why bernie sanders vision is pure fantasy

[Luiz 4,253]

long ass vid i know but if you care about the election then its for you. if you dont have he tie then thats fine

 

so i posted this vid about 8 months ago asking people to tell my why i should disregard it and support bernie. everyone brushed it off or didnt have the time to watch the video or were offended by the jokes he made. since this board has become more interested in this stuff maybe someone with the tie and intellect can break down why exactly stefan is wrong here.

dont get offended by his little jokes and get rid of any prejudices you may have against stefan and focus on the points he is making. take it in objectively and explain to a layman, why what he is saying is incorrect. I would appreciate it  

 

 

[Serendipity 7,821]

Not the video being an hour long  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Well **** lmao... fine ... gimme 1 hour  

[Caesium 6,022]

An hour long?

Condense it or no thank you

 

[Didymus 34,380]

He's really cute.

But yeah, I'm just staring at his face not being able to concentrate fully 'cause I'm not at a lecture If you could summarize his main points that would help a laht.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

He's ruthless  .. He's also a bit overdramatic but that's part of his act.

I'm at 12 mins and everything he's said has been common sense. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

I'm actually learning better arguments from this. He's connecting dots that should have been more clear to me  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

The one that rung with me the most is change of behavior in response to change in government.

People assume that increasing taxes on the rich would basically lead to a proportional increase in government spending.

That fails to note that people and corporations change their behavior in response to this increase, and the difference would not be as significant as you think, leading to necessary tax increases on the middle class for any program to function.

[Andy McQueen 4,484]

Not fantasy at all. Look at Sweden.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

He seems contemptuous of socialist economics in general. 

Another important note he makes is that the bottom 50% already do not pay their fair share to begin with and are already leeching off the ones that earn above 35k years.  

85% of taxes are covered by people who earn 70k+ a year already.

So Bernie's statements about unfairness are not based on fact and are blinded by anti-wealth hatred.

It makes sense that minorities who represent a significant portion of the bottom 50% are not falling for Bernie's propaganda.

[Luiz 4,253]

1 minute ago, Andy McQueen said:

Not fantasy at all. Look at Sweden.

we have like 30x their population to provide for and literally countless illegal immigrants and a powerful military to maintain(and yes with all the countries we've pissed off in the past i think we need it)  we arent sweden. 

 

now i dont know much about economy and all but just comparing the two countries seems like a reach to me. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

lol his shade towards academic desires.

He's right in that people have this fallacious understanding that getting free education means you get to choose what field you want. It's not moral to impose taxes on people in order to fund your own education that may not be for the benefit of the country and which you may not contribute to society.

What if I want to change my major? You can't do that under the socialist systems in Europe. At least not in public universities which Sanders is targeting.

The pragmatic reason for education is to attain a job. More people attaining those degrees leads to the lowering of standards of the universities and diluting the value of the degrees. This is not to anyone's benefit.

If you want to help the poor, you don't defer their income for four years to begin with. You ease their entry into the workforce without having to rely on the degrees.

----

He mentions intelligence tests and makes the implication that universities are essentially intelligence tests.

Not sure that I agree with that, as universities represent learning experiences as well.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

He also mocks Sanders statements about requesting the rich to pay their fair share.

The IRS does not ask people. It warns them. This is a threat, not a request.

Clinton has said that too, so this is an argument against her as well, although Clinton's was more directed at targeting loopholes as opposed to increasing tax rates across the board which is actually uses the term "fair" appropriately.

Her statement:

Clinton’s “Fair Share Surcharge” is a direct way to guarantee that effective tax rates rise for the taxpayers most likely to avoid paying their fair share through tax gimmicks and exploiting loopholes. Clinton’s proposal would force Americans making more than $5 million per year to pay an effective rate higher than middle-class families, along with other measures she has proposed to close loopholes such as the “Buffett Rule.”

----

So it stops people from NOT paying their taxes, not increasing tax rates on those who already pay as Sanders plans have shown.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

I think the running theme here is that SOMEONE has to got to pay for all this. 

It makes sense that the people that fall for the "EVERYTHING IS FREE" are the millennials who are the overwhelming majority of those who support Sanders.

He also targets Sanders' demonizations of corporations and entrepreneurs.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

He also blasts the free education model.

When you artificially expand demand by increasing the number of students via more student loans without a corresponding increase in supply (administrators, teachers, and MORE colleges) will lead to increased costs of education, which in turn increases the tuition.

----

I personally think that he's probably exaggerating the affect of the increase of supply, but it is something to consider. Supply and Demand is an actual important thing to consider.