"Feel the Bern": The BERNIE SANDERS Thread - Part 1

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]502223[/split]

 

[DDS]

The mods have approved a thread for discussion about the 73 year old senator from Vermont and Democratic candidate for the 2016 Election, so here it is.

Do you agree with his ideas - such as raising the minimum wage and bringing reforms to Wall Street - or do you find them to be too far to the left to actually work? Does he have a real shot at the presidency, or is Hillary the Democrat to beat? Discuss!

 

[hitmanyr2k]

This is a great article IMO.

https://medium.com/@zacharyleven/the-case-for-hillary-3564233d524f#.zf6uz0c0x

I like Bernie. He is a likable guy with his heart in the right place. But I think he's out of touch with reality, and could do much more damage to the left than good in the long run.

I was 21 when Obama was running for office. So I know what it's like to be young and swept up in an exciting political movement with big, bold, ideas. I can totally sympathize with being disillusioned with the system and connecting with a candidate representing change that seems more like a real person than a politician. It's the same thing fueling Trump's movement.

I'm not looking to bash on Bernie, but I do wish more of his supporters would take a closer look at Hillary and not paint her with such a broad brush. IMO "Bernie or Bern it" is very dangerous thinking that could lead us straight to President Trump.

It's not just the fact that he's likable and idealistic or as his delusional opponents calling it "giving away free stuff". What's appealing to me about him is he's been consistent and absolutely correct on major issues over the last 20+ years that have had a serious negative impact on this country. Sure his policies are a bit extreme and will never see the light of day because they'll never get through Congress anyway but he's been speaking for the people for the last two decades and that's why his message is getting across now. He was the one sounding the alarms for years while the other braindead politicians (Democrats and Republicans) were asleep at the wheel or being bought pushing through deregulation, voting for dumb wars, ignoring what wall street was doing. That's another reason he appeals to me is because he has clashed with both parties.

Clinton's repeal of the the Glass Steagall Act was a monumental f**k up. Bernie "Nostradamus" Sanders voted against it and predicted the consequences in fire and brimstone right down to the last detail. This stupid decision snow-balled into economic catastrophe. Under a Sanders presidency this wouldn't have happened.

[YT]0YYNg2wJ3I4[/YT]


The main thing Sanders warned everyone about over and over and over was throughout the 2000's was Wall street and their gambling with America's money and he predicted it would be the American people to bail them out when it all came crashing down. And when the 2008 crash happened every dummy in America was shocked about Americans losing all their livelihoods....except Bernie because he was telling everyone and their mother what was going on for almost a decade and the dullards never listened. And guess where 800 billion in tax dollars went? To wall street and the big banks just as he predicted. Some of those CEOs laughed to the Cayman Islands with millions in bonuses for running their banks into the ground while regular Americans lost their jobs, homes, and retirement.

[YT]Ca-GncBz60M[/YT]


The Iraq war. Bernie had the guts to vote against the Iraq war when it was very unpopular to do so after 9/11. Dumb Americans wanted blood at any cost after we were attacked and the spineless politicians (Hillary included) bowed down to peer pressure because they thought Americans would think they were weak if they didn't fall in line. Sanders didn't believe what the Bush administration was selling and called out every single thing that could go wrong from rushing into conflict. And guess what? Everything he said happened. He had the foresight to vote against a stupid war which cost us 2+ trillion in war spending, 5000 American lives (thousands more injured and maimed), and de-stabilized the middle east which as a consequence we're still pouring money and resources into never-ending conflicts this very day. Once again under a Sanders presidency this wouldn't have happened.

[YT]2ySJLIc5BJM[/YT]


These dumb decisions and monumental mistakes by Republicans and Democrats alike have cost this country trillions of dollars and ruined millions of lives along the way. This dude has been calling it right all along and it's like people are just now starting to listen to the grumpy old man lol. I don't even think Bernie believes he can win the nomination. There's just too much stacked against him. However, I do think he likes having a national platform where he can drill this stuff into the heads of the American people and push the eventual Democratic nominee towards truly serving the people. So yeah, people can call him a "socialist" or whatever other name they can think of but fact of the matter is his judgment has been been consistent and on point.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/joe-sanders-campaign-has-everything-right-now-620917315982

 

[BatLobster]

However, I do think he likes having a national platform where he can drill this stuff into the heads of the American people and push the eventual Democratic nominee towards truly serving the people. So yeah, people can call him a "socialist" or whatever other name they can think of but fact of the matter is his judgment has been been consistent and on point.

That's exactly the value I see in Bernie too. He's injecting a lot of passion into the conversation and bringing awareness to those issues.

And I also think how far he's come as a grassroots effort is a tremendous step in showing that in today's social media age, you don't need big money support if you're resonating people. It's a game-changer, no doubt.

Whether or not I think he's the right person to be the next Commander in Chief is a totally separate issue though. But I respect your opinion. Bernie has been right about a lot, for sure.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I just love the fact that he's thrown a wrench into Hillary and Debbie's plans.

 

[Kelly]

Passion is wonderful, and I love it, Idealism is wonderful, and I love it....but throwing around passion and idealism isn't worth squat if you can't pay for it. Thus far, I've been listening intently to his passion and idealism, and I'm still waiting on the implementation process and cost.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Can someone answer a question.

If Bernie wins New Hampshire in a landslide but Hillary gets hundreds of super delegates and Bernie only gets 8, then what's the point of the public voting?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Passion is wonderful, and I love it, Idealism is wonderful, and I love it....but throwing around passion and idealism isn't worth squat if you can't pay for it. Thus far, I've been listening intently to his passion and idealism, and I'm still waiting on the implementation process and cost.

You can find his policies online:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

 

[Kelly]

I know his policies....

Very idealistic....I got that back in 2008.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Can someone answer a question.

If Bernie wins New Hampshire in a landslide but Hillary gets hundreds of super delegates and Bernie only gets 8, then what's the point of the public voting?

If Bernie wins enough primaries and caucuses, I think the super delegates will stand aside and give him the nomination. Unlike the GOP where I think in the end the establishment will ensure that Trump will not get the nomination (and maybe Cruz as well), the Democrats can't afford the PR onslaught if the super delegates deny Bernie the nomination if he has a clear lead over Hillary.

That said, expecting the super delegates to support Bernie is just absurd, even if Hillary and Sanders are close to tied. It's ridiculous to expect Democratic office holders and party officials to support someone who isn't even a Democrat, let alone support someone who doesn't line up with them ideologically.

And keep in mind that in the end, both parties are not arms of the government, they're still private organizations. Just like how voters should have a say in who the nominee is, people within the party, should also have a say. And they have a responsibility to the party to make sure that something disastrous doesn't happen. Just like how a CEO has the responsibility to ensure that the company he or she runs is not run to the ground.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I know his policies....

Very idealistic....I got that back in 2008.

Is the country really worse off than it was in late 2008?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I know his policies....

Very idealistic....I got that back in 2008.

But it says how they would be implmented and where the money comes from.

Also, a lot of this is on voters who need to actually vote some Liberals into the House and Senate.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

If Bernie wins enough primaries and caucuses, I think the super delegates will stand aside and give him the nomination. Unlike the GOP where I think in the end the establishment will ensure that Trump will not get the nomination (and maybe Cruz as well), the Democrats can't afford the PR onslaught if the super delegates deny Bernie the nomination if he has a clear lead over Hillary.

That said, expecting the super delegates to support Bernie is just absurd, even if Hillary and Sanders are close to tied. It's ridiculous to expect Democratic office holders and party officials to support someone who isn't even a Democrat, let alone support someone who doesn't line up with them ideologically.

And keep in mind that in the end, both parties are not arms of the government, they're still private organizations. Just like how voters should have a say in who the nominee is, people within the party, should also have a say. And they have a responsibility to the party to make sure that something disastrous doesn't happen. Just like how a CEO has the responsibility to ensure that the company he or she runs is not run to the ground.

I think if the Republican super delegates go against the voters too obviously things will get ugly. Incredibly ugly.

Also is an organization deciding the nominee for president really democracy?

 

[hippie_hunter]

You can find his policies online:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

FYI Sanders' revenue projections are not in line with reality. For example, his capital gains tax increase proposal is actually so ridiculously high to the point where there would be no gains in revenue, possibly resulting in revenue losses. And I think that many of his proposals, particularly in trying to combat overseas corporate income, will face serious legal challenges.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

FYI Sanders' revenue projections are not in line with reality. For example, his capital gains tax increase proposal is actually so ridiculously high to the point where there would be no gains in revenue, possibly resulting in revenue losses. And I think that many of his proposals, particularly in trying to combat overseas corporate income, will face serious legal challenges.

This is interesting. Could I see some writing in this?

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think if the Republican super delegates go against the voters too obviously things will get ugly. Incredibly ugly.

Also is an organization deciding the nominee for president really democracy?

It would be ugly, but I think that the GOP would willingly sacrifice 2016 to prevent the destruction of the party's viability for the White House. And in the long run, they will probably be forgiven. With Sanders though, it would be a PR nightmare for a long time. While a Sanders nomination would most likely give the election to the GOP, it wouldn't destroy the party the way a Trump nomination would.

 

[hippie_hunter]

This is interesting. Could I see some writing in this?

Vox has actually been very critical in Sanders' fiscal plans.

In general, I'm comfortable with higher taxes on the rich — though they've risen substantially in the Obama era already — but tax increases of the scale Sanders proposes here would begin to have real economic drawbacks. European countries tend to pay for their health care systems through more broad-based, economically efficient taxes like VATs; Sanders's effort to fund a universal health care system so heavily on the backs of the wealthy would be unprecedented...

"They assumed $10 trillion in health care savings over 10 years," says Larry Levitt, vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "That’s tremendously aggressive cost containment, even after you take the administrative savings into account."

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/17/10784528/bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-care

The Sanders campaign estimates they'll earn $92 billion a year from taxing capital gains the same as wages. But there's reason to think they'll actually lose revenue.

One thing that happens when you increase the capital gains rate is that people stop selling assets — and thus realizing gains on capital that can be taxed — as frequently. That means there's a point beyond which raising the capital gains tax would reduce sales so much that revenue actually falls.

It seems quite possible, then, that Sanders's plans would spur people owning stocks and other investments to sell them less regularly, reducing tax revenue by enough to offset any gain from the increase in the rate.

One caveat here is that Sanders supports ending "step-up basis," a loophole that means inherited goods that heirs then sell are taxed on the value they gained since the point of inheritance, rather than since the point at which the deceased bought it.

That's not just a big windfall for rich heirs, it's a powerful incentive for people with valuable assets to not sell them and instead give them to their heirs. Repealing this loophole would on the margins make people more willing to sell valuable assets, partially counteracting the effect of Sanders's rate hikes.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates

As for legally challenging Sanders' fight against inversions and whatnot, that's more speculation on my part based on how corporations act and how current law benefits them.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

It would be ugly, but I think that the GOP would willingly sacrifice 2016 to prevent the destruction of the party's viability for the White House. And in the long run, they will probably be forgiven. With Sanders though, it would be a PR nightmare for a long time. While a Sanders nomination would most likely give the election to the GOP, it wouldn't destroy the party the way a Trump nomination would.

But alienating Trump and Cruz supporters to that extent could lead to a viable third party for general elections which would be equally disastrous for the GOP.

 

[hippie_hunter]

But alienating Trump and Cruz supporters to that extent could lead to a viable third party for general elections which would be equally disastrous for the GOP.

Disastrous for 2016, yes. Disastrous in the long run, I don't think so.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Vox has actually been very critical in Sanders' fiscal plans.



http://www.vox.com/2016/1/17/10784528/bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-care


http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates

As for legally challenging Sanders' fight against inversions and whatnot, that's more speculation on my part based on how corporations act and how current law benefits them.

Thank you for the links hippie hunter.

These points are more then fair, and actually make good sense. And you are very right on how such corporations act and how they can use the legal system to their advantage.

 

[hippie_hunter]

More on Bernie's fiscal delusions:

Bernie Sanders's health care plan is underfunded by almost $1.1 trillion a year, a new analysis by Emory University health care expert Kenneth Thorpe finds.

Thorpe isn't some right-wing critic skeptical of all single-payer proposals. Indeed, in 2006 he laid out a single-payer proposal for Vermont after being hired by the legislature, and was retained by progressive Vermont lawmakers again in 2014 as the state seriously considered single-payer, authoring a memo laying out alternative ways to expand coverage. A 2005 report he wrote estimated that a single-payer system would save $1.1 trillion in health spending from 2006 to 2015.

But he nonetheless concludes that single-payer at a national level would be significantly more expensive than the Sanders campaign believes, and would require workers to pay an additional 20 percent of their compensation in taxes. He also argues it would leave 71 percent of households with private insurance worse off once you take both tax increases and reduced health care expenditures into account.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payer


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/u...n-would-test-an-economic-hypothesis.html?_r=1

 

[Thundercrack85]

I still don't understand how every other country where you can drink water from the faucet without dying can do it, but America can't.

Seriously. What's their secret?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I still don't understand how every other country where you can drink water from the faucet without dying can do it, but America can't.

Seriously. What's their secret?

Not sure, but the price of medication is probably a starting point.

 

[Thundercrack85]

What if we paid Canada to do it?