You're definitely right, Bernie is at fault for using the term himself. Good on your relative. I wish more folks would do as he did and make an informed judgement for themselves.

79. Man. He is the one and only major politician I have ever seen that has not wavered on his stances, has been consistently outspoken for the people, and has publicly criticized the problems with the very political system he is a part of. He is genuine consistent, and honest. At least it appears that way, you never know with anyone anymore.

If not Bernie, a Bernie protege. Perhaps one (or more than one) will make their way to the forefront over the next couple of years.

Is that a yes or no question? Lets give that one to Spicer.

I'd put the P in the B if you get what the Rock is cooking.

I've seen that tweet at least 20x now on my feed.

Gore actually won the election and it was stolen

Hillary won by 3 million votes

I have a feeling the dude selling those shirts is going to get paid.

I'm sure the GOP will pounce on the perceived profanity and outlaw any clothing critical of the GOP

Counterpoint: Bernie has done more to battle back against the toxic nature of the word "socialism" than anybody over the last 50 years. And socialism is a very mainstream American concept in reality. It brought us the National Parks, the Interstate Highway System, public education, social security, and all kinds of other incredibly successful policies throughout the 20th century. We need to embrace socialism.



Look where unfettered capitalism has gotten us. By embracing this concept since Ronald Reagan, the middle class has collapsed, everything has gone to the top 1%, and the producing classes are in such dire straits they are willing to vote for an incompetent fascist just because they have no idea what's going on. We NEED socialism now more than ever. Democratic socialism.

what percent of people who work do it because they want to? we do hear those stories of the lotto winner who gets driving a bus, but both men and women work almost exclusively for $...

so, i have always found the criticism of those 1950 pictures where the wife is cooking dinner kind of silly. gender roles aside, getting to stay home and cook an actual balanced dinner means you are pretty damn lucky.

in the vast majority of cases, that housewife cooking dinner didn't become sarrah jessica parker in Sex in the City she became Wendy at Walmart and the dinner became the dollar menu at Mcdonalds.

is it really about women having more opportunity to have a career or just declining real wages and wealth inequality?

AFAIK, the first people to put out a shirt with that slogan were the Crooked Media guys, so I guess that's anothet Thanks, Obama for the Trump era...

Well, maybe, but then there's the fact that you were totally excluded from entire professions, and many women simply weren't taught math growing up because "girls don't need to know math." Women couldn't get a credit card without their husband's permission until 1970's in many states. They didn't really have autonomy and certainly didn't have control over their own bodies and reproduction. How is that the good life?

like, how many families can actually afford for one parent to stay home?

hold on trudeau is supposed to be a democratic socialist?

these are good points and i was not even aware of the credit card.

i think what i am saying is that something else we should consider when we see those pictures should also be "How was it that families used to be able to afford for one parent to stay home?"

Give it up for the socialists.

Now that is a good point.

The political term Bernie should have used was "Social Capitalism."

When asked to explain it, you'd say something like, "I believe in capitalism with regulation, where businesses and corporations treat employees fairly and pay them a fair, living wage. I believe that some areas or industries run best as free markets, so long as there aren't monopolies. On the other hand, some, such as healthcare and K-12 education, are best run by the government, so that everyone gets an equal opportunity at health and happiness."

This is the point I often make when arguing about minimum wage or universal healthcare. I say that back in the day, one parent worked and could support a family of four. They were fed, clothed, had a home with heat/utilities, benefits like healthcare and pensions and enough money left over for a vacation, to save, go to a ballgame, etc.

Now, both parents work and struggle to support even one kid. They lack health insurance. They rack up debt. They rarely, if ever, take a vacation.

I tell the people I'm arguing with that I'm all for the free market, as long as people are properly taken care of. If not, then I believe the government has to step in. I believe that anyone who works 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year should be able to cover their basic needs, and that those basic needs include health insurance.

FDR was such a badass, he rolled into ****ing Oklahoma, where welfare was about the least popular thing in the world, right below dust storms and the clap. He wasn't afraid to go into places where his ideology was unpopular.

Actually Oklahoma was kind of a hotbed of radical leftist politics back in the day.

Tell that to the GOP. They want to go back to the Leave it to Beaver days but don't want you to make a living wage so you can afford that lifestyle.

I think a big problem that people don't address is our money is just spread out too thin. You have cell phone, internet, and cable TV bills that didn't exist 40 years ago. Families used to have one TV and one car. I grew up w/ a black and white TV and Channels 2-13. Now, families have 2-3 cars and 5 TV's. But wages have stayed stagnant. Society keeps adding things people need to have to live in a modern world.

We've become more materialistic and capitalistic as a society at our own detriment. It sucks really.

It's about a lot of things. Sure, declining real wages have meant more families need a second bread winner to make ends meet. But also;

- staying at home all day gets pretty boring, especially when the average family is starting to have fewer children, use husehold technology (dishwashers, laundry machines, etc) to reduce the amount of time needed to maintain the house, and live in more socially isolated suburbs. If you are an educated woman, getting a job could provide a certain amount of stimulation that just staying home and making sure that you greet the husband with a pot roast and a martini at the end of his day just can't provide (c.f. The Feminine Mystique)

- There was an increasing recognition that many women who stayed at home were vulnerable to abuse/ economic coercion by the husband or got screwed when the husband died or ran off with his secretary, so women saw the advantage of keeping up some employment as a means of maintaining a bit of independence.

- don't forget that the image of the relatively carefree stay at home mom was always a representation of one certain type of privileged woman. Back in the day, there were many women who might not have been counted in the traditional labor force, but still brought in income by, for example, doing piecework sewing jobs, cleaning houses, selling homemade jams or sauces, etc.

Tl/dr: Poor women were participating in the gif economy before the gig economy was cool and Ward and June Cleaver did not represent the typical family in 1950's America.