10th Democratic Primary Debate

[Bt1 5,213]

Bloomberg looks so scared on the stage, but better than last week. 

Biden and Pete did good.

Sanders did ok considering that he was the target. 

The impact of a debate with this format is almost non-existent. There should have been maximum 4 people on stage.

[littlepotter 76,617]

7 hours ago, Lilmonzter said:

If they're going to unfairly malign him,  I don't  think it's necessary for Bernie to attend  any debate.

You want them to spread absolute lies about him and not have him there to call bullshit?

7 hours ago, SKANK said:

The amount of superfluous personal attacks on Pete is hilarious. Only in the last few pages: “distrespectful, weasel, loser.” 

Bernie is getting the nomination. Relax bros. 

 

Edit: For those amoung us who become “sad” reading posts they disagree with, here is a collection of resources available to you: 

https://bornthisway.foundation/get-help-now/

1. This is a debate. There are winners and losers. Saying someone is a debate loser is NOT a personal attack. 

2. Pointing out that someone is being blatantly direspectful is NOT a personal attack.

3. Calling someone a weasel is a personal attack. Generalizing what one person said to all Bernie supporters is an attack. Calling us all "bros" and marginalizing his majority in female, queer and other minority etc. support is an attack. 

4. Mental health is not a joke. People are allowed to think that what you're saying is sad. It's not very smart to comment about people being insecure in their opinions right after throwing a fit that people pointed out a candidate lost or was disrespectful.

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

27 minutes ago, littlepotter said:

You want them to spread absolute lies about him and not have him there to call bullshit?

I just want to point out that in 2016 republican primary season trump stayed away from debates and it kind of helped him. He was brought up way less and was only discussed scarcely similarly Bernie could do that since the mainstream media trashes him and is bought by the billionaire candidate 

He overcame the hostile crowd and the negative attacks on old out of context attacks.

For that I'm proud of him.

I'm not suggesting he stay away from all debates but if the moderators also take part in being very biased why go? He could get his message across in other avenues.

Do you think without him there they'll be talking on end about him, I don't think so.

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

4 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

No. They won't because you have to be making a substantial income AND currently spend almost nothing on healthcare to actually begin to pay more than you would in our current system   If you make $150,000-$200,000 year and have no dependents, I'm sorry, but to say that your living standard will go down because you're paying a few hundred or even a modest thousand more than what you do now at the end of the year is ABSURD. People that make that much money have disposable income in the vast majority of instances. When they do not, it is because of paying off of substantial loans and debts (take Doctors paying off student debt for an example) or terrible terrible management of income vs rent/living payments and they have the money to hire someone to help them do their taxes to save them thousands a year. I'll gladly recommend you one if that's your situation  

 Most people in America are making from $30-80,000 a year, not even $100k, and that puts them in a tax bracket where their average health care expenditures a year are in the realms of several thousand, regardless of their health and would likely save thousands or hundreds under M4A for better, more comprehensive coverage and health care.

But let's take what you said for a minute - even if you never go to the doctor, a single payer health care system would promote general health because preventative care in America is so woefully underutilized BECAUSE of our fear around the costs of healthcare. 

Let's take coronavirus and a great example someone made to me earlier. A young man who just came back from China thought he caught coronavirus, so he got himself tested. I do not remember if he did or he did not have it afterall, but he ended up being billed $3,000 just for the check ups. That is 6x the amount that the majority of americans have saved up in case of any type of financial emergency. I would be CRIPPLED by that bill coming out of nowhere, and most people would too. This person did the right thing by getting checked for it, the smart thing for his health and for society at large, and he is being punished for it financially. Most people in America have avoided going to the doctor when sick because of costs, its really a culturally uniting experience. When I am in school, I don't take sick days, I just fight through it, I never skipped class because of it in 8 years. Sometimes it got worse, sometimes it got better. I should have gone to the doctor every single time because I didn't know how it would turn out. For people who do not have insurance, this fear and gambling situation leads to death. Literally tens of thousands of deaths a year. Under M4A, people will no longer be disincentivized to visit the doctor for preventative care, and even healthy people will benefit.

Also.. privilege, it can't not come up. "Why should the more fortunate lower ourselves to help out the less fortunate" is IMO a really telling perspective to take. I can't really tell you that you must care about other people, only explain that the vast majority of Americans do NOT have that perspective, which is why Bernie is doing so well. Health care is consistently the #1 issue brought up by people in this election cycle, and the majority of people so far have supported this system in the way they have voted  Furthermore, M4A is not government run healthcare if you are trying to imply that it will become the VA or insert perceived ineffective government program here.

A public option would be a government program that is subject to underfunding, administrative oversight issues, and inefficiency.  Medicare for All however only shifts who is paying for their care your doctor provides from your insurance provider to the government. It is not government run, created, produced, etc. the same way that your doctors are not currently employees of Aetna, United Health, etc. - they are employees of their hospitals and clinics etc.. It is not socialized medicine, the government will not be running or producing anything.

And despite the rhetoric uttered by people like Pete Buttigieg, there is not a way to 1) substantially lower costs of health care and 2) guarantee health care to every American without getting rid of the private health insurance industry whose sole purpose is to profit off of human suffering. It is quite literally the *only* way. If you want to be Warren and say that the way we transition to single payer is variable, I'll accept that framing, but Pete's plan does no such thing.

this is called tunnel vision....only one view right down your own personal viewpoint … no consideration for everyone else ...

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, Woolfsmck said:

this is called tunnel vision....only one view right down your own personal viewpoint … no consideration for everyone else ...

Your comment: 
1) Purely healthy people will see a reduction in their living standard to support this however ...

2)I haven't needed a doctor for anything other than a mandatory check up for my commercial driving status.. When I was injured , 'insurance' paid 40k to get be back to health … I haven't needed anything since...

3) and the millions like me are wondering why we need to lower ourselves to support those who aren't when the current system is so corrupt and drained by abuse...."

Me: "I hear, you but you're wrong and here's why for a myriad of reasons: --- "

You: "Tunnel vision, you haven't considered everyone  else"

Okay  I'd rather you just say you disagree with no explanation than accuse me of not considering your position, since I did so painstakingly  I hear you, and I've heard this position hundreds and hundreds of times at this point. I just disagree and have good explanation for why its a flawed premise.

 You said purely healthy people will see a reduction in their living standard to support this, implying a worsening financial or economic situation to pay for the plan. I said 1) purely healthy people are mostly a myth, but even those who consider themselves so will benefit from higher quality of care and access to better doctors as well as the ability to go to the doctor regularly w.o additional charges, which promotes good health overall on a more consistent basis. Also, you would have to be relatively affluent in order to even begin to pay more under this plan than the current system, to the point where - a few hundred in your taxes a year offsetting is not going to move you from an upper middle class tax bracket to poor or even down to regular middle class level. The average American does not have enough disposable income to cover a tire going out suddenly, let alone surprise medical expenses from a procedure or check up, or a medical emergency, but they happen anyway, and most people do not have the kind of platinum access to good health care that will fully cover them. 

We cannot tinker around our system to fix things without building new things because our system is fundamentally broken. It is not an inadequate system that just needs to spend less on administration and move some things around, It's a system that is literally designed to make money, and not to provide adequate health care. It benefits from lack of coverage, and it profits off of denial of coverage for people. That means it must become a system that puts patient care and economic security for that care first.

If you'd like to propose that kind of drastic shift and also find a way to get every private corporation involved in the production of drug prices, drug manufacturing, and insurance coverage in a room and tell them all to cut it out with the taking advantage of people's situations and killing thousands a year, I welcome you to try it as an alternative  

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

3 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Your comment: 
1) Purely healthy people will see a reduction in their living standard to support this however ...

2)I haven't needed a doctor for anything other than a mandatory check up for my commercial driving status.. When I was injured , 'insurance' paid 40k to get be back to health … I haven't needed anything since...

3) and the millions like me are wondering why we need to lower ourselves to support those who aren't when the current system is so corrupt and drained by abuse...."

Me: "I hear, you but you're wrong and here's why for a myriad of reasons: --- "

You: "Tunnel vision, you haven't considered everyone  else"

Okay  I'd rather you just say you disagree with no explanation than accuse me of not considering your position, since I did so painstakingly  I hear you, and I've heard this position hundreds and hundreds of times at this point. I just disagree and have good explanation for why its a flawed premise.

 You said purely healthy people will see a reduction in their living standard to support this, implying a worsening financial or economic situation to pay for the plan. I said 1) purely healthy people are mostly a myth, but even those who consider themselves so will benefit from higher quality of care and access to better doctors as well as the ability to go to the doctor regularly w.o additional charges, which promotes good health overall on a more consistent basis. Also, you would have to be relatively affluent in order to even begin to pay more under this plan than the current system, to the point where - a few hundred in your taxes a year offsetting is not going to move you from an upper middle class tax bracket to poor or even down to regular middle class level. The average American does not have enough disposable income to cover a tire going out suddenly, let alone surprise medical expenses from a procedure or check up, or a medical emergency, but they happen anyway, and most people do not have the kind of platinum access to good health care that will fully cover them. 

We cannot tinker around our system to fix things without building new things because our system is fundamentally broken. It is not an inadequate system that just needs to spend less on administration and move some things around, It's a system that is literally designed to make money, and not to provide adequate health care. It benefits from lack of coverage, and it profits off of denial of coverage for people. That means it must become a system that puts patient care and economic security for that care first.

If you'd like to propose that kind of drastic shift and also find a way to get every private corporation involved in the production of drug prices, drug manufacturing, and insurance coverage in a room and tell them all to cut it out with the taking advantage of people's situations and killing thousands a year, I welcome you to try it as an alternative  

Okay … I take back the insulting tone... your obviously passionate about your position … but as I see it ,  its the needy vs. those who have make do for themselves here ..

the 'tax the rich' is flawed in that the 'rich' control the economy, so any 'taxes' get trickled down to … you know who … 

its the reality of the US economy .. 

I'm just trying  to be pragmatic since I'm in the , make do with what I have category ...

 

The first politician who says … I want gov. to do a better job with the tax revenue we have and intend to lower taxes fairly'  will win me and millions of voters ...

 

Thank you .. I have no further argument. 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

10 hours ago, Musicisfreedom said:

@PartySick @ItsTommyBitch @Franz Ferdinand thanks so much for replying and not making me feel stupid. I appreciate it so much. Your answers were so helpful

Its not a stupid question , infact, its a major issue that's being over shadowed by  lot of other issues right now ..

The Bernie dems are saying that increased payroll taxes will be offset by lower insurance and medcare costs ..

What I'm purporting , if you care … is that the people who don't need medical care are gonna be paying a bigger slice of their income … 

Socialism says the no one should excel too far beyond the mass so it limits the highest acheivers to balance the lowest ...

It hasn't worked out that way yet, and the gov. is the only one who has any security or control of the economy... less freedom...

 

Its like a penalty for success and staying healthy...

[Economy 52,928]

7 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

Its not a stupid question , infact, its a major issue that's being over shadowed by  lot of other issues right now ..

The Bernie dems are saying that increased payroll taxes will be offset by lower insurance and medcare costs ..

What I'm purporting , if you care … is that the people who don't need medical care are gonna be paying a bigger slice of their income … 

Socialism says the no one should excel too far beyond the mass so it limits the highest acheivers to balance the lowest ...

It hasn't worked out that way yet, and the gov. is the only one who has any security or control of the economy... less freedom...

 

Its like a penalty for success and staying healthy...

I would argue that since it's a cheaper version... Over the course of one's lifetime a typical person will likely save... Then there's the ethics of should a person that can afford it not get care?

 

On socialism as whole which was the convo earlier as I said on my comment I'm always very skeptical about it but not dead set against it

 

Government has to convince me they have an extremely sustainable plan for it long term and that they are going to use the increased financial resources they take from private sector and implement them really really well

 

Most of the time they don't manage to do that. Bernie as far as I'm concerned hasn't fully done that either

 

 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

@Economy - I'm going to oversimplify just a bit for a more Forrest view compared to the nuts and bolts of this conversation. The reality of the United States is that going far left is much more difficult than far right. The people who originally came over to this country were people who fled Britain because of the issue of freedom of religion. Much of our culture has religious overtones to it, and the christian religion in practice is much more socially conservative than it is economically in the US. That said, when you combine the intelligence community and a long history of imperialism, overthrowing governments and war with any country with black and brown folks, the US has a certain disposition to the right. But we also have socialist programs that have been used to try to serve as a check and balance to a market based capitalist system. The capitalist system is not sustainable and neither is authoritarian communism.There is a lot of space in between those two and the Bernie Sanders doctrine if you will is about as far as you can get away with in the United States. That does not mean the US all of a sudden becomes a socialist system, but what It is designed to do is to put a serious cap on the amount of wealth the rich can accumulate in our market economy. The people who disagree with this doctrine are of the opinion that markets work and that small tweaks to the system prevents the system from collapse while delivering assistance to our people. Over the course of the last 40 years, it has become clear that these 'tweaks' that have been made are not enough. Bernie's agenda is a strong pivot in the other direction. This does imply that the consequences and reactions will include some degree of instability; however, the system must change in a material way in order for this country to continue prosper without violence or mass poverty and suffering among our people. To some extent, we already have it in the form of mass shootings and crime. We have more people in jail than any other country and it is largely because of class as well as systems that are designed to be racist at every level. Another argument is almost always talking about the costs of programs; however, no one really discusses that there is a qualitative and even quantitative benefit to those costly programs. It's not like these programs require money to be sent and that it is a fixed sunk cost. Japan as an example has a huge deficit that continues to escalate; however, people have discussed the collapse of the Japanese economy for YEARS. So the idea that deficit spending in of itself is bad is really false. However, the spending must be spend in a way that brings forth an economic benefit going forward. I would argue that a purchase of 2T worth of military equipment, like Trump made recently, is NOT the best way to benefit the economy. The positive effects are much more limited. However, investing in education for people to learn a highly marketable skill, providing healthcare to keep the work force healthy, providing decent wages to provide for a meaningful and happy life brings forth the quantitative benefit in terms of the work force being able to produce goods and services of high quality while also bringing forth the qualitative benefit of a happy populace. One of the reasons Andrew Yang resonated so much before he dropped out is that he declared that your human and economic values are different and that we must stop only looking at the economic value but also your human value. To the extent that socialism is bad or has negative consequences we do not understand is a little bit too ominous in my opinion but to say we shouldn't move the US from the right where it has been for so long and push it to the left and closer to a social democracy seems to me to make the most sense as it balances out who has power in our country--it puts a great deal of effort to preventing a very small group of people from having all of the power and say as to what happens in our country. That's why having workers be part of corporate boards, even if not a majority is a good thing. You want that balance of power to be more equitable because when it is so one-sided, the results of public policy will always be in the favor of those who have all of the power. 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

1 hour ago, HorusRa2 said:

@Economy - I'm going to oversimplify just a bit for a more Forrest view compared to the nuts and bolts of this conversation. The reality of the United States is that going far left is much more difficult than far right. The people who originally came over to this country were people who fled Britain because of the issue of freedom of religion. Much of our culture has religious overtones to it, and the christian religion in practice is much more socially conservative than it is economically in the US. That said, when you combine the intelligence community and a long history of imperialism, overthrowing governments and war with any country with black and brown folks, the US has a certain disposition to the right. But we also have socialist programs that have been used to try to serve as a check and balance to a market based capitalist system. The capitalist system is not sustainable and neither is authoritarian communism.There is a lot of space in between those two and the Bernie Sanders doctrine if you will is about as far as you can get away with in the United States. That does not mean the US all of a sudden becomes a socialist system, but what It is designed to do is to put a serious cap on the amount of wealth the rich can accumulate in our market economy. The people who disagree with this doctrine are of the opinion that markets work and that small tweaks to the system prevents the system from collapse while delivering assistance to our people. Over the course of the last 40 years, it has become clear that these 'tweaks' that have been made are not enough. Bernie's agenda is a strong pivot in the other direction. This does imply that the consequences and reactions will include some degree of instability; however, the system must change in a material way in order for this country to continue prosper without violence or mass poverty and suffering among our people. To some extent, we already have it in the form of mass shootings and crime. We have more people in jail than any other country and it is largely because of class as well as systems that are designed to be racist at every level. Another argument is almost always talking about the costs of programs; however, no one really discusses that there is a qualitative and even quantitative benefit to those costly programs. It's not like these programs require money to be sent and that it is a fixed sunk cost. Japan as an example has a huge deficit that continues to escalate; however, people have discussed the collapse of the Japanese economy for YEARS. So the idea that deficit spending in of itself is bad is really false. However, the spending must be spend in a way that brings forth an economic benefit going forward. I would argue that a purchase of 2T worth of military equipment, like Trump made recently, is NOT the best way to benefit the economy. The positive effects are much more limited. However, investing in education for people to learn a highly marketable skill, providing healthcare to keep the work force healthy, providing decent wages to provide for a meaningful and happy life brings forth the quantitative benefit in terms of the work force being able to produce goods and services of high quality while also bringing forth the qualitative benefit of a happy populace. One of the reasons Andrew Yang resonated so much before he dropped out is that he declared that your human and economic values are different and that we must stop only looking at the economic value but also your human value. To the extent that socialism is bad or has negative consequences we do not understand is a little bit too ominous in my opinion but to say we shouldn't move the US from the right where it has been for so long and push it to the left and closer to a social democracy seems to me to make the most sense as it balances out who has power in our country--it puts a great deal of effort to preventing a very small group of people from having all of the power and say as to what happens in our country. That's why having workers be part of corporate boards, even if not a majority is a good thing. You want that balance of power to be more equitable because when it is so one-sided, the results of public policy will always be in the favor of those who have all of the power. 

This is my concern with Trump too ….. but the system is being exploited to attain this level of power and the Dem's are raising the red flag here...  

the problem is that the conservatives are backing Trump 'because' the of the 'far' left policy swing...

I thing is that the social democracy being presented is too far fetched unrealistic swipe at anyone successful …

Its like trying to balance two extremes balls of weight on a teater totter  that are swinging back and forth... not enough weight in the middle and it just gets worse and worse  

[Economy 52,928]

1 hour ago, HorusRa2 said:

@Economy - I'm going to oversimplify just a bit for a more Forrest view compared to the nuts and bolts of this conversation. The reality of the United States is that going far left is much more difficult than far right. The people who originally came over to this country were people who fled Britain because of the issue of freedom of religion. Much of our culture has religious overtones to it, and the christian religion in practice is much more socially conservative than it is economically in the US. That said, when you combine the intelligence community and a long history of imperialism, overthrowing governments and war with any country with black and brown folks, the US has a certain disposition to the right. But we also have socialist programs that have been used to try to serve as a check and balance to a market based capitalist system. The capitalist system is not sustainable and neither is authoritarian communism.There is a lot of space in between those two and the Bernie Sanders doctrine if you will is about as far as you can get away with in the United States. That does not mean the US all of a sudden becomes a socialist system, but what It is designed to do is to put a serious cap on the amount of wealth the rich can accumulate in our market economy. The people who disagree with this doctrine are of the opinion that markets work and that small tweaks to the system prevents the system from collapse while delivering assistance to our people. Over the course of the last 40 years, it has become clear that these 'tweaks' that have been made are not enough. Bernie's agenda is a strong pivot in the other direction. This does imply that the consequences and reactions will include some degree of instability; however, the system must change in a material way in order for this country to continue prosper without violence or mass poverty and suffering among our people. To some extent, we already have it in the form of mass shootings and crime. We have more people in jail than any other country and it is largely because of class as well as systems that are designed to be racist at every level. Another argument is almost always talking about the costs of programs; however, no one really discusses that there is a qualitative and even quantitative benefit to those costly programs. It's not like these programs require money to be sent and that it is a fixed sunk cost. Japan as an example has a huge deficit that continues to escalate; however, people have discussed the collapse of the Japanese economy for YEARS. So the idea that deficit spending in of itself is bad is really false. However, the spending must be spend in a way that brings forth an economic benefit going forward. I would argue that a purchase of 2T worth of military equipment, like Trump made recently, is NOT the best way to benefit the economy. The positive effects are much more limited. However, investing in education for people to learn a highly marketable skill, providing healthcare to keep the work force healthy, providing decent wages to provide for a meaningful and happy life brings forth the quantitative benefit in terms of the work force being able to produce goods and services of high quality while also bringing forth the qualitative benefit of a happy populace. One of the reasons Andrew Yang resonated so much before he dropped out is that he declared that your human and economic values are different and that we must stop only looking at the economic value but also your human value. To the extent that socialism is bad or has negative consequences we do not understand is a little bit too ominous in my opinion but to say we shouldn't move the US from the right where it has been for so long and push it to the left and closer to a social democracy seems to me to make the most sense as it balances out who has power in our country--it puts a great deal of effort to preventing a very small group of people from having all of the power and say as to what happens in our country. That's why having workers be part of corporate boards, even if not a majority is a good thing. You want that balance of power to be more equitable because when it is so one-sided, the results of public policy will always be in the favor of those who have all of the power. 

There is a big space between the current Status Quo and what Bernie wants tho. We are not talking tweeks. Bernie himself has spoken of it as a "revolution". U say "as far as you can get away with the US" but his policies overall are quite left even by Scandinavian standards. I don't think that the current system not working is necessarily proof that going that far significantly left to what Bernie wants is a good idea.

 

And I do think it's an oversimplification. Because most ppl who support socialism do not even talk about making it work.... They just talk about programs

 

I think it can fail or work just as much depending on how it's implemented

 

To me it's extremely simple. If it's not executed with a good plan, socialism will fail. It needs to be executed well

 

Socialism by nature puts more resources and regulatory power in the hands of the Government so if that's going to be a positive to everyone then the government has to be competent. To me that's important. The Government has to manage resources as efficiently as private companies in a way that redistributes it as well. That's actually not an easy feat as Governments have a very big tendency to use more resources than private companies to accomplish the same tasks and they tend to have cost overruns. So planning is so crutial. It sounds easier than it is

 

Ppls only discussion seems to be which system is better capitalism or a more socialist like society. Again to me that's too oversimplifying it. There's a lot of variables about whether it turns out to be a positive thing long term or not

 

Also I do not subscribe to the idea that deficits are not a problem. If it grows faster than the economy and inflation at some point or another it will cause a problem. No one can say when but it eventually does

 

To be clear again, I'm not jabbing at socialism. I do think it can work with very good planning and if it targets the right things... What I am saying is that I think saying it's good or bad is oversimplifying it...

 

There's many things that can screw it up if not done properly and that's an important discussion to have as well instead of just labeling it as good or bad which is what almost everyone does which doesn't surprise me because ppl are so black and white with politics instead of looking at the deep complexities of everything

 

I think there's many different possible outcomes to a more socialist system in relation to now depending on how exactly it's done

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

Just now, Economy said:

There is a big space between the current Status Quo and what Bernie wants tho. We are not talking tweeks. Bernie himself has spoken of it as a "revolution"

 

I do think it's an oversimplification. Because most ppl who support socialism do not even talk about making it work.... They just talk about programs

 

I think it can fail or work just as much depending on how it's implemented

 

To me it's extremely simple. If it's not executed with a good plan, socialism will fail. It needs to be executed

 

Socialism by nature puts more resources and regulatory power in the hands of the Government so if that's going to be a positive to everyone then the government has to be competent. To me that's important

 

Ppls only discussion seems to be which system is better capitalism or a more socialist like society. Again to me that's too oversimplifying it. There's a lot of variables about whether it turns out to be a positive thing long term or not

 

Also I do not subscribe to the idea that deficits are not a problem. If it grows faster than the economy and inflation at some point or another it will cause a problem. No one can say when but it eventually does

But American politics is crooked and corrupt .. so 

the people in power aren't utiopian leaders in general ..

Bernie sounds all great .. but implementation will be a disaster and make things worse … imo … 

sorry if anyone is offended but that's how I see the current state of America .

[Phoenix Rises 954]

I voted for Pete here in MI! 

[Economy 52,928]

1 minute ago, Woolfsmck said:

But American politics is crooked and corrupt .. so 

the people in power aren't utiopian leaders in general ..

Bernie sounds all great .. but implementation will be a disaster and make things worse … imo … 

sorry if anyone is offended but that's how I see the current state of America .

My concern at the end of it all is that the government has a very big tendency to have cost over runs and they tend to not be as efficient at doing things as the private sector which is not surprising considering they don't have a profit motive to try to keep costs down as well as possible

 

Making government bigger and having those resources be used to benefit everyone is not my concern in itself. There's a lot of good the government can do and this is why I think socialism CAN work (within reason)

 

But there needs to be a strong plan in place to minimize unnecessary waste of resources and to make sure everything is payed for sustainably

 

If the government becomes in charge of a bigger portion of wealth allocation and labor usage and they are much less productive and efficient, the result is lower productivity per person

 

That would not be in anyone's interest. Bernie for example has proposed a job garantee program. How exactly would that work and what would he the standards for that???? Can u be lazy and still keep the job? It does say job garantee after all

 

So among other things competence and good planning and management of resources is important... And that's something I'm always skeptical of in any Government especially if they don't give very detailed plans on how they will do everything

[HorusRa2 5,005]

28 minutes ago, Economy said:

There is a big space between the current Status Quo and what Bernie wants tho. We are not talking tweeks. Bernie himself has spoken of it as a "revolution". U say "as far as you can get away with the US" but his policies overall are quite left even by Scandinavian standards. I don't think that the current system not working is necessarily proof that going that far significantly left to what Bernie wants is a good idea.

 

And I do think it's an oversimplification. Because most ppl who support socialism do not even talk about making it work.... They just talk about programs

 

I think it can fail or work just as much depending on how it's implemented

 

To me it's extremely simple. If it's not executed with a good plan, socialism will fail. It needs to be executed well

 

Socialism by nature puts more resources and regulatory power in the hands of the Government so if that's going to be a positive to everyone then the government has to be competent. To me that's important. The Government has to manage resources as efficiently as private companies in a way that redistributes it as well. That's actually not an easy feat as Governments have a very big tendency to use more resources than private companies to accomplish the same tasks and they tend to have cost overruns. So planning is so crutial. It sounds easier than it is

 

Ppls only discussion seems to be which system is better capitalism or a more socialist like society. Again to me that's too oversimplifying it. There's a lot of variables about whether it turns out to be a positive thing long term or not

 

Also I do not subscribe to the idea that deficits are not a problem. If it grows faster than the economy and inflation at some point or another it will cause a problem. No one can say when but it eventually does

 

To be clear again, I'm not jabbing at socialism. I do think it can work with very good planning and if it targets the right things... What I am saying is that I think saying it's good or bad is oversimplifying it...

 

There's many things that can screw it up if not done properly and that's an important discussion to have as well instead of just labeling it as good or bad which is what almost everyone does which doesn't surprise me because ppl are so black and white with politics instead of looking at the deep complexities of everything

 

I think there's many different possible outcomes to a more socialist system in relation to now depending on how exactly it's done

Again, I just want to point out that regardless of the fact that Bernie's platform is to the left of Scandinavian countries (in part), Bernie's platform and agenda is still not socialism and I think that's the disconnect between my response and your subsequent response. Bernie's platform as a whole still does not dismantle the market economy and does not put the government in charge of the means of production. Yes, there's an overemphasis on the plans and not the restructuring because the bulk of the content is in the plans. I do agree that Bernie's changes are drastic relative to where we are today but it doesn't fundamentally change the fact that the US is a mixed economy at the end of the day. It does not make the US a socialist country and it isn't going to destroy markets. 

 

I do agree that it has everything to do with implementation. For example the Bush stimulus package didn't go far enough to stimulate the economy bc the propensity to spend was not high. People had debts so the money they received did not go into the economy. Rather, it was used to pay off debts that did not result in more goods and services provided. So, retail sales didn't go up. The consumer confidence didn't go up and on and on it goes. The economy took much longer to build back up through Obama's leadership and even then there were serious problems (wage stagnation, people giving up on finding work, people working jobs they were more qualified for to make ends meet, etc). 

 

I just don't think the criticism that something drastic necessarily makes it bad and I know that you're much more skeptical in this regard and I respect it while disagreeing with it at the same time.