Sanders Exaggerates Inequality

[oberliner]

From FactCheck.org:

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders claims that “in America we now have more income and wealth inequality than any other major country on earth.” Not really. Sanders excludes nations such as Russia, Turkey and Brazil from his definition of “major.”

According to the World Bank, at least 41 counties have greater income inequality than the U.S. And those include Israel, Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Argentina.

And according to the most recent Global Wealth Databook, the U.S. ranks 16th out of 46 economies studied in the share of wealth held by the richest 1 percent. Russia, Turkey, Egypt and Brazil are among those whose top 1 percent hold more of their nations’ wealth.

Sanders has made this claim a part of his standard political speech, and he repeated it May 26 as he formally announced that he is running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. We judge it to be misleading, and an exaggeration.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/sanders-exaggerates-inequality/

[villager]

1. Thank God we don't have to worry about that, then!

Now back to the 1%ers vaccuming up all the country's wealth...

[msongs]

2. yes indeed, our employed yet homeless citizens can relax now nt

[villager]

5. Those pikers! They'd worse off in the slums of Rio!

Don't they understand...!?

[IDemo]

35. Not homeless -

"Urban campers". Still.

[oberliner]

4. That's not the idea

This is just a site that Fact Checks all the candidates on what they say on the trail. It's a pretty fair and reasonable site.

[JDPriestly]

21. Did you read the article?

FactCheck admits that it is simply defining "major" to mean something that Bernie does not mean. I do not consider when speaking of economics that Russia or India although large are economically "major" countries. They have a long way to go in terms of developing their consumption and economic opportunities before they can be classed as major economies.

Israel? Not a major economy. Turkey? Not a major economy.

France? A major economy. Most of the Western European countries are major economies in terms of production, development, consumption and impact on the economy of the world.

And one thing that differentiates a major country from a developing and non-major country is the economic equality of the people in the country. The living standard is a major determinant of a country as a "major" economic country or a "minor" economic country.

Bernie is right on this one. Factcheck is wrong. Read the entire article. Bernie sourced his information. Factcheck just disagrees.

I consider Russia to be a potentially major economy, but not a major one. It is still developing its standard of living. And the standard of living that a country can provide its people is the most important characteristic that makes it major.

[oberliner]

34. Yes

I guess there isn't really a set definition of "major" or "developed" that everyone can agree on.

[JDPriestly]

59. I spent quite a number of years working on a homeless project.

We are a major economy with a major poverty problem. And the homeless on the streets of Los Angeles, San Francisco and many other major American cities are a symptom of it. Factcheck needs to check its facts.

The countries it names as "major" like Brazil, the Philippines, Turkey, etc. Go ask any American on the street whether they would consider the economies of those countries to be major or whether they think that those countries should be compared with the US in terms of economic equality. Most Americans will agree with me that the countries that FactCheck calls "major" simply because some of them are large are not major. They are large. Russia is perhaps a major military power, but not yet a major economic power. Japan is a major country. China is a major country because of the size of its exports and is also large. Switzerland is a major country in economic terms although small.

FactCheck issued a biased gotcha report and should apologize.

[Cheese Sandwich]

73. Depends how you define major. If major = the G7, then probably...

It would be appropriate to ask him what he means by "major".

[JDPriestly]

74. I think that those who nitpick on this issue really don't want to face the huge problem

of economic disparity and the disappearance of the middle class in our country.

It's just an excuse to justify the cruel streak within them. We know that we have the largest numbers of imprisoned citizens in the world. And I would be we also have the largest number of utterly homeless and desperate people in the Northern portion of the Northern hemisphere. It would surprise me if even Russia has as many homeless as we do. Most countries find housing for their people. Somehow.

Shame on those who nitpick on this issue. If you read the whole article, you realize that Bernie used numbers that were acceptable to CNN and to Credit Suisse. That's pretty good evidence to me that the numbers are beyond reproach.

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. They did ask; his campaign pointed to this OECD report

http://www.oecd.org/social/in-it-together-why-less-inequality-benefits-all-9789264235120-en.htm

in which the US Gini income index is higher than all except Chile, Mexico and Turkey. So, higher than:
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

[Katashi_itto]

30. BY GOD OUR POOR ARE THE 1% PERCENTERS OF THE PLANET! ERGO WE HAVE NO POOR!

AND THERE IS NO INEQUALITY HERE BY JOVE!

[Jamastiene]

88. ++ Good

Double plus good...

Don't you just love that deflecting kind of logic? Hey, look over there, shiny thing. See, no problem here.

[djean111]

3. Horrors! And gosh, it is not as bad as we thought, plus those poor folks prolly have refrigerators!

I will stick with Bernie.

[oberliner]

7. The site fact checks all the candidates

It's not meant to dissuade anyone from support.

[djean111]

10. Oh, I know. And it is awfully nice of you to bring the exaggeration to our attention for whatever

purpose. If not to dissuade or cast doubt, then I can't imagine why else, but that's cool. Don't believe this is a burning issue for Bernie's supporters, anyway. If he is going to exaggerate, this, IMO, is a good one.

[whathehell]

16. LOL

[oberliner]

32. Thanks

I agree that it is not really a burning issue - just thought it was interesting. I like the Fact Check site.

[LanternWaste]

11. That's the same justification I'd use too were I to make that allegation...

"It's not meant to dissuade anyone from support."

That's the same justification I'd use too were I to make that allegation...

[cali]

13. lol. sorry, I don't buy it. you have established a clear pattern regarding

Senator Sanders' candidacy. I thought you were better than this. Either you're lacking self awareness or you're playing a disingenuous game.

[Nye Bevan]

20. I know, I wish people wouldn't start negative threads about Democratic presidential candidates,

right?

[JDPriestly]

61. FactCheck is simply wrong.

How many Americans do you think would class our country's economy with those of Brazil, the Philippines, Russia, the Czech Republic, etc. The list of countries that FactCheck considers to be comparable to ours is ridiculous. Russia is large but it's economy is nowhere near as efficient and developed as ours.

Bernie is right on this issue. We do not consider the Philippines or Turkey to have major economies. No more than we consider Greece or Tunesia to have major economies.

Japan has a major economy as do most Northern European countries. Bernie was right to use the OECD listings. The OECD lists the major economies, not just the economies of large countries.

[oberliner]

33. OK

I haven't posted much about Sanders. I like him a lot and will vote for him proudly were he to get the Democratic Party nomination. I am not sure who I will vote for in the primary as I like all the options. I do admit that I have a soft spot for Hillary because I worked on the Clinton campaign back in the day and it was very exciting when he (Bill) was elected.

The Sanders campaign trail exaggeration is not really a big deal - I just thought it was interesting. I like the Fact Check site. They have a lot of good info on statements from all the candidates and are pretty fair about it.

[elehhhhna]

46. hil gets your vote because sentimental? eh whot?

[oberliner]

49. No

I just said I have a soft spot for Hilary - not sure who I will vote for. I like all the options.

[JDPriestly]

23. The article picks its own, rather vague definition of "major" and does not ask how Bernie

is defining "major." Major is a subjective word. Bernie's definition is fine, and under his definition, which is sourced, he is correct.

[Art_from_Ark]

36. By "major", he might have meant "OECD"

That's my guess, at least. OECD is comprised of 34 countries and includes the US, Canada, most of Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Chile, Turkey and Mexico, but not Russia. Only 2 OECD countries have a higher differential than the US between the top 10% and the bottom 10%-- and those are Mexico and Turkey. And only 3 OECD countries have a higher GINI index-- Turkey, Mexico, and Chile.

[JDPriestly]

63. Thanks.

[peecoolyour]

18. I even saw one of them watching a flat screen television.

[Kalidurga]

6. Well by all means lets wait til it's true by all measures.

I think it's quite bad enough that we are 5th by at least one measure. I think it's horrible that there are children who will be sleeping in cars tonight. That someone is going to put off a life saving procedure because they can't cover a deductible. It's indefensible that we have people who work full time and have food insecurity if they are not out right hungry most of the time. And if you can figure out why we have regressive taxes and fines and yet people who live in poorer neighborhoods have a more crumbly infrastructure (after paying more of a percent of their income in taxes), then by all means explain that.

[oberliner]

8. Yes, the facts speak for themselves

So there should be no need to exaggerate.

[Kalidurga]

12. Well Bernie explained where he got his facts from.

And I don't care if we are the worst or only the 42nd worse. I grew up in a country that was number 1 by a lot of measures and now we are only number 1 by 1 measure and that is how much we spend on the military industrial complex. So, yes by all means lets wait til this is true by any measure you want to use.

[djean111]

39. """""Clinton Misuses Stat on CEO Pay""""""

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/clinton-misuses-stat-on-ceo-pay/

Clinton is a repeat offender on this statistic. Our colleagues at the Washington Post Fact Checker dinged Clinton in April when she said, “There’s something wrong when CEOs make 300 times more than the American worker.” And the Wall Street Journal noted that two days earlier, Clinton had made the even less defensible claim — similar to the one we are fact-checking — that “the average CEO makes about 300 times what the average worker makes.”
But Clinton still hasn’t amended the talking point.
In remarks on small businesses in Iowa on May 18, Clinton again failed to properly qualify the statistic.
......

Like the inequality exaggeration, Fact Check is being nit-picky. But hey! I assume you like this one too, right? And thanks for the heads up about the site.

[beam me up scottie]

40. oops.

Too bad they don't include the facts about her hypocrisy.

Nice work!

[djean111]

42. Thanks! And, as I assumed would happen, the homily about not tearing down the other

candidates only rolls one way.

[oberliner]

43. Yes, Fact Check is pretty fair and reasonable

They apply the same sort of scrutiny to remarks from all of the candidates across the board.

Being nit-picky is kinda what they do. But I like how they keep everybody honest.

[djean111]

44. Um, actually, Hillary keeps using the incorrect stats. But whatever.

I have to go to my passive-aggressive class now. Bye!

[oberliner]

48. She should stop doing that

Why not use the right ones?

[djean111]

50. Why don't you create an OP with the information I found at Fact Check, and ask?

I am sure that HRC supporters will appreciate it!

[oberliner]

51. OK

Will do.

[JDPriestly]

64. In this case, they are not "keeping Bernie honest."

They are simply applying a different measure of a statistic and then crowing that they came out with a different numerical result. They should know that they are redefining the word "major," that Bernie used the OECD's definition and they are choosing to use a different one.

I think most Americans would agree with Bernie once they knew the facts. You quoted only the paragraphs that put Bernie's measure in question. Further down, FactCheck explained that Bernie used good statistics from the OECD, that he was not lying but simply defined "major" diffferently than FactCheck chose to do.

FactCheck needs to correct its story.

And I request that you correct your OP. It is in my opinion misleading and beneath you. You are someone I respect a lot on DU. You can do better than that OP.

[oberliner]

66. Respectfully disagree

First, to your last paragraph, there is nothing to correct. The OP is literally just a link to the Fact Check piece with the first few paragraphs included. It was not a cut and paste of specific paragraphs but rather just the introduction to the rest of the article. It is neither misleading nor beneath anyone. No opinion of mine was provided. Just thought it was at least worth a read. If for no other reason than to elicit the additional information provided by you and others. I think reasonable people can disagree with what constitutes "major" in this context.

I think it would be great if you or another wrote to Fact Check with the points raised and see if they had a response.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Guess it depends on what you consider to be "major."

Turkey, Egypt and Brazil? Russia under Putin? Russia used to be major; now it's just a big, corrupt mess. And having less income inequality than Russia isn't much to brag about anyhow. Maybe he should clarify what he means by "major" (probably the capitalist/socialist democracies of western Europe), but the point he's clearly making is that the US shouldn't even be 16th; we hold ourselves out as being the land of equal opportunity but the reality is something altogether different.

[Raine1967]

14. Technically correct, but that is a pretty damn low bar.

I know they are truing to be objective, but damn, it reminds me that Tom Cotton said **Critics Of Indiana Should Get ‘Perspective,’ Be Thankful State Doesn’t Execute Gays**

Now I wonder of Politfact checked that one and what they have said.

I generally like fact checkers, but maybe they would be better off leaving the checking about people who are actively trying to mis-represent policy that is going to be currently legislated.

WE should not be comparing ourselves with the likes of Russia. WE are supposed to be The United States of America, and I am pretty sure there is more money in this country than anywhere else. I understand What Sanders is trying to say.

[JDPriestly]

65. Did you read the entire article? FactCheck prepared the article knowing that Bernie had used

the OECD numbers, definition of major and statistical analysis. That's a perfectly legitimate thing for Bernie to do. The OECD defines the major economies.

FactCheck however perhaps to play a bit of Gotcha chose to use a different measure and different statistics and a different definition of "major." They substituted "large" as in "large country," not as in developed economy.

It's a cheap, low blow on the part of FactCheck against Bernie. I will not respect FactCheck unless they change their article. It's a cheap play.

[Raine1967]

67. Yes, I did.

I hope you read my full response.

We are probably in more agreement than not.

[peecoolyour]

15. Oh, we're not as bad as those countries?

Everybody pack it up and go home.

Our lying, socialist ways have been exposed.

Hail Citibank and Dimon Bless America.

[Rex]

17. Stirring, stirring over the seven seas...

Stir that pot!

[JDPriestly]

19. It depends on how you define "major."

Russia, Turkey, Egypt and Brazil do not have "major" economic development compared to ours.

Mexico, Chile and Argentina? Israel? Also not "major" countries yet in terms of economic development.

And one of the major reasons these countries do not match us and the Western European countries in terms of economic development is that they have too much economic inequality.

Economic inequality thwarts economic development in most countries. Unless your country sits on a wealth of oil and your population is small as in Saudi Arabia, economic development and progress depend on having a strong middle class and good pay for working people. Russia, Turkey, Egypt, Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Argentina do not have that kind of social equality much less economic equality and they cannot be included in the "major" country in terms of economics for that reason.

Factcheck admits my point:

When we inquired where Sanders got his information, a spokesman emailed us a link to a May 21 CNN Money story that said, “The U.S. and Israel have the worst inequality in the developed world.” CNN’s story was based on an OECD report, but its list of “developed” nations excludes many — such as Russia and Brazil — that would be considered “major” based on population or strategic importance. As we’ve already noted, Chile, Mexico, Turkey and Russia have greater income disparities in “disposable” income when measured by the OECD’s Gini index.

. . . .

Those with greater wealth concentrations were Russia (where the top 10 percent held 84.8 percent of the country’s wealth), Turkey (where they held 77.7 percent), Hong Kong (77.5 percent), Indonesia (77.2 percent), Philippines (76 percent) and Thailand (75 percent). The full list can be found in table 4-4 on page 126.

The U.S. ranks even lower when looking at the share held by the wealthiest 1 percent. Those fortunate few held 38.4 percent of all American wealth, according to the study. But that was enough to put U.S. 1-percenters only in 16th place — behind those in Russia, Turkey, Hong Kong, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, India, Egypt, Peru, Brazil, Malaysia, Argentina, Chile, South Africa and the Czech Republic.

For the full list, see table 4-3 on page 125 of the report.

So how does Sanders justify claiming that the U.S. has greater wealth disparity than any “major” country? It turns out, he’s also relying on the same Credit Suisse report we’ve just cited, but limiting his comparison to only “developed” nations. The spokesman said in an email, “In terms of wealth, according to Credit Suisse, the U.S. has the highest rate of wealth inequality among developed economies (excluding Hong Kong, a city with a population of some 7.2 million).”

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/sanders-exaggerates-inequality/

Factcheck is playing "gotcha." I would never include Russia, the Philippines, Turkey, India, Egypt, etc. as "major" nations economically. They are developing nations, but they are impoverished, not major nations. Hong Kong is a developed nation perhaps. But the others are still underdeveloped and that is why they offer corporations cheap labor.

Bernie is right. Among "major" nations, that is economically major nations, economically well developed nations, our income disparity is if not the very worst, close enough to it to make us the worst in terms of economic inequality. It's shameful. And it is shameful for Factcheck to make such a blatant judgment when it knows very well that the definition of the word "major" is the key.

Most Americans would agree that the countries Factcheck lists as "major" are not "major" in the sense Bernie is using it. Shame on Factcheck. They should apologize.

[Wilms]

29. Just as I figured.

Thanks for clarifying.

[beam me up scottie]

41. ^^^THIS^^^

You debunked the info in the op without personally attacking the person who posted it.

You're one of my favourite people on DU, JDPriestly.

[joshcryer]

45. World GDP:

[JDPriestly]

68. Thank you. That is why the extent of our economic inequality is so inexcusable.

I get very sensitive about this issue because I worked for a number of years on a homeless project. Put my blood, sweat and tears into it and was completely burned out when I left it.

In spite of years of work by dedicated people, the homeless problem in America is as severe if not more severe than it has been in the past.

At least in my grandparents' day, a homeless hobo could sleep in a barn and lend a hand on a farm during the day for food. Hay, I guess, and the presence of cows and horses keeps the barn and he body at least warm. Today, we don't offer such amenities. Certainly not in the crowded cities in which the homeless push their carts during the day and huddle under bridges or on the banks of creeks and water ways at night. Only a lucky few who get there early qualify for beds in shelters.

What a terrible scar on America's vision of itself as the home of the brave, the land of the free and the richest nation on earth that we tolerate so much poverty, homelessness, desperation.

We apparently have a serious heroin problem in parts of the country. That is the drug of the desperate. Those who take meth from what I have seen (and I'm far from being an expert) have some pretensions about making a living, being thinner, being more acceptable, living a middle class life. That's my impression based on a few samples so it may be false. But heroin and similar pain killer addictions are escapes. They are the choices of the desperate and those really suffering tremendous emotional and/or physical pain and who have given up the hope of ever feeling good without a drug.

Bernie is talking about the social conditions that increase the numbers of people in the latter kind of addiction. I guess it is happening in small town America today. We have an obligation to our fellow Americans to try, at least try, to do something about it.

Quibbling over the fact that Bernie uses a source for his numbers while FactCheck uses another is a waste of time. FactCheck should admit that Bernie was not wrong. He just used a different set of correct numbers and a different definition of "major." Cheap shot on Fact Check's part.

Still I will say that the person who posted the OP is someone I respect and like on DU. I just think he or she should correct the post to reflect the true reasoning and basis for FactCheck's statements and their caveats further down in the article.

I am very sensitive about those who would diminish the importance and prevalence of our problem of severe economic inequality.

Today I passed a building that has been empty for some time. Inside on the first floor, there were sundry beds, bunk beds, double beds, just random unmatched, plain looking beds. By the door was a desk with an open Bible. The door was closed. It was only about 10:30 a.m. I was just out walking. I figured it was a haven for the homeless that had sent its residents out on the street at dawn to face another homeless day.

And just before I saw that building, I passed the local Catholic Church. A man was walking out of the Parish House and speaking in Spanish about feeding the poor. I gave him the thumbs up. He smiled and laughed back.

We have a serious problem with wealth disparity and hopelessness, and good meaning, wonderful people like those who feed the poor and offer a bed for the night cannot do enough. The problems are more fundamental than that.

Yesterday, I bought some plants and a toothbrush at the 99 cents store in our area. Behind me in the line at the cashier's was a beautiful dark-haired, dark-eyed four-year-old. (How do I know? I talk to everybody. It's one of the perks of being an old lady. You can talk to everybody. You can't do that when you are an 18-year-old girl. Anyway.) The little girl was very excited, and very talkative. She was thanking her father in gushing terms for buying her a coloring book and a plastic necklace and some other similar piece of plastic pretend jewelry. She hugged him. She thanked him over and over and said, "It's somebody's birthday." All the while her daddy looked sad and embarrassed. After all, it was the 99 cents store. Most items there sell for 99 cents to just over a dollar. But the little girl was delighted. She was clearly, in my experience, a very bright little girl. So I asked her how old she was, and I told her, "You are going to do well in school, aren't you?" And she looked up at me with her big puppy's eyes and said very gravely, "Yes."

I'm for Bernie, because I want to do everything I can to make sure that little girl, so full of hope and enthusiasm for life, has the chance to fulfill her dreams and to "do well in school" for as long as she chooses in spite of the poverty that so obviously is embarrassing and hurting her parents. I figure a vote for Bernie is a vote for that little girl's future and my own.

[retrowire]

76. I just learned that you're a wonderful person.

Thank you for all that you do and have done.

[sammythecat]

79. That was a nice post

Brought a tear to my eye.

I think your thoughts on drugs/heroin are right on the money too. It makes the unbearable bearable. For a while, until it doesn't.

[orpupilofnature57]

80. + 1000 Well Put !!!!!!

[kenfrequed]

54. Agreed.

Definitely. This is just using an already selective article rather selectively.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

22. I disagree with FactCheck's premises.

When I think of major countries economically, I think of Western Europe and the Pacific Rim. The truth of Bernie's claim is well substantiated with our economic peer countries as laid out by Professor Wilkinson. What the World Bank data he presents show is that the US is much worse in wealth and income disparity than our peer countries and that as a result, American's are unhappy and prone to a great many social maladies to a greater extent than any country in Europe or the Pacific Rim:

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson?language=en

[magical thyme]

24. b.s. please define "major country."

From the OP link:

It’s true that the U.S. has greater income inequality than most countries. It ranks 42nd out of the 117 nations for which the World Bank has recently estimated a “Gini index,” a widely used measure of inequality.

It’s possible the U.S. would rank even lower if the World Bank had more data.

When we inquired where Sanders got his information, a spokesman emailed us a link to a May 21 CNN Money story that said, “The U.S. and Israel have the worst inequality in the developed world.” CNN’s story was based on an OECD report, but its list of “developed” nations excludes many — such as Russia and Brazil — that would be considered “major” based on population or strategic importance.

So how does Sanders justify claiming that the U.S. has greater wealth disparity than any “major” country? It turns out, he’s also relying on the same Credit Suisse report we’ve just cited, but limiting his comparison to only “developed” nations. The spokesman said in an email, “In terms of wealth, according to Credit Suisse, the U.S. has the highest rate of wealth inequality among developed economies (excluding Hong Kong, a city with a population of some 7.2 million).”

For the record, there’s no consensus on which nations qualify as “developed.” The CIA World Factbook lists Turkey as a “developed country,” for example.

[fadedrose]

25. Not sure of which, but in almost all countries except ours

they have national health care and education is taken for granted, as long as one has the ability. The arts are subsidized too in many of them, as well as training for the Olympics, etc...

[Nay]

77. And in Russia, most people in cities have their own apartments and heat

provided free, thanks to remnants of the communist system. It would be an incalculable wealth in the US if we all had free houses and heat. Can you imagine?

[joshcryer]

81. 85% of Russians own their own home / dwelling.

Own, no rent, no mortgage, own, outright.

It wasn't necessarily "provided for free," the USSR just wrote it off, because why not. There was ground rent before the USSR disbanded. But Russia decided it wasn't worth it and let citizens keep their homes once the USSR disbanded.

What's ironic, or at least, messed up, was that the Democrats tried to expand home ownership under Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but the housing bubble, almost 100% caused by Republicans (yes Bill Clinton did enable it to an extent, but Bush's AG, SEC, and courts fostered it), killed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The idea is if you own your own home you're not a rent slave and you have capital and equity, and can live a much better life.

The Democrats were right on that count but the Republicans made sure to stop that from happening.

[cantbeserious]

26. Political Posturing To Obscure A Truth That The 1% Don't Want The 99% To Question

eom

[orpupilofnature57]

27. Hillary Lies about inequality, and the 1% has no Flag or anthem except

Cha-ching .

[JDPriestly]

69. "the 1% hasw no flag or anthem except Cha-ching." I like that.

[99Forever]

28. Guess this one didn't go quite like the OP thought it would.

[oberliner]

31. It seemed pretty reasonable

It's a small point, certainly, but worth a brief chat at DU at least I would think.

[JDPriestly]

70. You are probably sick of my comments by now. Sorry, but this is an emotional

issue for me. See my post #68. Thanks.

[Lancero]

37. We aren't the worst, but since when has 'You don't suck as much as..." been a reason to celebrate?

We have income inequality and while it's not as bad as other countries, it is STILL one of the worst aspects of our nation.

It's sad to see that speaking of bettering our nation is spun as a sin.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. I'll tell the homeless that they actually have it good and should enjoy their catfood.

[ucrdem]

47. If it sells he says it.

That's the Bernie way.

[JDPriestly]

72. Read the entire article in the OP. FactCheck did not call it right.

They were just playing Gotcha. Unless you think of Brazil as a "major" country in terms of economic issues.

Bernie defines "major" according to the OECD and Credit Suisse (according to the article), while the "we know better than the OECD" FactCheck defines "major" by geographical size. I'm proudly with Bernie on this one.

See my post 68 to understand why this is such an emotional issue for me.

I was raised by a father whose job was serving poor people. We were poor ourselves, but he managed to find people even poorer than we were to help. In my book, he was a saint. I believe that every person has intrinsic worth and that the economic disparity in our country is something to be very ashamed of. Please see my post # 68.

[Kalidurga]

52. You really should go over this thread and address some of the points made in detail.

[oberliner]

56. There are lots of reasonable and thoughtful points

Perhaps someone ought to contact the folks at Fact Check with some of this information. It's at least worth opening up the discussion if they are willing to have one.

[Kalidurga]

57. So discuss

so far all I have seen are one liner dismissals of the points people have brought up.

[oberliner]

58. I'd like to see the Fact Check response

I don't have any insights to provide beyond what is at the link.

[Kalidurga]

60. And apparently you don't have any insights to what has been posted here.

Specifically in regards to the issues of income equality that Sanders is talking about. For example does it matter if the US is number one on the list or 42nd in income equality if your grandmother is eating dry dog food?

[oberliner]

62. No

Other than "good point" there really isn't much to add.

[Starry Messenger]

53. It's not misleading.

Perhaps FactCheck needs to tune its definition of inequality. What would be interesting would be to compare those other countries to this chart:

[hifiguy]

55. Read Thomas Piketty's "Capital In the 21st Century."

Among developed countries, the US is #1.

[Baclava]

71. Jewish American presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders gets off to solid start

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has some believers in his candidacy for president. A new poll by Rasmussen poll, published Tuesday morning, showed that while 63% of likely Democratic primary voters think the independent liberal senator is unlikely to win the nomination in 2016, as many 23% believe Sanders is likely to beat Hillary Clinton and win their party’s nomination.

Among all likely voters, 19% think Sanders is likely to win his party’s nomination, but 64% view that outcome as unlikely.

Considering Hillary’s statue and name recognition, an overwhelming 91% of Democrats believe she is likely to be their party’s presidential nominee in 2016, including 66% who say it is “very likely,” the poll showed.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.655160

-------------

don't ban me bro

[bullwinkle428]

75. Please, oberliner - this is like one step away from saying "poor people don't

have it so bad in this country - they all have refrigerators and TVs!"

[oberliner]

84. Not sure it's really similar to that

But I do think it's a pretty minor point. The piece is interesting and the comments here have been instructive as well.

[yuiyoshida]

78. I AM assuming the OP will be fact checking the

other two candidates shortly, on things they have said, any day now.

[oberliner]

83. Just posted one about Hillary

Thread is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026781011

[yuiyoshida]

87. Good work

[HughBeaumont]

85. Siiiiggghhhh . . . .

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

[pampango]

86. The US does not have the greatest inequality we have ever had. That came in the 1920's under Hoover

and Coolidge. But we do have the greatest inequality among Western countries.

Bernie is correct when the compares current US inequality to that in every other OECD country. Not only is he correct is not even close to being wrong unless you pick non-OECD countries to include in the comparison - which Bernie has specifically not done.