Kayla 7,595 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 On 1/16/2016 at 10:49 PM, LebaneseDude said: Capitalism and socialism are opposing schools of thought. Do you even know what you're talking about? You literally compared his situation to Obama when they are nowhere near similar. Just because I'm saying the truth, doesn't mean I'm fear-mongering either. The entire stance of Bernie is to impose socialist ideas. I also sincerely wish people would stop thinking that's going to solve all their problems. Money doesn't grow on trees. Universal healthcare and free education come at the price of higher taxes. Socialism essentially ends up strangling entrepreneurship and limiting innovation in the name of solving short-sighted problems that will inevitably spawn more problems of their own. Whatever. I'm not here to give you a political science lecture on Gagadaily. Again, even if he wins, he'll most likely be incapable of accomplishing anything. Just my two cents. It's true money doesn't grow on trees, but this criticism you bring up is something that's been covered for months (technically years) by professionals. For some people money seems to grow on trees though, doesn't it? Not literally, but when less than 1% has more wealth than the rest of the population combined, I'd say the world works very different and quite unfairly to those people, wouldn't you? It's almost like they have money trees growing in their lives that remain protected when people turn up their noses at the idea that maybe life should be a little easier for the other 90+% of the population too. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-inequality-top-01-worth-as-much-as-the-bottom-90 So people talk about how awful of an idea socialism is, but seem to miss these glaring problems capitalism has caused as well. Back to how we pay for these things, here are some resources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-tax-the-rich_5622670ae4b0bce34700f168 http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_final_7.31.13.pdf http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/news/economy/sanders-taxes-spending/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ http://usuncut.com/politics/top-economist-says-bernies-plan-will-actually-save-the-us-5-trillion/ We've got ideas that are backed by economists, supported by the research, etc. If people want to make a case against Bernie's ideas that can be taken seriously, I'm going to need a little more than an "It won't work!" comment. Find me 170 economists who say Bernie's ideas WON'T work, and then we'll talk. http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayla 7,595 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 On 1/16/2016 at 10:49 PM, LebaneseDude said: 4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said: Well said. Still it's just that Americans are so resistant to change that I don't think most of Bernie's policies will ever gain traction. Sorry about the extra quoting. (And sorry if my last post came off a little sassy. I re-read it and realized it may have been a little abrasive, which is not my intention) As far as Americans being resistant to change goes, I don't think they're as resistant as they seem. Bernie has been doing exceptionally well, especially considering his very different ideas. Even if he doesn't meet all of his goals, I do think him starting this conversation and at least nudging us in a different direction is very beneficial. (or... berneficial...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayla 7,595 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 On 1/16/2016 at 10:53 PM, Mast said: Exactly, not to mention that Bernie's play would save the average american thousands of dollars every year. Hillary is also a hypocrite for it, since in 2008 she said Democrats should not tear each other down on universal healthcare. Let's also not forget.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedirtymonster 656 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 40 minutes ago, Kayla said: Let's also not forget.... Hillary Clinton has, and always will support universal healthcare. You are mistaking Universal Healthcare for "FREE" Healthcare. Under the affordable care act, if everyone were to comply, we would have real healthcare for all. There are a few tweaks that need to be made to the ACA, but we are on the right track. "Free" healthcare is not "free" as so many people think (thanks to Senator Sanders' creative verbage). His plan would cost about $15 TRILLION and he hasn't stated how he's going to pay for it specifically. I wrote a post on the last page about socialism and how they pay for those programs. The average income tax rate in socialist Denmark is 55%. That means if you make $1000 a month, you're paying $550 of your income to the Government. I don't know about you, but I make more than $1000 a month, and I'm still paying WAYYY less than $550 a month on healthcare. It's your choice. Mine is certainly for Hillary Clinton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayla 7,595 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 2 hours ago, thedirtymonster said: Hillary Clinton has, and always will support universal healthcare. You are mistaking Universal Healthcare for "FREE" Healthcare. Under the affordable care act, if everyone were to comply, we would have real healthcare for all. There are a few tweaks that need to be made to the ACA, but we are on the right track. "Free" healthcare is not "free" as so many people think (thanks to Senator Sanders' creative verbage). His plan would cost about $15 TRILLION and he hasn't stated how he's going to pay for it specifically. I wrote a post on the last page about socialism and how they pay for those programs. The average income tax rate in socialist Denmark is 55%. That means if you make $1000 a month, you're paying $550 of your income to the Government. I don't know about you, but I make more than $1000 a month, and I'm still paying WAYYY less than $550 a month on healthcare. It's your choice. Mine is certainly for Hillary Clinton. His plan supposedly will cost $15 trillion over the course of ten years. (an average of $1.5 trillion per year) We pay $3.8 trillion per year on healthcare with our current system. Sources are pointing out that Bernie's plan is cheaper than the path the US is currently on.http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/no-bernie-sanders-domestic-policy-plan-doesnt-really-cost-18-trillion And people (at least not in this conversation) are not under the impression that free healthcare is totally "free." We are aware that the money comes from somewhere; the "free" word is used to describe how it applies to the average citizen. The information is all there. People keep saying "He hasn't said how he'll pay for it!", "It will cost too much!", "The average American will pay more in taxes!", but a simple google search gives you the answers that disprove these claims.... (spoiler since I detail some personal experiences that are purely supplemental reasons for why I believe what I do) Spoiler Ultimately, if I have to choose between someone having a "free" trip to the Dr or a $2,000 bill for something as simple as a CT scan (happened to me), I'll choose the "free" option so people are more likely to take care of themselves. I also work with or are related to people who have mental health issues and some of their medications are outrageously expensive. ONE of my schizophrenic stepdad's medications costs over $900 per month. That's not including inhalers for his asthma, counseling visits, and other psychiatric meds he needs. My mother also takes medication to prevent severe seizures she gets, and those are also multiple hundreds of dollars every month. They've got a great healthcare plan so after they pay their $4,500 deductible (which they meet within the first two months of the year, it's crazy), everything is covered 100%. But then I think about people who would struggle to pay the $4,500 deductible, because many Americans can't afford to save that much every year. Most of us barely have a savings account to begin with, if anything at all. Myself, for example? I can't afford to pay for my student loans AND build up a significant savings account. It's piddly. And the people who don't have health insurance as good as my parents - what do they do if they need medications that cost them over $1,000 every month? What do they do if they struggle to save the thousands of dollars they know they need to meet their deductible every year? I worry for them. Some of them are the parents of the students with special needs I work with. Kids I bring snacks to school for because their parents were struggling to buy food. Kids who will go a week without their medicine and are nervous WRECKS the whole time because their parents couldn't afford it. So that's all an issue. (spoiler ^) We can't keep allowing companies to charge so much, and we can't keep allowing Americans to run themselves financially to the ground over health issues (specifically the ones they couldn't help/prevent). Also, back on paying for the plan, he has stated how he's going to pay for it. For one, we use money that we already spend on healthcare. We already spend $3.8 billion per year - money that would go towards the new healthcare systems. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/02/02/annual-u-s-healthcare-spending-hits-3-8-trillion/#2715e4857a0b20f9f7c3313d Here's how the taxes would cover the costs, but they would also make the average person pay less for their healthcare:http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/16/news/economy/sanders-health-care-taxes/ Regarding savings to the average American: http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-sanders-healthcare-plan-would-save-the-average-american-family-1200/ Basically, this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/15/no-bernie-sanders-is-not-going-to-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/ Bernie's plan is $18 trillion and if you take that number at face value, it's scary. But our current plan costs $42 trillion over the same amount of time, which makes Bernie's idea a lot more appealing, especially when you consider all of the other sources and information I've included. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc 4,775 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 On 16/01/2016 at 2:54 AM, MJHolland said: Don't not vote for bernie because he's unelectable, vote for someone else because Sanders is a freaking socialist. I don't understand how many socialist states will have to fail in order to drill that into people's mind. The free market is the only way in which a country can have sustainable economic grow. That is not true. A free market economy creates economic growth, but not sustainable economic growth. The purpose of socialdemocracy is to make the economic growth sustainable and social. In a free market economy most of the growth goes to the richest people anyways, and if this can be redistributed this will actually cause the economic growth to be felt by a larger part of the population. You have to understand that you have socialism and social democracy. Actually, Obama is a social democrat. socialist countries: North Korea, USSR, Mao's China. Social democratic countries: Sweden, France, Denmark, Iceland. The social democratic countries show the same level of economic growth as other developed, right-leaning countries (the US, Germany, the UK), but this growth is felt by most of the population. Socialist policy is making everything part of the state. Social democratic policy is making education and healthcare free, and reducing income equality. Right-wing policy is privatising education and health care, and doing nothing about income equality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc 4,775 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 On 16/01/2016 at 5:54 AM, MJHolland said: We should invest in the middle class by taxing them and their bosses 2-3 times as much? A college degree has value because it has some level of scarcity, a concept you and all Bernie supports have a problem wrapping your heads around because you've probably never taken a intro to economics class in your entire life. Things are only valuable when some people have them and some don't. Everybody can't have everything, everybody can't be well off. It doesn't work that way in the real world and bar a few examples and centrally planned economies don't work, especially in countries the size of America. This is also quite mindblowing to me. Somebody who thinks that having many people with good education is a bad thing. And don't worry, not everybody can get a master's degree simply because it requires intelligence, motivation, ambition and discipline. Making education free has numerous benefits: - the US becomes more competitive for high-skilled jobs (most go to Europe right now, here they call it the knowledge-economy) - it will greatly boost innovation - it will cause less people to be attracted by reactionary, populist ideas from the Tea Party and Trump. It will greatly benefit American democracy by having more educated voters. The only disadvantage there is to free education is that it can be abused by people, who will waste their time trying out multiple studies because it doesn't have any consequences for them anyways. And about military spending: European social countries tend to spend it on other, sustainable things like green policy and foreign aid to poor countries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc 4,775 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 On 16/01/2016 at 7:44 AM, cameron9814 said: Bernie Sanders is an idiot! And so is Hillary! They would be God awful presidents if they get elected. Socialism will ruin this country and what its based on...hard work. And he's going to make it so you don't have to work and the people that do will just have to give up there money to people who don't have it. Its America! If you want something then get it! Its what is country was made for. I'm sick of Democrats wanting to make The United States another country...there's a reason we were the top nation in the world...and there's a reason were now considered a joke to the rest of the world. There's a reason why the rest of the world thinks the US if full of idiots and it's because of the Republican party and their supporters! In Europe, over 80% supports Obama! It's not because of Obama, it's Bush. It's the crazy Christian conservatives. It's the Jehovah's witnesses, Amish. It's the crazy, illogical love for everything Israel and hate for everything Arab. It's the death punishment, the Vietnam war, the Korea war, Iraq, Afghanistan. It's the backwards, reactionary gun-crazy Mid-West Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc 4,775 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 On 16/01/2016 at 6:25 PM, LebaneseDude said: If everyone had degrees, they'd be worthless. Still, it's not that free education is a bad thing. It's just that implying that free education will make everyone's life better is a grand delusion because there will always have to be a janitor for every engineer. I feel so bad typing this out though. It's one of those things that are best acknowledged in silence rather than discussed because they are unfortunate truths. The US gets over a million of unskilled Latin American immigrants a year. And making college free doesn't mean that everyone will finish it! I don't know if it's Sweden or Denmark, but in one of these two countries you get PAID to go to university and it still doesn't mean that there's an oversupply of skilled labour. Next to that, it's mostly unskilled jobs getting lost to mechanisation. In the future package delivery, truck drivers and the like will be gone, and in the future it will be coders and engineers taking up their jobs. What I mean to say is that the demand for unskilled labour is quickly decreasing, in favour of the demand for skilled labour. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartySick 144,924 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 On 1/16/2016 at 9:29 PM, PoshLife said: Regarding Jordan's tweet: what is wrong with wanting a woman to be president? What is wrong with thinking the highest office in this country - the leader of the free world - should be a woman for a change? A woman clearly could not do worse than some of the men who have been given the opportunity. Men are never questioned about whether gender has to do with which candidate they support. Women shouldn't either, and it's entirely sexist that they so constantly are. But Sanders' supporters are so hypnotized by Bernie that they'll sink to Republican-esque attacks towards their fellow Democrats which will only hurt our party in the end. Edit: I probably shouldn't have wasted my time writing this - this post is more words than Jordan has followers - but I've noticed this over the past few months and it's very nauseating. It's the fact that people want to vote for her solely because she is a woman. A vagina wouldn't make you any better or any worse than anyone else running I know a few people who literally know nothing about her but still want to vote for her to give the U.S. a "woman's touch", whatever that means. I don't think she'd be horrible but at least know more about who you're voting for than their anatomy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJHolland 12,723 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 1 hour ago, Luc said: That is not true. A free market economy creates economic growth, but not sustainable economic growth. The purpose of socialdemocracy is to make the economic growth sustainable and social. In a free market economy most of the growth goes to the richest people anyways, and if this can be redistributed this will actually cause the economic growth to be felt by a larger part of the population. You have to understand that you have socialism and social democracy. Actually, Obama is a social democrat. socialist countries: North Korea, USSR, Mao's China. Social democratic countries: Sweden, France, Denmark, Iceland. The social democratic countries show the same level of economic growth as other developed, right-leaning countries (the US, Germany, the UK), but this growth is felt by most of the population. Socialist policy is making everything part of the state. Social democratic policy is making education and healthcare free, and reducing income equality. Right-wing policy is privatising education and health care, and doing nothing about income equality. Then we need whatever is the opposite of a social democrat... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJHolland 12,723 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 I think it's funny that people think Obama has been a good president when we have the lowest workforce participation rate in US history and your solution is to give people even more free sh*t??? M'Kay... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc 4,775 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 15 minutes ago, MJHolland said: I think it's funny that people think Obama has been a good president when we have the lowest workforce participation rate in US history and your solution is to give people even more free sh*t??? M'Kay... I think Clinton would make the labour force participation rise the most because she will empower women, but giving social security doesn't mean to discourage. Sometimes something doesn't seem logical, like how even bigger punishment won't prevent crime, but it can still be true. For a higher labour force participation you have two options: 1. make people so poor that they will have to work (the Republican way) 2. encourage and motivate people, and in particular other groups than white men, to work (the social democrat way). How does the first option work? You make taxes the same for all income levels, remove minimum wage and promote inequality. How does the second way work? - You promote and encourage women and racial minorities to work (empowerment, motivation, education and make these groups perceive that things are getting better for them) - You give the labourers a say in how much and under what circumstances to work (40-hour workweeks with no overworking, less flexibility, more paid sick leave (1 or 2 years is actually very effective in lowering welfare recipients for disabled). - You allow for disabled people to find work with a bigger public sector. And if you really want to know what Obama's incredible legacy is, read this: http://www.politico.eu/article/barack-obama-election-2016-hillary-clinton-democrat-united-states-us-the-nation-he-built/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlasticHo 697 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 6 hours ago, Kayla said: It's true money doesn't grow on trees, but this criticism you bring up is something that's been covered for months (technically years) by professionals. For some people money seems to grow on trees though, doesn't it? Not literally, but when less than 1% has more wealth than the rest of the population combined, I'd say the world works very different and quite unfairly to those people, wouldn't you? It's almost like they have money trees growing in their lives that remain protected when people turn up their noses at the idea that maybe life should be a little easier for the other 90+% of the population too. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-inequality-top-01-worth-as-much-as-the-bottom-90 So people talk about how awful of an idea socialism is, but seem to miss these glaring problems capitalism has caused as well. Back to how we pay for these things, here are some resources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-tax-the-rich_5622670ae4b0bce34700f168 http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_final_7.31.13.pdf http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/news/economy/sanders-taxes-spending/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ http://usuncut.com/politics/top-economist-says-bernies-plan-will-actually-save-the-us-5-trillion/ We've got ideas that are backed by economists, supported by the research, etc. If people want to make a case against Bernie's ideas that can be taken seriously, I'm going to need a little more than an "It won't work!" comment. Find me 170 economists who say Bernie's ideas WON'T work, and then we'll talk. http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/ THIS THIS THIS THIS!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelseaaaaaa 1,453 Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Yikes @ some of the commentary here, honestly. But back to Cher, Nader was at 5%, he is not. Bernie gets independents, most of his democratic base, and 10% of Republicans. He beats ANY Republican nominee in the polls, Hillary does not beat Trump. One is obviously more electable based on this. ha. I don't really like either one of them but Sanders is trustworthy, I wouldn't leave Hillary in my house alone for five minutes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.