by Charlie. I want to know what Sanders thinks about proletarian dictatorship, and and how he plans to avoid Gulag-like camps in America.

Ludwik Kowalski, Ph.D,

See "Diary of a Former Communist," at:

< http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowals ... intro.html > and at:

< http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowals ... ction.html >

===================================================================

kowalskil wrote:
On October 26, during an interview with Charlie Rose, Bernie Sanders agitated for tuition-free public universities, for raising minimum wage, etc. How can a moral person disagree with such proposals?

How can a moral person disagree with tuition-free public universities?

Easy. There's no such thing as a tuition-free public university. Someone has to pay. The logical, and dare I say, "moral" thing to do, is to make the one getting the education, the one to pay for it. Not the taxpayers.

When someone says, "free and public", it doesn't mean free. That's just common sense.

And as for raising the minimum wage, it's probably better to let the market dictate wages. Not the federal government.

RickD wrote:

kowalskil wrote:
On October 26, during an interview with Charlie Rose, Bernie Sanders agitated for tuition-free public universities, for raising minimum wage, etc. How can a moral person disagree with such proposals?

How can a moral person disagree with tuition-free public universities?

Easy. There's no such thing as a tuition-free public university. Someone has to pay. The logical, and dare I say, "moral" thing to do, is to make the one getting the education, the one to pay for it. Not the taxpayers.

When someone says, "free and public", it doesn't mean free. That's just common sense.

And as for raising the minimum wage, it's probably better to let the market dictate wages. Not the federal government.

Free and public means paid for by our taxes. It represents a public investment in the future prosperity and stability of our nation. The current system is insane. We have kids graduating from college $100,000 in debt and then failing to find a job. Why are we screwing our kids like that? How is that good for our society?

That takes us to minimum wage, which is what a lot of recent college grads end up making if they can't find a job right out of school. It's pretty tough to pay off a massive college debt on a wage that won't even cover one person's basic needs.

I totally disagree with your position on minimum wage. Maybe in a world where our government prevented multinational corporations from shipping American jobs overseas, our markets were protected from cheap foreign goods produced by de facto slave labor, and we had universal health care, affordable childcare, strong unions, and cheap education then that would be fine. Unfortunately we have none of those protections. What we have is incredibly powerful corporations run by greedy, cynical, scumbags who'll happily screw their workforce, not to mention the rest of us, to ensure that they make good profits for their multinational investors. When corporations get to do whatever they want we, the little people, get the shaft.

Here's a fun fact - Wal*Mart doesn't typically pay a living wage, so a large percentage of their hourly employees can't make ends meet without taking advantage of free and reduced school lunch, food stamps, public housing, subsidized healthcare, and so forth. All of those things are paid for by our taxes. So we, the taxpayers, are paying to take care of the children of Wal*Mart's workers because Wal*Mart would rather use that money to push prices down (thereby undercutting and eventually killing locally owned competitors) or give it to their shareholders. Does that seem reasonable?

Thou shalt not covet.

em wrote:
Free and public means paid for by our taxes. It represents a public investment in the future prosperity and stability of our nation. The current system is insane. We have kids graduating from college $100,000 in debt and then failing to find a job. Why are we screwing our kids like that? How is that good for our society?

Last time I checked, nobody is forcing kids to spend $100k on college. There are certainly other options.

wm wrote:
That takes us to minimum wage, which is what a lot of recent college grads end up making if they can't find a job right out of school. It's pretty tough to pay off a massive college debt on a wage that won't even cover one person's basic needs.

Yes, it's tough. But there are consequences to actions. Nobody is forcing these kids to go into debt.

em wrote:
I totally disagree with your position on minimum wage. Maybe in a world where our government prevented multinational corporations from shipping American jobs overseas, our markets were protected from cheap foreign goods produced by de facto slave labor, and we had universal health care, affordable childcare, strong unions, and cheap education then that would be fine. Unfortunately we have none of those protections. What we have is incredibly powerful corporations run by greedy, cynical, scumbags who'll happily screw their workforce, not to mention the rest of us, to ensure that they make good profits for their multinational investors. When corporations get to do whatever they want we, the little people, get the shaft.

Wow, talk about a big business conspiracy theory. Maybe you need to stop complaining about Christians with their anti-Christian conspiracies, and look in the mirror.

em wrote:
Here's a fun fact - Wal*Mart doesn't typically pay a living wage, so a large percentage of their hourly employees can't make ends meet without taking advantage of free and reduced school lunch, food stamps, public housing, subsidized healthcare, and so forth. All of those things are paid for by our taxes. So we, the taxpayers, are paying to take care of the children of Wal*Mart's workers because Wal*Mart would rather use that money to push prices down (thereby undercutting and eventually killing locally owned competitors) or give it to their shareholders. Does that seem reasonable?

Here's a fun fact. Many Walmart employees work at Walmart, because they lack the necessary skills to get a better paying job.

Don't like working for minimum wage, go do something about it. The U.S is a great place for anyone who wants to put in the effort to get a better career. If you want a better paying job, work harder. Don't reward laziness, by forcing corporations to pay higher wages to unskilled labor jobs that any moron can do.

RickD wrote:Here's a fun fact. Many Walmart employees work at Walmart, because they lack the necessary skills to get a better paying job.

Don't like working for minimum wage, go do something about it. The U.S is a great place for anyone who wants to put in the effort to get a better career. If you want a better paying job, work harder. Don't reward laziness, by forcing corporations to pay higher wages to unskilled labor jobs that any moron can do.

You understand that you can't support a family with a full-time job that pays minimum wage, right? I'm not talking about being unable to buy a summer home, or eat out every night, or take the kids to Disneyland, I'm talking about being able to provide food, shelter, and clothing. Being able to afford a car, which is an absolute necessity in most of the U.S. Being able to take a sick day without coming up short on the rent. You know, basic stuff.

Are you saying that an American with a full-time job, or more commonly 3 part-time jobs, should have to rely on public assistance to feed, house, and clothe his kids?

edwardmurphy wrote:

RickD wrote:Here's a fun fact. Many Walmart employees work at Walmart, because they lack the necessary skills to get a better paying job.

Don't like working for minimum wage, go do something about it. The U.S is a great place for anyone who wants to put in the effort to get a better career. If you want a better paying job, work harder. Don't reward laziness, by forcing corporations to pay higher wages to unskilled labor jobs that any moron can do.

You understand that you can't support a family with a full-time job that pays minimum wage, right? I'm not talking about being unable to buy a summer home, or eat out every night, or take the kids to Disneyland, I'm talking about being able to provide food, shelter, and clothing. Being able to afford a car, which is an absolute necessity in most of the U.S. Being able to take a sick day without coming up short on the rent. You know, basic stuff.

Are you saying that an American with a full-time job, or more commonly 3 part-time jobs, should have to rely on public assistance to feed, house, and clothe his kids?

Of course not. I'm saying that if you have an entry level, unskilled job, such as Walmart, and you can't afford to live off that wage, GO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! GO GET SOME SKILLS, TO GET A BETTER PAYING JOB! It's not rocket surgery.

Walmart jobs are good for students, those just entering the workforce with no skills, someone looking for a part time job to supplement their income, or a retired person. Walmart jobs aren't meant to support a family. Neither are non-skilled jobs at McDonalds. If you want better pay, acquire skills that merit better pay.

Forcing companies to pay higher wages for entry level, unskilled positions, isn't the answer.

RickD wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:Are you saying that an American with a full-time job, or more commonly 3 part-time jobs, should have to rely on public assistance to feed, house, and clothe his kids?

Of course not. I'm saying that if you have an entry level, unskilled job, such as Walmart, and you can't afford to live off that wage, GO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! GO GET SOME SKILLS, TO GET A BETTER PAYING JOB! It's not rocket surgery.

Walmart jobs are good for students, those just entering the workforce with no skills, someone looking for a part time job to supplement their income, or a retired person. Walmart jobs aren't meant to support a family. Neither are non-skilled jobs at McDonalds. If you want better pay, acquire skills that merit better pay.

Forcing companies to pay higher wages for entry level, unskilled positions, isn't the answer.

And when companies are forced to increase wages through minimum wage laws they will always, always find other ways to skirt the new laws. Perfect example is the latest news from McDonald's planning to replace cashiers with self-serve kiosks.

RickD wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:

RickD wrote:Here's a fun fact. Many Walmart employees work at Walmart, because they lack the necessary skills to get a better paying job.

Don't like working for minimum wage, go do something about it. The U.S is a great place for anyone who wants to put in the effort to get a better career. If you want a better paying job, work harder. Don't reward laziness, by forcing corporations to pay higher wages to unskilled labor jobs that any moron can do.

You understand that you can't support a family with a full-time job that pays minimum wage, right? I'm not talking about being unable to buy a summer home, or eat out every night, or take the kids to Disneyland, I'm talking about being able to provide food, shelter, and clothing. Being able to afford a car, which is an absolute necessity in most of the U.S. Being able to take a sick day without coming up short on the rent. You know, basic stuff.

Are you saying that an American with a full-time job, or more commonly 3 part-time jobs, should have to rely on public assistance to feed, house, and clothe his kids?

Of course not. I'm saying that if you have an entry level, unskilled job, such as Walmart, and you can't afford to live off that wage, GO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! GO GET SOME SKILLS, TO GET A BETTER PAYING JOB! It's not rocket surgery.

Walmart jobs are good for students, those just entering the workforce with no skills, someone looking for a part time job to supplement their income, or a retired person. Walmart jobs aren't meant to support a family. Neither are non-skilled jobs at McDonalds. If you want better pay, acquire skills that merit better pay.

Forcing companies to pay higher wages for entry level, unskilled positions, isn't the answer.

You usually have to pay to acquire skills, which often means going into debt as mentioned earlier, and as also mentioned you can't necessarily get a job in the field you've got yourself qualified for. Me, I haven't even been able to get a job at McDonald's or anywhere similar - maybe I'm too old I think there definitely has to be some kind of minimum wage, to say, this is the least that someone's time at work is worth.

Nicki,

In the US, there is a minimum wage. It varies by state.

edwardmurphy wrote:Are you saying that an American with a full-time job, or more commonly 3 part-time jobs, should have to rely on public assistance to feed, house, and clothe his kids?

A friend who lives in Holland wrote and told me that her son wanted to move to the USA and build a life there. I wrote back and told her that life in the USA isn't what you see on TV. I said that Americans work a lot - a lot more than Europeans - that Americans take few vacations, don't travel much, don't have a social safety net and that U.S. wages are lower than in most developed countries.

There are advantages to living in the USA but for the average guy starting out in life, there are easier places to emigrate to and start a new life.

RickD wrote:Nicki,

In the US, there is a minimum wage. It varies by state.

Yes, I thought there would be I thought you were disagreeing with raising it (that depends by how much I think) and with having one at all.

I think ya'll need to pay more attention to what kowalskil is saying he was a former communist and knows all about it.

I read what he said, but I don't see Bernie Sanders 1) winning or 2) creating a totalitarian socialist regime if he does. The United States isn't the Weimar Republic or bombed-out, broken 1945 Poland. We're not ripe for a totalitarian take-over.

If Sanders won, and somehow managed to get his agenda past Republican opposition, the result would be the United States being a bit more like Canada. Last I looked they didn't have reeducation camps up there.

I absolutely loved Bernie Sanders when he played for the Detroit Lions.