Well, Bernie Bros, how did socialists light their homes before candles?
- Thread starter Univee2
- Start date
No idea.... was at Pacers game last night, was grossly over- served, pre, during and post. Kind of surprised my posts were even readable.
As to the size arguments, I think we could regionalize the US. Create a Northeast region, southeast region, rest of confederacy region, great lakes, farmland, mountain, west coast. Items could be implemented out of the regions. States seem too granular, and the feds may be too broad. Regional seems to provide the best of both worlds.
How about people vote for issues instead of candidates? They get a smorgasbord from which to prioritize their top ten. For each issue, they get to name their top-three candidates. Issues are separated into federal, regional, state, and local.
Each issue is put on a continuum and voters get to place their prioritization on the continuum. For example, the single-payer-versus-no-no-public-payer continuum, going from 1 to 100.
Then we let The Turtlump decide.
You put more stock in "what somebody actually about his policy preferences" during a political campaign than I do. Here is some what Bernie has proposed and supports:
- Ban fracking, phase out nuclear power, and ban crude oil exports. This would put the U.S. economy in shambles. This is not "Nordic".
- Eliminate billionaires. Cuba and North Korea territory.
- Nationalize the internet. This is Russia, China, and Iran territory. It's not "Nordic".
- Direct the DOJ to legalize marijuana. And you think Trump is a dictator?
- Ban private health insurance. No western democracy, socialized or not, has done this.
- National rent control. Straight out of the Soviet playbook.
- A national maximum wage. He backed off of that for most people, but he still supports it for the wealthy. Again, that's Cuba and North Korea territory.
- Favors the Marx view of labor value and labor exploitation.
Not everything has to be done on the same scale. Look at the current row between the Nordics and the rest of the E.U. over minimum wage. Several countries don't have any statutory minimum wage, but instead have very robust collective bargaining, and they fear that imposing an E.U.-wide minimum wage system on their workers will actually lower their average wages in the long term.
Right now, in the U.S., health care seems like one area ripe for a national plan. Perhaps - and ironically - that might be due to the steady weakening of collective bargaining. If unions had more power - such as the Nevada culinary union you mentioned in another thread - then maybe the path to universal healthcare without a national plan would be clearer.
Wages, on the other hand, seem to demand local solutions. Simply saying, "Every McDonald's worker in America should earn $13.50 per hour" makes absolutely no sense. Of course the McDonald's worker in Manhattan should earn more than the one in Dayton.
Yup, I noticed that too. Goat usually doesn't serve weak sauce. Maybe Goat's a closet Bernie Bro.
Maybe? Closet?Yup, I noticed that too. Goat usually doesn't serve weak sauce. Maybe Goat's a closet Bernie Bro.
Not at all. I'd be happy to discuss the bad parts of Bernie, just as I did four years ago. But that's not at all what CO.H was about, and it's not what I was calling out. Essentially, when faced with Bernie saying, "I'm a democratic socialist, and that means X," CO.H responds with, "I don't believe him, I think he's just a socialist, and X isn't actually socialist, so Bernie must secretly mean Y, which is awful." It's a horrible display of bad logic, bad semantics, and just plain dishonesty.Yup, I noticed that too. Goat usually doesn't serve weak sauce. Maybe Goat's a closet Bernie Bro.
If CO.H were interested in/capable of discussing Bernie in honest terms, I'm sure he'd have a lot of negative things to say. I might even agree with some of them. But I'm not wasting my time on engaging BS.
Lol. Why do you always talk like I’m not in the room? Bernie is his body if work. Not what he said a “Democratic socialist” was last month.
Well said. It's just more fear mongering from a party void of ideas, and trying hold onto to power, cause...tax cuts. They don't have a healthcare plan. Obama stole the only one they've had over the past forty years. I guess they could bring Paul Ryan back to tell us we have to cut Medicare and S.S. to "save them". That worked well.
How else can they hold onto power unless they swift boat, the baby killing, Venezuelan socialist, who's going to take their guns away? But they have reason to be concerned. Only eight years ago, we re-elected a black Kenyan Muslim.
I'm still waiting for a Trumpster to explain to me how conservatives are going to MAGA? Because when America was great, there were no conservatives in power. In fact, one could argue the most influential conservative of that era was Joseph McCarthy. Wrap your head around that. It explains a lot, doesn't it? I think I'll just stop there. It's a nice little bow for this post.
Note: I'm not a Bernie supporter either. I'm just tired of reading posts- from the people who've helped make America "not great"- lecturing everyone else...about anything.
Last edited:
Bernie, Socialist or not, has a profoundly intricate and comprehensive plan for the future US economy: Unions.
That's it. Not just sums it up. No. That is IT. Read it in his own words from his official Bernie for President website. Set aside at least 25 seconds to read it.
By contrast, this is what Warren plans to do. Hint: Set aside a week to read it.
That's it. Not just sums it up. No. That is IT. Read it in his own words from his official Bernie for President website. Set aside at least 25 seconds to read it.
By contrast, this is what Warren plans to do. Hint: Set aside a week to read it.
I see no indication Bernie is a Socialist. He's running on the Santa Claus platform. Housing for all, college for all, healthcare for all. Damn! All he needs is a blow torch to kick start his pipe dream.
His primary campaign strategy: Convince all of us eighteen-year-olds that Santa is real.
His primary campaign strategy: Convince all of us eighteen-year-olds that Santa is real.
Oh wow. You actually wrote,"Are you saying white Americans would have a different opinion of social welfare if they knew the recipient was of the same race/culture?"
Are you serious? For years, there have been more white Americans on welfare than other group (not sure about 2019-2020). Unfortunately, many of the other white Americans might not realize this.
Goat is gaslighting. Bernie the candidate is different than the historical Bernie. Even with that, he’s all in on the GND, which the proponents admit is more a proposal to remake the economy than to save the planet. Bernie has never backed off of his historical umbrage with free markets and capitalism.
This is why I think the Dems are making a huge mistake in nominating Bernie. Your side will easily scare enough people to give Trump an easy victory in November. I’ve already prepared myself for 4 more and the corruptions that will follow.
I see no indication Bernie is a Socialist. He's running on the Santa Claus platform. Housing for all, college for all, healthcare for all. Damn! All he needs is a blow torch to kick start his pipe dream.
His primary campaign strategy: Convince all of us eighteen-year-olds that Santa is real.
"housing for all, college for all, healthcare for all".
so which of those are you against "all" having access to?
sometimes the line between "spin" and out and out "lying", is non existent.
rent control isn't free rent, Medicare for all has never been promoted as free healthcare, and tuition free college is no more free than tuition free K-12.
but perhaps you're against tuition free K-12 as well, think every road and bridge in the country should be toll funded only, police and fire protection should be subscriber only, and all military should be funded by only those who voluntarily choose to fund it.
and being military spending is already at $10,000 per yr per household, and often serving questionable motives to many, don't look for a lot of "volunteers" when their rent and healthcare together already consume $5,000 mo, plus another almost a grand a month tuition PER CHILD for every kid they have that they want to be able to attend K-12 in a non "public" education system.
Bernie's strength is that he sees the problem and acknowledges it, before the others do.
everything every Dem candidate is now running on was made politically acceptable, only because Bernie made it so.
working class real wages have been going down for 40 yrs, and healthcare, real estate, and college, are becoming unaffordable for much of the country.
addressing this reality should hardly define someone as lunatic fringe, and his solutions were the most cost effective way to address them.
single payer or single negotiator healthcare has already been implemented by the rest of the civilized world, with superior results for half the cost.
irresponsible fiscal malfeasance would be to not go to MFA, and everyone in congress and the senate know it, but are are afraid of the healthcare industrial complex.
rent no longer is about just apts. or temp housing.
in many places including Btown, (think anywhere people actual want to live and can find a job), the minimum price of a starter home is now set by it's rent potential.
you can't look at every issue from the perspective of a 65 yr old who bought their house 40 yrs ago, is already on Medicare, isn't going to college because their professional career is already behind them, and has no kids of college age.
the mindset of said 65 yr old homeowner already on Medicare, with zero mortgage or rent, is fk everybody else, too bad for them, i already got mine when a nice house was $40 grand, health insurance contribution was $20 mo, college tuition was $180 per semester and dorms were dirt cheap, and thinks all govt spending should now be for artificially propping up the market.
no wonder this demo loves Trump and hates Bernie.
btw, your pipe pic is a great analogy for a current working class person working full time trying to pay rent and health insurance, and that pipe is growing way longer every yr, while his arm is getting shorter every yr.
how out of control do real estate, healthcare, and college, costs have to get before the light goes on?
Last edited:
What's wrong with GND remaking part of the economy? So did industrialization. So did automation. So did the internet. That says nothing about whether Bernie's a socialist.
You're the genuine frontier gaslighter here. Or so you try. No one's losing their sanity over your nonsense.
There has been polling on the issue. Americans largely miss the percentage of each race on welfare. Welfare polls terribly, yet Aid to dependent and other individual programs poll well. The discrepancy is believed to be the idea that welfare is something blacks are on.
Seriously? You think industrialization is the same as the GND? Oh my. What did you say about losing sanity?
Your posts get stupider, the deeper you dive. You think the GND is Socialism. I'ma chuckling.
You really don’t know the difference between free market industrialization and a regulatory GND, do you lurk. I don’t think I need a lecture from you about socialism.
Still, Joseph McCarthy was the conservative contribution to American greatness. He accused liberals of being "communist", "socialist", and "homosexuals". He attacked the people who made America great in an attempt to weaken them and gain power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy
Now we have conservatives calling Democrats "socialists" (not just Bernie and AOC, but the entire party), in an attempt to keep power. That is the extent of the conservatives contribution to MAGA.
Economically: it's a noun, a verb, and a tax cut. My doctor tells me the symptoms of vitamin D deficiency are the exact same as the symptoms of having excessive vitamin D. That sounds a lot like conservative economics.
And for you personally, CO, you've said on multiple occasions that Eisenhower was the greatest president of your lifetime. In many ways, Eisenhower is well to the left of Bernie on the political spectrum. But you say, "No, that's Bernie the candidate, not the historical Bernie."
I think we should allow people to evolve and we should take Bernie's proposals as a candidate as the way he intends to govern. Trump supporter CO, is a far cry from the Reagan conservative he used to be. You can't reconcile that. Oh, I'm sure you can try- and even succeed in your own head- but you can't fool the people who've lived through both. IOW, you've evolved. You've managed to be wrong twice, but we still have to listen to you.
And please stop the "socialist" scare tactics. It's unbecoming. Every time I read someone crying "socialist", I know they're either disingenuous, or historically and economically ignorant.
That's strange. Either you don't know what a conservative is or you are just being dishonest. I'd like to think the former but your post tends toward the latter.
I don't know if that's true or not. But so what? Democrats have been calling Republicans racist, homophobes, misogynists, hating the poor, and more for decades--just to keep power. That's the political world these days. Conservatives didn't make that world.
I don't understand this.
Yes.
Strongly disagree. Make your case.
Highly regulated economic sectors advances the ball towards socialism. That is part of what socialism is--a centrally planned economy in place of an economy that responds to market forces. This is part of Bernie's campaign message and is also who he is as I pointed out elsewhere. As I said before, there is no purity along the socialist/market continuum (except maybe Cuba and North Korea) but I don't think there can be any dispute that Sanders wants to march us in the direction of socialism.
I think this is quite easy to reconcile. I'll let your "Trump supporter" remark slide this time. I will say that Trump has presided over enacting an agenda that Reagan, and most conservatives or Republicans, would be very proud of; tax reform, judicial appointments, military preparedness, military equipment modernization, VA reform, right to try certain drugs, border enforcement, opportunity zones, fair trade, standing behind first responders, and more are items that Reagan had also advanced. Trump is singularly focused on job growth. There are more jobs created now than people to fill them. That has put upward pressure on blue collar wages which are on the increase. Yeah, there is a lot to dislike about Trump, most all of that is the aesthetics of how he operates. That's not a major matter for me.
Nobody has to listen to me.
Yeah, socialism scares me. I just finished a book about Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, China, Sweden, Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, what socialism is, and what it isn't. Yeah it's scary. If you are scared by me reminding people about Sanders' socialist proposals, I guess that's on you. I post what I think.
.
Still, Joseph McCarthy was the conservative contribution to American greatness. He accused liberals of being "communist", "socialist", and "homosexuals". He attacked the people who made America great in an attempt to weaken them and gain power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy
Now we have conservatives calling Democrats "socialists" (not just Bernie and AOC, but the entire party), in an attempt to keep power. That is the extent of the conservatives contribution to MAGA.
Economically: it's a noun, a verb, and a tax cut. My doctor tells me the symptoms of vitamin D deficiency are the exact same as the symptoms of having excessive vitamin D. That sounds a lot like conservative economics.
And for you personally, CO, you've said on multiple occasions that Eisenhower was the greatest president of your lifetime. In many ways, Eisenhower is well to the left of Bernie on the political spectrum. But you say, "No, that's Bernie the candidate, not the historical Bernie."
I think we should allow people to evolve and we should take Bernie's proposals as a candidate as the way he intends to govern. Trump supporter CO, is a far cry from the Reagan conservative he used to be. You can't reconcile that. Oh, I'm sure you can try- and even succeed in your own head- but you can't fool the people who've lived through both. IOW, you've evolved. You've managed to be wrong twice, but we still have to listen to you.
And please stop the "socialist" scare tactics. It's unbecoming. Every time I read someone crying "socialist", I know they're either disingenuous, or historically and economically ignorant.
Bernie today called tax cuts "socialism".... that's some truly creative thought......
"In my view, to a significant degree, we are living, right now under Donald Trump, in a socialist society. The only difference is does the government work for working people or does it work for billionaires?" he said, explaining that he views tax breaks and subsidies for corporations and billionaires as "socialism for the rich."What I see is a lot of Dems slowly starting to tilt their roll a bit, now that Bern is the front- runner for the nomination.... trying to explain how he isn't such a crazy ass nutbag, after all. Reminds me of Republicans in 2016.
Then name one.
Point taken. I could add an argument to this, but don't want to get tied up with it. It's not that important.
What do Republicans want to do when the economy's going great(2000)(2016)? Cut taxes. What do they want to do when the economy's tanking(2007)? Cut taxes. What's the solution to healthcare? Cut taxes. What will help S.S. remain solvent? A tax cut. Tax cuts can't solve global warming. What's the solution? If a tax cut can't solve it, it must not be a problem.
We agree on something. Scary.
Quickly: Bernie's top tax bracket would be 55%. Eisenhower's was 92%.
I agree there is no purity along the socialist/market continuum- and there never has been- but when America was great, the shift was much further to the socialist side than it is today. The late 1800's were the closest we've been to pure capitalism. The 1940's and 50's are the closest we've been to socialism.
The never Trumpers disagree.
Why didn't you mention the debt or deficit? I thought conservatives were responsible, and for a balanced budget? In any case, Reagan and Trump have that in common too, so...
Speaking of: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=q9SQ
Take a look at this graph. Remember a rising tide lifting all boats? We don't have to debate how that turned out, do we? But remember how tax cuts would pay for themselves? Look at the graph and the trajectory it was on before Reagan. Imagine if that line would have kept it's course. Now do that for Clinton. Now Bush. Now Obama. And finally Trump. How many times and how many years, before we can admit that was wrong too? GDP hasn't reached 5% since Reagan either, so you weren't making it up with growth.
As for the blue collar jobs and wage growth, raises in the minimum wage across different states and boomers leaving the job market explains most of it. If wages are going up and unemployment is going down, why are revenues falling? The tax cuts weren't that big, were they?
As for the overall economy, it's been fine. It wasn't terrible when inherited it. I think most people agree the tax cuts were unnecessary, but they certainly helped the market go higher. For anyone who cares about AGW( I know you don't), he picked some low hanging fruit that has helped sustain the expansion, but at an expense. That is something that will handcuff Dems wrt economics, but it is what it is.
They shouldn't, at least when it comes to economics.
And there's the double down. Bernie doesn't want pure socialism, or even Venezuelan socialism. He couldn't get there if he wanted to. But no matter how many times, no matter how many people, and no matter what is presented to you, you won't leave Venezuela alone....because Republican (aka your team).
Note: Please notice I've never called anyone here a racist, or anything else on your list of what Democrats call Republicans.
Last edited:
That's pretty stupid. "Welfare for the rich" makes sense, but "socialism for the rich" sounds idiotic.
Another point. This is important and might get to the heart of your angst. Define, "highly". You don't see AGW as a problem. That's fine, we've had that debate before. But for someone who does believe AGW is a problem, there is no market solution.
Is there a market solution to healthcare? In some instances, possibly. But how much are you willing to pay to save a loved one? What's the elasticity of demand for a loved one's life? How does a market solve that problem?
How does cutting taxes solve income disparity? I guess Clinton figured out a way, with the EITC, but how many times can we do that? If you understand the relativity of money, you'd understand that raising taxes on the rich is the same as cutting taxes for the poor, with the exception of the effect it has on the debt/deficit.
IOW, you're taking problems that have no market solution, and then taking Bernie's solution and crying, "Socialism!" Find a free market solution to AGW, healthcare, or income inequality. They don't exist. Hell, even Reagans tax code was progressive(socialist). Could you imagine what income inequality would be if Forbes would have gotten his flat tax?
Last edited:
It's why it works better at state levels... people in their state (or even region) are more open to offering state sponsored benefits than the nebulous idea of the feds offering a blanket system. It feels 1) more unde their direct control....2) going to people more like "them".
The ACA ended up modeled much like that... particularly with the Medicaid expansions.
EITC was born in the 70s.... Reagan was a huge proponent of it, giving it a large boost in '86 to become a norm of the tax code. Presidents of both parties have continued to expand it.
Please clarify what you mean by relativity of money re: tax cuts
IMO Bernie is too zero sum. He says the wealthy need to pay their "fair share". The wealthy pay a lot more than their fair share. It's not about fair, it's about efficiency. Our income distribution is so skewed that it is to the point where the wealthy are being hurt(nominally at least). And the rest of America has been going backwards for decades.
He's against free trade, and trade deals in general. That's wrong, IMO. You can't solve our problems with tariffs. We should be using leverage (taxes, access to our markets, ect.) to raise wages and standards for workers in other countries. The problem wasn't that we had unions, minimum wages, and labor laws, it's that the other countries did not.
And as I've stated before, lowering corporate taxes, and lowering the top marginal rates took away the utility that was built inside of the tax code, or IOWs the disincentive to ship jobs overseas and hire guest workers.
I agree with the problems he's trying to address, I just think there are better and more efficient ways to get there. That was just to name a few.
I think the market is responding to AGW angst in many ways. Some of the efficiencies are government imposed, but many more are consumers being more environmentally aware. Even to a fault. Some of the recycling culture we have developed actually is increasing carbon emissions.
Your “worth of a loved one” point is made worse by MFA. We used to play this game in hospital medical ethics committee I served on. You are given a finite amount to spend on public health care. How do you divy up the resource among the young, old, terminal, curable, value of a patient to family, community, and dozens of additional factors? That requires hard decisions and utilization bureaucracies, AKA death panels. In a private system, the total spending is not fixed by a government line item. If you think MFA will solve the problem you pose, you are wrong.
I don’t think high tax rates, or more progressive rates, is necessarily a characteristic of socialism. More government spending also does not mean it’s economy is more socialist. If you believe that, I think you need to relearn some economics.
Finally, I don’t object to some economic regulation as a general matter. But thinking that more government economic planning and regulation will be a solution to any problem is a mistake. This is where Sanders, Warren and AOC are.
Sounds like you are proponent of something along the lines of TPP. Setting a large trading bloc up with standards for how modern economies should operate at a higher level for all stakeholders. Too bad dumbasses rule our world and Bernie (and Trump) helped crush it.
I can't stand populists that cater to the lowest common denominator. And it seems we are on a crash course for both parties offering just that to America. A true failure.
I agree with your positions entirely. Just sad when one party goes down a rabbit hole of dumb.... and the other appears to be ready to say "oh yeah...hold my beer "
Last edited:
That one takes awhile and it's late. Do you remember my post about the coolerites starting an economy on an island? What's the price of a coconut if everyone starts out with 100 pennies in their pocket? What's the price for the coconut, if everyone starts with 100 dollars?
It's the same coconut, why the difference?
The same principle applies to taxes...raises and cuts. Pre tax cut(raise), disposable income is what it is for each individual, just like it is on the island. Supply and demand(or market forces) are set, just like on the island. The price of the coconut is set when everyone has 100 pennies based on supply and demand, but once you give the (in this instance) tax cut, disposable income goes up, and the price of the coconut goes up. Basic stuff.
Once you wrap your head around that, you realize that what's more important than each individual's disposable income, is each individual's disposable income relative to everyone else. If everyone gets a million dollars from the treasury, we're all millionaires. What does that buy you? But if one person receives a million dollars, and everyone else gets a thousand, what happens? This is why the middle class can receive a tax cut and ultimately be worse off. It also explains why there can be growth and no inflation. It also explains how raising taxes on the rich, can have a relatively similar result to lowering taxes on the poor. The difference being, if you raise taxes on the rich, the money goes into the treasury. If you lower taxes on the poor, the money comes out of the treasury.
It's all relative and more complicated than that. Especially, when you start to think about the effects of deflation(for example) and the ability to use this information in a practical sense. But it's all doable. It just takes time to allow the market forces to adjust.
Sorry to ramble.
Interesting post. What if somebody produces coconut alternatives? Or products totally different products from coconuts? The competition from product variety might even force the guy with all the coconuts to cut prices. Does more disposable income encourage economic diversity and consumer choice? One difference between a socialist economy and market economy is that the market produces much more consumer choice and variety. Producers will compete for that disposable income. I think this is a good thing, no? IOW, it seems tax cuts and more disposable income will encourage growth.
That not true everywhere. Our daughter lives in the Dallas area and she has several companies from which she can buy electricity. See this link.
The coconut is just a crude way to focus on the importance of the relativity of money. Focusing on the effects to supply and demand takes us down an unnecessary rabbit hole that complicates things, but I'll try to address it to it's logical conclusions. This is really an aside to my point, but...
If you were to inflate the economy/money supply you could get to where products which "peak supply" (think peak oil), or peak demand (if you were on an island full of coconuts, you could get to a point where coconuts are worthless, because how many coconuts can one person eat?).But that has more to do with the elasticity of supply.
As for "alternative coconuts", let's look at a real world example. When I was a kid I could buy a bag of plain M&M's for $.25, now a bag costs $1.50. It's the same plain M&M's. Why? Inflation. But I now have the option of Peanut, Caramel, Hazelnut, Peanut Butter, and on and on(think alternative coconuts), why is that? Are those alternatives that sprung up, due to inflation, or an increase in disposable income, or tax cuts? No. They're simply a way for M&M's to try and gain market share relative to other manufacturers in an otherwise relatively elastic market.
