Bernie Sanders Thread

#1,179
#1,179
Bernie 41
Clinton 40
Iowa Quinnipiac poll

7437i0k.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,181
#1,181
FLVOL_79 said:
Riiiight. Loony Bern will get eaten alive. Just wait for the first Democrat debate (if they ever have one) and watch him crumble like helen keller playing Jenga at the first sign of aggression towards him.
the-rock-makes-em-flinch-o.gif
Click to expand...

I think you're going to be very wrong regarding the debates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,184
#1,184
G0 BIG 0RANGE said:
[youtube]https://youtu.be/VQqRHNR6lOw[/youtube]

"Do You Actually Understand What 'Socialism' Is?"

Economist, Richard Wolff, discusses Bernie Sanders and the misconception of 'socialism' in America.

It's only 11 minutes long. He does an excellent job distinguishing public ownership and government control of the factors of production from democratic socialism that encourages private ownership.
Click to expand...

As I understand it he is a Social Democrat; not a Democratic Socialist.

Democratic Socialism still advocates government ownership/control.

My big problems with the Sanders version:

1) It is built upon a concept legislating and regulating "fairness" where "fairness" is never defined

2) It favors the "wisdom" of a few over the wisdom of the many (market choices) - a version of the fatal conceit

3) It inherently achieves "fairness" by bringing down the top more than lifting the bottom via it's actions to contain capitalism

4) As we've seen time and time again it is fraught with unintended consequences.

In the end it doesn't remove cronyism or favored status; it simply changes how it occurs. It places more power in the hands of politically driven "leaders" who can change the rules at whim.

Here's the paradox - people complain that big corporations control the country via cronyism. How is that possible? Because we vest so much control into the governmental regulatory framework that the money directly flows to the politicians. Rather than double down on this by increasing the control of these demonstrably corruptible people why not lessen their power by 1) simplifying the tax code to eliminate the chance for carve outs, 2) simplifying the regulatory framework (not removing it) to do the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,188
#1,188
Kingston Vol said:
Not at all. Hispanics hate him. Women hate him. He hasn't done anything to alienate black people yet - but it's coming.

He has no chance in a general election. No matter if it's against Hillary, Bernie or Captain Crunch.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who the GOP nominates, they're winning this election..
 
#1,190
#1,190
volinbham said:
As I understand it he is a Social Democrat; not a Democratic Socialist.

Democratic Socialism still advocates government ownership/control.

My big problems with the Sanders version:

1) It is built upon a concept legislating and regulating "fairness" where "fairness" is never defined

2) It favors the "wisdom" of a few over the wisdom of the many (market choices) - a version of the fatal conceit

3) It inherently achieves "fairness" by bringing down the top more than lifting the bottom via it's actions to contain capitalism

4) As we've seen time and time again it is fraught with unintended consequences.

In the end it doesn't remove cronyism or favored status; it simply changes how it occurs. It places more power in the hands of politically driven "leaders" who can change the rules at whim.

Here's the paradox - people complain that big corporations control the country via cronyism. How is that possible? Because we vest so much control into the governmental regulatory framework that the money directly flows to the politicians. Rather than double down on this by increasing the control of these demonstrably corruptible people why not lessen their power by 1) simplifying the tax code to eliminate the chance for carve outs, 2) simplifying the regulatory framework (not removing it) to do the same.
Click to expand...

What did you think of the video? (I don't expect many people to watch it and give it a fair shake besides you haha)

He is a self-described democratic socialist, from what I can find.

The way he sees it, those with tremendous amounts of wealth have rigged the system to favor their own interests by buying politicians (both the left and right). That's why we have had such an incredible amount of wealth and income created over the past few decades accumulating in fewer and fewer hands.

Overturning the Citizens United decision would help deter cronyism between government officials and wealthy donors.

I think that is why Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump resonate so much with so many people. Both seem like the type of guy who hasn't been bought - Bernie refuses super PAC support and Trump can finance his own campaign.
 
#1,191
#1,191
G0 BIG 0RANGE said:
What did you think of the video? (I don't expect many people to watch it and give it a fair shake besides you haha)

He is a self-described democratic socialist, from what I can find.

The way he sees it, those with tremendous amounts of wealth have rigged the system to favor their own interests by buying politicians (both the left and right). That's why we have had such an incredible amount of wealth and income created over the past few decades accumulating in fewer and fewer hands.

Overturning the Citizens United decision would help deter cronyism between government officials and wealthy donors.

I think that is why Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump resonate so much with so many people. Both seem like the type of guy who hasn't been bought - Bernie refuses super PAC support and Trump can finance his own campaign.
Click to expand...

After watching the video I used good ole Wikipedia and what the prof was describing was social democracy which is different than democratic socialist.

That said, why do you believe increasing the power of the government will deter cronyism?

Was cronyism significantly less before Citizens United? (hint: no)

You've talked about the 50s as glory years for workers. Since the 50s we've increasingly adopted Social Democrat policies. Redistribution of wealth in the form of social programs, tax credits and other benefits is higher now than ever. The regulatory framework across all industries is wider, deeper and more complex than ever yet the Sanders crowd feels things are getting worse for workers.

The definition of crazy comes to mind - why double down on the "fairness" policies of redistribution via social programs and massive regulation if it hasn't worked so far?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,192
#1,192
Kingston Vol said:
I've seen those.

I just don't think he'd have a chance with women or minorities. Bernie would win easily.
Click to expand...

Do you think those groups are not represented in the polls?

To date there is no poll anywhere suggesting Sanders would easily win the general election against anyone. Why don't you believe that data?
 
#1,193
#1,193
volinbham said:
Do you think those groups are not represented in the polls?

To date there is no poll anywhere suggesting Sanders would easily win the general election against anyone. Why don't you believe that data?
Click to expand...
In the words of the group Survivor-High on You......"I must be livin' in a fantasy world, I'm so high on you."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,194
#1,194
volinbham said:
After watching the video I used good ole Wikipedia and what the prof was describing was social democracy which is different than democratic socialist.

That said, why do you believe increasing the power of the government will deter cronyism?

Was cronyism significantly less before Citizens United? (hint: no)

You've talked about the 50s as glory years for workers. Since the 50s we've increasingly adopted Social Democrat policies. Redistribution of wealth in the form of social programs, tax credits and other benefits is higher now than ever. The regulatory framework across all industries is wider, deeper and more complex than ever yet the Sanders crowd feels things are getting worse for workers.

The definition of crazy comes to mind - why double down on the "fairness" policies of redistribution via social programs and massive regulation if it hasn't worked so far?
Click to expand...

I don't see it as giving government power, as much as asking them to play the role of a referee in our economy.

On the other hand, we can have no referees, and it comes down to social Darwinism.

It isn't that I trust politicians more than a businessman, I just know that a politician is "supposed" to be motivated by public service, and a businessman is supposed to be motivated by profit (and that's awesome, nothing wrong with profits).

But when we let them intermingle to the level that they have been, coupled in with the theory of trickle down economics, we have an economy and a government that no longer works for the people, but for those wealthy individuals at the top who have helped them get to where they are. The left and right are equally responsible for this, I believe.

Edit: I didn't mean the trickle down comment as a slight against Ronald Reagan. I'm probably one of the only people who has a six foot tall stand-up of Reagan in my classroom. I respect him as an incredibly influential figure in American politics and I appreciate his role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. I just don't necessarily agree with his economics. I'm more of a middle-out guy.
 
Last edited:
#1,199
#1,199
G0 BIG 0RANGE said:
I don't see it as giving government power, as much as asking them to play the role of a referee in our economy.

On the other hand, we can have no referees, and it comes down to social Darwinism.

It isn't that I trust politicians more than a businessman, I just know that a politician is "supposed" to be motivated by public service, and a businessman is supposed to be motivated by profit (and that's awesome, nothing wrong with profits).

But when we let them intermingle to the level that they have been, coupled in with the theory of trickle down economics, we have an economy and a government that no longer works for the people, but for those wealthy individuals at the top who have helped them get to where they are. The left and right are equally responsible for this, I believe.

Edit: I didn't mean the trickle down comment as a slight against Ronald Reagan. I'm probably one of the only people who has a six foot tall stand-up of Reagan in my classroom. I respect him as an incredibly influential figure in American politics and I appreciate his role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. I just don't necessarily agree with his economics. I'm more of a middle-out guy.
Click to expand...

Increasing the scope of what they can referee is increasing their power - no way around that.

The opposite of Sander's view is not the absence of government refereeing (or social Darwinism). No one is calling for that. I'd settle for stopping the growth in government involvement though it has proven to be pretty much unstoppable.

The co-mingling of business and politics has increased as regulation (refereeing) and wealth redistribution has increased. Why would doing more of it suddenly start to reduce this co-mingling?
 
#1,200
#1,200
volinbham said:
Increasing the scope of what they can referee is increasing their power - no way around that.

The opposite of Sander's view is not the absence of government refereeing (or social Darwinism). No one is calling for that. I'd settle for stopping the growth in government involvement though it has proven to be pretty much unstoppable.

The co-mingling of business and politics has increased as regulation (refereeing) and wealth redistribution has increased. Why would doing more of it suddenly start to reduce this co-mingling?
Click to expand...

I don't see wealth redistribution having grown. Since the mid '70s, workers have generally been paid less or about the same, and top executives are generally paid more (adjusted for inflation).

Now if you're talking about government welfare programs of redistribution growing, I can understand that. I don't want a welfare state anymore than you guys, I want people to work (if they're capable) and I want them depending less on government handouts.

I feel like this can be achieved if the wealth of a company is less weighted at the top, and more evenly distributed to other parts. That being said, of course CEOs deserve more pay than the lowest level employee, but upwards of 300:1 ratios? The less employees are paid, particularly the bottom ranks, the more they must depend on government redistribution. If the working class has more income, they spend more, often at the place they work, which increases wealth for the top. It isn't a zero-sum game, both can benefit when wealth is grown and not hoarded so much at the top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top