Sanders plan to wipe out student debt in question

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

21 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

Bernie's realistic expectations equate to turning the US in to a French socialist system ...

and ...

the fact that you can't see this a unrealistic is 'silly' to me...

That fact that you disguise your comformism as pragmatism is silly to me! 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

13 minutes ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

That fact that you disguise your comformism as pragmatism is silly to me! 

Good ..I guess … 

I'm not one for 'I told you so' but come next novemeber we'll see who's got unrealistic expectations in politics and economic policies.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, Woolfsmck said:

Bernie's realistic expectations equate to turning the US in to a French socialist system ...

and ...

the fact that you can't see this a unrealistic is 'silly' to me...

Sanders support is not wrested on a magical belief that he will get everything done, its on a trust that he will try harder than anyone else running. Anyone who knows his political history knows that he isn't a die-hard ideologue, he compromises all of the time and will do so in office. Like some moderates on here like to say, He is still a politician. I don't dispute that. The difference is that he just goes into it discussions with a "lets put our strongest foot forward" mindset rather than a "lets take the most conservative position possible and pray they agree with us" one which has unfortunately governed many major policy decisions of Democratic administrations for the last 20+ years.

It is labeled by him and his team in all press about it as a "movement" and a "Revolution" not to be trendy, but as an explicit acknowledgment that the kind of change required to pass his agenda requires that level of commitment and organizing power and energy. This is a huge difference in "theory of change" between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Warren wants to move the levers of power so to speak to create a more equitable and ethical capitalist system by working with people, and only being antagonistic to provably bad actors (such as monopolizing market forces and bad CEOs). Sanders doesn't want to include those people in the discussion in the first place, which requires a significant paradigm shift of our political system - the kind that isn't possible through just getting him into the white house and requires constant outside pressure from the ground up.

Unrealistic =/= Impossible. It means incredibly hard. That's why the solutions are at the scale of the problem.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

3 hours ago, Economy said:

Well I get ur skepticism there on a public option

And U don't know a single one??? Not one? Seriously? I've seen tones. Probably because u don't usually challange other Bernie supporters since they agree with u, u probably aren't even aware. I'll give u that the general narrative that Bernie supporters in general are unrealistic baffoons is way too generalized and unfair and very rude on the past of the Centrists and right wingers. But not one with unrealistic expectations?

But I also noticed U talk about Bernie (as do many of his supporters) and left wing politics with such perfection all the time like there's nothing wrong with Bernie or the left ever. I don't wanna accuse u of being super biased but u keep consistly coming across that way

Like I can't remember the last time u ever acknowledged any point from a right winger or even a centrist but u defend every tiny thing from the left. Can politics really be that black and white that one side is right on everything and the other side wrong on everything? I think it's beyond arrogant to even entertain that idea

I think anyone that is that devoted and loyal to a political ideology and dismissive of any other has probably developed tunnel vision

I respect that at least u are not rude and uncivil like many people are...

But I've also had countless and countless discussions with u and I have yet to see u consider another view point even once with any great degree of seriousness. I do respect u in many ways, I do. But I also question if some beliefs are not sticking in like religious beliefs that one won't truly ever question... There's a lot of legitimate arguments one can at least acknowledge about Bernie's proposals, without agreeing with them u can at least see the line of thinking. U even respond with constant Rip  emojies or like any arguments against him must be idiotic

The fact that u said that about Bernie supporters when he has such a large diverse base makes me think u don't wanna see things u don't wanna believe

And for the record I like him as a person and even like a lot of his ideas. It's not like I'm some biased hater. Im merely just not fully convinced on how far he wants to go on everything, it's not like I'm going out of my way to find faults. But since I'm not a dedicated Bernie lover either without that to cloud my judgement, to me a lot of flaws are pretty darn obvious too

I literally talk to people on a daily basis to get people to vote for Bernie through phone banking and door knocking and just general social media discourse and I have never had a discussion with someone who is "yeah if I vote for Bernie then he WILL get x-y-z done" - even from low information irregular or non voters and total strangers who are on board or considering him. Some may have more faith, but I've never met anyone who thinks his goals are easy to accomplish, which is why I referenced the civil rights movement and the labeling of his support base as a Movement looking for a Revolution. It is an explicit admission that his entire agenda will be difficult or nearly impossible to implement. (*edit* I'm not saying 0% of Bernie people are optimistic about him, I'm saying that a default assumption that that is the mental space of all bernie people or even most bernie people is unwise, because there are just as many people who are bernie supporters out of desperation, apathy, and pragmatism. People's political motivations should not be so summarily assumed in mass. I don't assume all Joe Biden supporters are just afraid of change and call it a day. I also don't assume Joe Biden supporters all believe his agenda will pass unanimously with bipartisan support either.)

Everyone who has ever participated in politics knows that no president keeps all of their promises. The point that people stress to me when I talk to them, and that I stress to others, is that they trust Bernie to try his hardest - more than other candidates. Many people I know who have gone from Warren to Bernie but were about equal in preference of both candidates saw her attack on him as sexist, her backing away from M4A, her recent acceptance of a Super PAC as signs that though they fight for similar ideas, they don't trust her to fight for them as strongly anymore. If she's going to back off of defining features of her campaign the second she runs out of money, or needs a bump in the polls, will she fight for anything? It's a valid concern and one informed by years of being burned by politics.  Many progressives and independents and young people voted for Obama for the things he said he would fight for. He immediately sold out his administration to establishment corporate interests though, and he ended up pushing for a regressive healthcare plan (that he explicitly campaigned against) and for leniency on criminally liable bankers and lenders. That burned a lot of people who put their faith in him and saw him as a progressive beacon of hope and change. Trust is a huge huge part of why people are voting and picking candidates like Bernie and also Biden over others.

I have an obvious open and explicit preference towards left politics. It does not mean I do not understand or acknowledge right politics or centrist politics, it means I pick the left over them critically. I can't speak for other people, but that is how I view my positions on any issue. If someone says "M4A will bankrupt the economy and worsen people's financial states in the middle class" and I say "This isn't true and here's why" why am I someone with tunnel vision and not someone who heard their argument and just provided reasons why they are wrong or that I just disagree? That doesn't follow to me at all, and its not a phenomenon thats exclusive to politics. 

I literally do this like, multiple hours of the day, every single day. I do not reject arguments at face value unless they are ones I have seriously considered. I hear "bernie's ideas are pie in the sky impossible" all day every day all over media, and there are plenty of times where I have to go back to why I got on board with his campaign and think if I can accept that that premise is true. I stop, I think, I decide. That I decide against it doesn't mean I've got tunnel vision.  I can literally give you dozens of examples off of the top of my head. Like, I am never "Hm, I disagree end of discussion" it is always "I disagree and here's an overly lengthy reason why I disagree."  You literally know this from talking to me about issues. You say you think Bernie's goals might be too lofty and worry that they won't be *as* effective as he thinks they will and that people may be getting too overboard in their expectations based on your own country's history and other countries with similar ideas. My response is the same - I don't see this as an "will this be 100% effective" issue, I see it as 'is this outcome still better than the status quo". Am I just blindly dismissing your position with that response?  

Also, your perception isn't accurate to my reality. I critique Bernie all of the time. I ask other Bernie supporters and progressives for their takes on issues that I don't know if I agree with. I argue, and I debate them. Just this week I have had many serious discussions about the merit of the castro issue, I have said that Bernie's team needs to do a better job of avoiding Russiagate propaganda and rhetoric because months ago I predicted it could be used against him (and it has been now), I have said that Bernie needs a better answer to the "he has 3 houses" message, he needs a rapid response team for misinformation because the "m4a will tax you 52% of your income!" thing is going viral on right wing media, I have criticized his position on the filibuster, I have criticized some of the ways he plans on funding some of his policies from a political effectiveness standpoint. I don't think he needs to pay for everything with a wealth tax (he doesnt, but many assume as much) because it is unnecessarily antagonistic. I think deficit spending is a more serious thing to discuss in any progressive administration than always cow-towing to "how will we pay for it! think of the children!" etc. Some antagonism is necessary, but some is burdensome. Maybe all of this is new to you because you've never seen it. It doesn't make it not true. It means you haven't seen it. (And yes, it is actually spread throughout this forum in different places! Sometimses in private messages, othertimes live reactions in debate threads, etc.) Your conclusion about this entire thing is in and ofitself a confirmation bias... not an indictment of my overflowing positivity in one direction and singular opposition to all other ideas or beliefs.

I'm not going to apologize for how I use emojis, I don't take them that seriously or use them maliciously beyond being a somewhat accurate representation of my facial expression or inner thoughts when I put them somewhere. This is the internet, we should all know that people interpret things differently as well.

Maybe "  " in some scenarios means I'm shutting my eyes at the suggestion of a position that I find too common, wrong, etc. Other times I'm thinking like a pop music fan and Im using "I'm deceased!" with rip as a shorthand reaction. Never using any emojis in my experience still leads to incorrect presumptions of intent in conversations - its somewhat unavoidable because this is still the internet, so I air on the side of just not caring, but if you want me to stop using emojis in any political discourse because you think they might come across as belittling, fine I really don't care either way  (That shrug is just a further expression of my indifference).

[HorusRa2 5,005]

9 hours ago, hankhatesyouall said:

0.1% is a huge tax for the stock market. This will never happen. 
Why are stock market investors supposed to pay for your education? This makes zero sense. 

Sanders  appears to target only billionaires during this election cycle because he's now a millionaire  himself. He was a jobless loser before holding pubic office, and now he's making a lot of greenbacks by selling his socialist propaganda to spoiled Americans millennials.   

It is not a huge tax. It is a 0.1% tax. How can you say a 1/10th of 1% is a huge tax. It’s not a 10% tax.  

Also; they would have to go back to September 2019 to report the fact the program was unpopular lmao. What a joke. I tried to find additional polling but there isn’t any. The data is months old and isn’t relevant. (Also the article has it hurried but nearly 2/3 of Democrats do support it). 

Oh and the reason they should pay is bc the govt and by extension tax payers bailed out Wall Street and big banks the last time the economy tanked and now that the corporations on Wall Street are making record money, the so-called trickle down theory didn’t actually come to benefit working people. So, the govt has to intervene and make it happen. 

[Economy 52,931]

9 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I literally talk to people on a daily basis to get people to vote for Bernie through phone banking and door knocking and just general social media discourse and I have never had a discussion with someone who is "yeah if I vote for Bernie then he WILL get x-y-z done" - even from low information irregular or non voters and total strangers who are on board or considering him. Some may have more faith, but I've never met anyone who thinks his goals are easy to accomplish, which is why I referenced the civil rights movement and the labeling of his support base as a Movement looking for a Revolution. It is an explicit admission that his entire agenda will be difficult or nearly impossible to implement.

Everyone who has ever participated in politics knows that no president keeps all of their promises. The point that people stress to me when I talk to them, and that I stress to others, is that they trust Bernie to try his hardest - more than other candidates. Many people I know who have gone from Warren to Bernie but were about equal in preference of both candidates saw her attack on him as sexist, her backing away from M4A, her recent acceptance of a Super PAC as signs that though they fight for similar ideas, they don't trust her to fight for them as strongly anymore. If she's going to back off of defining features of her campaign the second she runs out of money, or needs a bump in the polls, will she fight for anything? It's a valid concern and one informed by years of being burned by politics.  Many progressives and independents and young people voted for Obama for the things he said he would fight for. He immediately sold out his administration to establishment corporate interests though, and he ended up pushing for a regressive healthcare plan (that he explicitly campaigned against) and for leniency on criminally liable bankers and lenders. That burned a lot of people who put their faith in him and saw him as a progressive beacon of hope and change. Trust is a huge huge part of why people are voting and picking candidates like Bernie and also Biden over others.

I have an obvious open and explicit preference towards left politics. It does not mean I do not understand or acknowledge right politics or centrist politics, it means I pick the left over them critically. I can't speak for other people, but that is how I view my positions on any issue. If someone says "M4A will bankrupt the economy and worsen people's financial states in the middle class" and I say "This isn't true and here's why" why am I someone with tunnel vision and not someone who heard their argument and just provided reasons why they are wrong or that I just disagree? That doesn't follow to me at all, and its not a phenomenon thats exclusive to politics. 

I literally do this like, multiple hours of the day, every single day. I do not reject arguments at face value unless they are ones I have seriously considered. I hear "bernie's ideas are pie in the sky impossible" all day every day all over media, and there are plenty of times where I have to go back to why I got on board with his campaign and think if I can accept that that premise is true. I stop, I think, I decide. That I decide against it doesn't mean I've got tunnel vision.  I can literally give you dozens of examples off of the top of my head. Like, I am never "Hm, I disagree end of discussion" it is always "I disagree and here's an overly lengthy reason why I disagree."  You literally know this from talking to me about issues. You say you think Bernie's goals might be too lofty and worry that they won't be *as* effective as he thinks they will and that people may be getting too overboard in their expectations based on your own country's history and other countries with similar ideas. My response is the same - I don't see this as an "will this be 100% effective" issue, I see it as 'is this outcome still better than the status quo". Am I just blindly dismissing your position with that response?  

Also, your perception isn't accurate to my reality. I critique Bernie all of the time. I ask other Bernie supporters and progressives for their takes on issues that I don't know if I agree with. I argue, and I debate them. Just this week I have had many serious discussions about the merit of the castro issue, I have said that Bernie's team needs to do a better job of avoiding Russiagate propaganda and rhetoric because months ago I predicted it could be used against him (and it has been now), I have said that Bernie needs a better answer to the "he has 3 houses" message, he needs a rapid response team for misinformation because the "m4a will tax you 52% of your income!" thing is going viral on right wing media, I have criticized his position on the filibuster, I have criticized some of the ways he plans on funding some of his policies from a political effectiveness standpoint. I don't think he needs to pay for everything with a wealth tax (he doesnt, but many assume as much) because it is unnecessarily antagonistic. I think deficit spending is a more serious thing to discuss in any progressive administration than always cow-towing to "how will we pay for it! think of the children!" etc. Some antagonism is necessary, but some is burdensome. Maybe all of this is new to you because you've never seen it. It doesn't make it not true. It means you haven't seen it. (And yes, it is actually spread throughout this forum in different places! Sometimses in private messages, othertimes live reactions in debate threads, etc.) Your conclusion about this entire thing is in and ofitself a confirmation bias... not an indictment of my overflowing positivity in one direction and singular opposition to all other ideas or beliefs.

I'm not going to apologize for how I use emojis, I don't take them that seriously or use them maliciously beyond being a somewhat accurate representation of my facial expression or inner thoughts when I put them somewhere. This is the internet, we should all know that people interpret things differently as well.

Maybe "  " in some scenarios means I'm shutting my eyes at the suggestion of a position that I find too common, wrong, etc. Other times I'm thinking like a pop music fan and Im using "I'm deceased!" with rip as a shorthand reaction. Never using any emojis in my experience still leads to incorrect presumptions of intent in conversations - its somewhat unavoidable because this is still the internet, so I air on the side of just not caring, but if you want me to stop using emojis in any political discourse because you think they might come across as belittling, fine I really don't care either way  (That shrug is just a further expression of my indifference).

Then I hope I just misinterpreted your spirit behind it all cuz it did slowly started to come across like u kinda just had a dead set opinion on almost everything and anything that wasn't left ideas to you are automatically just dumb 

 

Because uve always been civil and not rude I didn't notice it right away but over time some stuff started coming across a certain way

 

As for emojies Maybe I just read too much into emjies I'm sorry

 

 

[Economy 52,931]

10 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

It is not a huge tax. It is a 0.1% tax. How can you say a 1/10th of 1% is a huge tax. It’s not a 10% tax.  

Also; they would have to go back to September 2019 to report the fact the program was unpopular lmao. What a joke. I tried to find additional polling but there isn’t any. The data is months old and isn’t relevant. (Also the article has it hurried but nearly 2/3 of Democrats do support it). 

Oh and the reason they should pay is bc the govt and by extension tax payers bailed out Wall Street and big banks the last time the economy tanked and now that the corporations on Wall Street are making record money, the so-called trickle down theory didn’t actually come to benefit working people. So, the govt has to intervene and make it happen. 

Agreed on the tax but on the bailout let's not forget it was just a loan it still had to be payed back

 

Back to the tax. I like that's it's also a more consistent tax

 

Taxes like wealth tax or capital gains can be unpredictable based on stock market performance while a transaction tax would be more consistent and predictable

[HorusRa2 5,005]

5 minutes ago, Economy said:

Agreed on the tax but on the bailout let's not forget it was just a loan it still had to be payed back

 

Back to the tax. I like that's it's also a more consistent tax

 

Taxes like wealth tax or capital gains can be unpredictable based on stock market performance while a transaction tax would be more consistent and predictable

Again, I point back to the fact that if trickle down economics was real, then why is it that after the economy was saved by the loan given and the time it took to rocover did wages not keep up with either productivity or inflation? The fact of the matter is Wall Street and the banks got a free loan from the taxpayers through the govt and the people didn’t get anything for it. Corporate america needs to have consequences for its actions just as much as the taxpayers. 

 

What i I like about the tax is that I hope it brings greater stability to the market. I mean the stock market is just high stakes gambling to be frank. Considering what happened today on the stock market in particular proves that it in of itself. 

 

Agree with your take re: wealth and capital gains vs transaction tax. 

[Economy 52,931]

11 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

Again, I point back to the fact that if trickle down economics was real, then why is it that after the economy was saved by the loan given and the time it took to rocover did wages not keep up with either productivity or inflation? The fact of the matter is Wall Street and the banks got a free loan from the taxpayers through the govt and the people didn’t get anything for it. Corporate america needs to have consequences for its actions just as much as the taxpayers. 

 

What i I like about the tax is that I hope it brings greater stability to the market. I mean the stock market is just high stakes gambling to be frank. Considering what happened today on the stock market in particular proves that it in of itself. 

 

Agree with your take re: wealth and capital gains vs transaction tax. 

Well it's not about trickle down economics the point of the bailout was to save jobs not to raise wages... I don't have much faith in trickle down economics myself (at least not for the modern economy anyway)

 

But I was still in favour of the bailouts. Had all the companies failed the damage would have been even worse including to the average person

 

I thought u implied they got free money or something tho. It was loans not grants

 

Edit: I also agree with u on stability. Speculators make market volatile so anything to discourage it is a positive

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

29 minutes ago, Economy said:

Then I hope I just misinterpreted your spirit behind it all cuz it did slowly started to come across like u kinda just had a dead set opinion on almost everything and anything that wasn't left ideas to you are automatically just dumb 

Because uve always been civil and not rude I didn't notice it right away but over time some stuff started coming across a certain way

As for emojies Maybe I just read too much into emjies I'm sorry

 

I can't speak for anyone else who identifies as being on the left, but it is frustrating that people assume so much about me when I like *literally* am always overflowing with details about why I feel the way I do. Like, it's literally annoying as hell, and I do it all the time anyway.

I literally was a Hillary supporter in early 2015, moved to Bernie for about half a year, and then back to Hillary once my primary had ended and I felt like he didnt have enough black support or diverse support at all to win a general election, even though we were still closer aligned politically than I was to Hillary (whose foreign policy was and is still horrendous) I used to identify as a left-leaning centrist and a liberal. I rejected the progressive label outside of a hippy-dippy "all democrats are progressive! all republicans are regressive!" mindset. I didn't identify as a socialist, I thought it went too far. Probably the only constant is that I've identified as a feminist since the 7th grade.

My positions have simply evolved as I've gotten older and had more experiences and had more conversations with people - many on this website. 

Take my word for it or not, but I know that my opinions on things are flexible and open. Nothing Bernie has proposed is set in stone either in how I feel about it or how it should and could be implemented. Will a M4A bill be passed as it is currently written, if at all? Don't know. If one passes though, it will be different than Bernie's current bill. That's just how politics work, and its a big reason why Warren IMO was unwise to cave into "you dont have a plan for it!" she obviously like everyone on the stage knows that it would be voted on and critiqued and modified in committees for a long time before it came to pass, so a structural outlining of a proposal or beginning bill actually IS sufficient to fight for a bills passage.

The only things I see happening with like, 99% certainty in a Sanders administration are a swift descheduling of Marijuana out of a schedule-1 drug on the same level of Heroin (an effective decriminalization, legalization would require a law), a moratorium on deportations for Immigrants, and a somewhat drastic and lasting shift in our foreign policy away from adventurism and interventionism. Oh and declaring a Climate Crisis National Emergency (thanks Steyer)

 Those are all things he can certainly do that are constitutional and do not require legislation. Some scholars argue that he could in theory do things like cancel student debt through some loopholes w.o needing an act of congress, but he wants to pass a bill probably to avoid being seen as overreaching. A Sanders administration would certainly be a stretch for conservatives who would likely try to threaten any executive actions he takes as being overreach, something he is acutely aware of (which is hilarious post Trump, and a reason I believe Dems may be inclined to support Sanders tbh if it comes to it, as they did with Obama's executive orders). 

[whore 11,447]

[redacted] 

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

2 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

The only things I see happening with like, 99% certainty in a Sanders administration are a swift descheduling of Marijuana out of a schedule-1 drug on the same level of Heroin (an effective decriminalization, legalization would require a law), a moratorium on deportations for Immigrants, and a somewhat drastic and lasting shift in our foreign policy away from adventurism and interventionism. Those are all things he can certainly do that are constitutional and do not require legislation. Some scholars argue that he could in theory do things like cancel student debt through some loopholes w.o needing an act of congress, but he wants to pass a bill probably to avoid being seen as overreaching. A Sanders administration would certainly be a stretch for conservatives who would likely try to threaten any executive actions he takes as being overreach, something he is acutely aware of (which is hilarious post Trump, and a reason I believe Dems may be inclined to support Sanders tbh if it comes to it, as they did with Obama's executive orders). 

From your lips to God's ears.  Pls vote y'all.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

18 minutes ago, Economy said:

Well it's not about trickle down economics the point of the bailout was to save jobs not to raise wages... I don't have much faith in trickle down economics myself (at least not for the modern economy anyway)

 

But I was still in favour of the bailouts. Had all the companies failed the damage would have been even worse including to the average person

 

I thought u implied they got free money or something tho. It was loans not grants

 

Edit: I also agree with u on stability. Speculators make market volatile so anything to discourage it is a positive

I understand that the bailout was done to save the jobs but what I’m saying is that ever since that bailout, it does not appear that workers saw any real prosperity in this time of economic expansion since that bailout occurred & that’s what I think needs to change. 

[Economy 52,931]

2 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I can't speak for anyone else who identifies as being on the left, but it is frustrating that people assume so much about me when I like *literally* am always overflowing with details about why I feel the way I do. Like, it's literally annoying as hell, and I do it all the time anyway.

I literally was a Hillary supporter in early 2015, moved to Bernie for about half a year, and then back to Hillary once my primary had ended and I felt like he didnt have enough black support or diverse support at all to win a general election, even though we were still closer aligned politically than I was to Hillary (whose foreign policy was and is still horrendous) I used to identify as a left-leaning centrist and a liberal. I rejected the progressive label outside of a hippy-dippy "all democrats are progressive! all republicans are regressive!" mindset. I didn't identify as a socialist, I thought it went too far. Probably the only constant is that I've identified as a feminist since the 7th grade.

My positions have simply evolved as I've gotten older and had more experiences and had more conversations with people - many on this website. 

Take my word for it or not, but I know that my opinions on things are flexible and open. Nothing Bernie has proposed is set in stone either in how I feel about it or how it should and could be implemented. Will a M4A bill be passed as it is currently written, if at all? Don't know. If one passes though, it will be different than Bernie's current bill. That's just how politics work, and its a big reason why Warren IMO was unwise to cave into "you dont have a plan for it!" she obviously like everyone on the stage knows that it would be voted on and critiqued and modified in committees for a long time before it came to pass, so a structural outlining of a proposal or beginning bill actually IS sufficient to fight for a bills passage.

The only things I see happening with like, 99% certainty in a Sanders administration are a swift descheduling of Marijuana out of a schedule-1 drug on the same level of Heroin (an effective decriminalization, legalization would require a law), a moratorium on deportations for Immigrants, and a somewhat drastic and lasting shift in our foreign policy away from adventurism and interventionism. Those are all things he can certainly do that are constitutional and do not require legislation. Some scholars argue that he could in theory do things like cancel student debt through some loopholes w.o needing an act of congress, but he wants to pass a bill probably to avoid being seen as overreaching. A Sanders administration would certainly be a stretch for conservatives who would likely try to threaten any executive actions he takes as being overreach, something he is acutely aware of (which is hilarious post Trump, and a reason I believe Dems may be inclined to support Sanders tbh if it comes to it, as they did with Obama's executive orders). 

It's not lack of details for ur opinions that I was getting at but whatever. If I started to get an unfairly twisted perception of u being stubborn or inflexible then I apologize. That is the way it started to come across to me

 

As for the left as a whole many don't want to seem to want to understand even basic economics 

 

Like when I get detailed mathematics as to why the wealth in the stock market doesn't all truly exist in cash and how u can only tax maybe 7% of it ppl can't seem to even grasp a basic concept like this...

 

Hence why when I have opinions that what's possible and how much wealth u can actually redistribute is being over estimated and ppl don't even acknowledge the possibility that I may have a point, at least acknowledge the possibility even if they are not convinced... 

 

It does feel like they are dead set on ideals without serious scrutiny of what's possible and what isn't

 

I agree with u that part of the way is better than no progress. But for basic mathematics that apply (and this isn't debatable based on politics, math is math) u can't tax even 10% of asset wealth in the stock market

 

The wealth tax longer term promises a lot more than it can deliver. Experts have warned Bernie's plan will never yield as.much as he thinks and he doesn't seem to take it seriously

 

[Economy 52,931]

25 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

I understand that the bailout was done to save the jobs but what I’m saying is that ever since that bailout, it does not appear that workers saw any real prosperity in this time of economic expansion since that bailout occurred & that’s what I think needs to change. 

Agreed and things like higher minimum wage and redistribution should help with that

 

I'm just saying I don't think the bailouts were a failure for what they were meant to do

 

They were an emergency tool to prevent a bunch of bankruptcies and save jobs. The bailouts by nature do nothing for trickle down of wealth nor do I think that was ever the intention (even if a few far right wingers claimed otherwise)

 

The bailout loans didn't make anyone richer than before. Not the people and not the companies that ultimately had to pay the loans back... It was to prevent damage and downward spiral from being even worse during the worst point of the crisis