And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[JBS]

Maybe he's an extremest (if you consider emulating Norway as extremism) but I don't see that he is a hypocrite. He doesn't say everyone should have the same wealth. He says that the government should do more to give everyone the same opportunity to accumulate wealth, by better access to education, health care, various kinds of social support. The fact that he advocates a tax policy in which he would personally have to pay more tax is not hypocrisy. That is called being selfless. That used to be considered a good thing.

I don't think it's fair to either Norway or Sanders to say his agenda is emulating Norway.  His actual policy proposals involve making the federal government a micromanager over the much of the economy.
He wants the federal government to supervise local zoning decisions as part of his Fair Housing proposal, for instance.  He doesn't merely want to give everyone equal opportunites. His programs would result in the government deciding what opportunities are available in the first place.

His tax policy btw is probably fantasy. The wealth tax he and Warren propose is specifically forbidden by the Constitution, and would survive a challenge only if the Supreme Court agrees with some very creative lawyering.  His sales tax would require yet another level of bureaucracy and hit the middle class hardest.

A Trumpian nickname for him would be Bad Ideas Bernie. At the very least his agenda involves an expansion of government regulation and intrusion into the economy that we haven't seen in the US since FDR's New Deal.

[Christabel]

The best observation I heard today:

Socialism:  you vote them in and then shoot your way out.

[amw]

At the very least his agenda involves an expansion of government regulation and intrusion into the economy that we haven't seen in the US since FDR's New Deal.

Which is certainly the comparison he hopes to evoke. (FDR certainly did win elections, at least.)

I note that the opinion of most Marxist historians is largely in agreement that the purpose of the New Deal was to forestall rather than promote socialism, by enacting sufficient regulations and changes to the capitalist system to allow it to survive its greatest threat (economic depression). Similarly there have been analyses of Sanders's proposed Green New Deal as being essentially a way to allow our current resource extractive economy to survive in the face of climate change and environmental degradation. I haven't fact-checked them because I didn't actually realise the Green New Deal was an actual plan rather than just a campaign soundbite.

[Mirror Image]

Maybe he's an extremest (if you consider emulating Norway as extremism) but I don't see that he is a hypocrite. He doesn't say everyone should have the same wealth. He says that the government should do more to give everyone the same opportunity to accumulate wealth, by better access to education, health care, various kinds of social support. The fact that he advocates a tax policy in which he would personally have to pay more tax is not hypocrisy. That is called being selfless. That used to be considered a good thing.

I think he simply is advocating a form of socialism, which, as we all know, doesn't work, because as Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." I really like this quote and it pretty much sums up this lunatic's agenda. What Bernie wants is for all of us to be subservient to the government while they, the politicians, continue to line their pockets with the tax payer's money. But I know you live in California and that might as well be considered it's own country within the US, so I'm sure you'll battle back with some over-the-top, snowflake rebuttal.

[drogulus]

     The Thatcher quote is odd, though typical. "Other people" get money from government, and that's any kind of government, not socialist more than others. You don't pay taxes on dollars that never got spent into existence first. The tax on uncreated dollars is zero, even under socialism. Me, I'm happy to send tax back, even happier that more tax goes back on more income I don't exactly earn.

     And yes, we're all "other people. And no, governments don't run out of dollars except as policy. There's no such thing as dollars just running out on their own. Run out from where, the money tree?

[Ratliff]

I think he simply is advocating a form of socialism, which, as we all know, doesn't work, because as Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." I really like this quote and it pretty much sums up this lunatic's agenda. What Bernie wants is for all of us to be subservient to the government while they, the politicians, continue to line their pockets with the tax payer's money. But I know you live in California and that might as well be considered it's own country within the US, so I'm sure you'll battle back with some over-the-top, snowflake rebuttal.

I respectfully gave my point of view, you reply with a "snowflake" ad hominem attack. I'm through with you.

[SimonNZ]

I think he simply is advocating a form of socialism, which, as we all know, doesn't work, because as Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." I really like this quote and it pretty much sums up this lunatic's agenda. What Bernie wants is for all of us to be subservient to the government while they, the politicians, continue to line their pockets with the tax payer's money. But I know you live in California and that might as well be considered it's own country within the US, so I'm sure you'll battle back with some over-the-top, snowflake rebuttal.

Third time in as many days I've thought you were describing the Trumpist Republicans.

The other two were when you spoke of the party that you once knew and admired ceasing to exist, and when you spoke of the people who react and argue from emotion.

[JBS]

Which is certainly the comparison he hopes to evoke. (FDR certainly did win elections, at least.)

I note that the opinion of most Marxist historians is largely in agreement that the purpose of the New Deal was to forestall rather than promote socialism, by enacting sufficient regulations and changes to the capitalist system to allow it to survive its greatest threat (economic depression). Similarly there have been analyses of Sanders's proposed Green New Deal as being essentially a way to allow our current resource extractive economy to survive in the face of climate change and environmental degradation. I haven't fact-checked them because I didn't actually realise the Green New Deal was an actual plan rather than just a campaign soundbite.

Actually, the common wisdom I imbibed as a kid from both official education and unofficial (ie, my parents and others who were children or even adults during the 1930s) was  exactly what the Marxist historians say, without the Marxist terminology: he did it to undercut the appeal of Communism.

As for the GND,  here's Bernie's version, from his website..it's basically a long list of policy proposals, not all of them very detailed.
https://berniesanders.com/en/issues/green-new-deal/

[SimonNZ]

The best observation I heard today:

Socialism:  you vote them in and then shoot your way out.

Yeah, its a slippery slope from subsidized healthcare to the gulags.

[Mirror Image]

I respectfully gave my point of view, you reply with a "snowflake" ad hominem attack. I'm through with you.

People call each other names on these political threads all the time. I was just trying to fit in.

[Mirror Image]

Third time in as many days I've thought you were describing the Trumpist Republicans.

The other two were when you spoke of the party that you once knew and admired ceasing to exist, and when you spoke of the people who react and argue from emotion.

Well, let me know when the Democrats develop a platform other than 'get Trump' and then I'll take your pro-liberal stances more seriously.

[SimonNZ]

Well, let me know when the Democrats develop a platform other than 'get Trump' and then I'll take your pro-liberal stances more seriously.

Okay...that was a non-sequitur.

And the leading Democratic candidates all have put forward a range of platforms. Do you really need a kiwi to point that obvious fact out to you? They're also tying themselves in knots trying *not* to make it all about Trump.

[Mirror Image]

Okay...that was a non-sequitur.

And the leading Democratic candidates all have put forward a range of platforms. Do you really need a kiwi to point that obvious fact out to you? They're also tying themselves in knots trying *not* to make it all about Trump.

No, I don't think you understood what I meant. My point was the Democrats have booed, cried, and carried on since Trump's first day in office. They're still doing it and it looks like they will continue to do it whenever Trump goes in for another term. One thing that really irritated me about the Democrats and their supporters is how far they've carried their dislike for him over into saying unpatriotic things like they hope he fails in office and wish him nothing but the worse possible scenarios. I'm sorry, but if he fails, we fail. It's as simple as that. I've read several of the liberal lunatics' platforms and enjoyed the laugh, but thanks for telling me about them.

[milk]

I think he simply is advocating a form of socialism, which, as we all know, doesn't work, because as Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." I really like this quote and it pretty much sums up this lunatic's agenda. What Bernie wants is for all of us to be subservient to the government while they, the politicians, continue to line their pockets with the tax payer's money. But I know you live in California and that might as well be considered it's own country within the US, so I'm sure you'll battle back with some over-the-top, snowflake rebuttal.

how is what he proposes different from what they have in many European countries? What are the main differences that you see?

[milk]

No, I don't think you understood what I meant. My point was the Democrats have booed, cried, and carried on since Trump's first day in office. They're still doing it and it looks like they will continue to do it whenever Trump goes in for another term. One thing that really irritated me about the Democrats and their supporters is how far they've carried their dislike for him over into saying unpatriotic things like they hope he fails in office and wish him nothing but the worse possible scenarios. I'm sorry, but if he fails, we fail. It's as simple as that. I've read several of the liberal lunatics' platforms and enjoyed the laugh, but thanks for telling me about them.

there's always someone you can point to on either side with this sentiment, isn't there? There certainly was under Obama. It might be bad depending on how far it goes.

[SimonNZ]

No, I don't think you understood what I meant. My point was the Democrats have booed, cried, and carried on since Trump's first day in office. They're still doing it and it looks like they will continue to do it whenever Trump goes in for another term. One thing that really irritated me about the Democrats and their supporters is how far they've carried their dislike for him over into saying unpatriotic things like they hope he fails in office and wish him nothing but the worse possible scenarios. I'm sorry, but if he fails, we fail. It's as simple as that. I've read several of the liberal lunatics' platforms and enjoyed the laugh, but thanks for telling me about them.

We've already been over the "since his first day" stuff. Someone needs to push back against his criminality and abuse of the office and his own party don't have the spine for it.

In addition to the other day one examples that was the day he said he wasn't going to fulfill his ca.paign promise of releasing his tax returns.

[milk]

The best observation I heard today:

Socialism:  you vote them in and then shoot your way out.

But what countries does this apply to?

[Herman]

I think he simply is advocating a form of socialism, which, as we all know, doesn't work, because as Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

That ancient quote could just as easily be rewritten as: "The problem with capitalism is eventually you run out of other people's money"  -  The banks are heading towards another crash and they can't be bailed out another time. The money's gone (or rather it's in Bezos et al's pockets).

[Madiel]

It's truly amazing to watch some Americans be terrified about the government having money and never truly ask themselves what the alternative is.

If you think the alternative is YOU having lots of money, you're probably mistaken. Unless you're a large corporation (and given the degree to which various US court decisions have given corporations personhood, it's entirely possible there might be a few signed up to the forum these days, so hi there).

If we're going to reduce 'socialism' to a caricature and ignore how various countries that are more 'socialist' than the USA have higher quality of living on any number of measures than the USA, then let's reduce US-style capitalism to a few basic points as well:

An accelerating gap between rich and poor for several decades.

Vast numbers of people who have to work multiple jobs and insane hours in order to get a living wage, also large numbers who have to rely on tipping because hell will freeze over before their EMPLOYERS will pay them properly.

The world's most expensive health care without the world's best outcomes (lots of us beat you on life expectancy) plus it's frequently tied to employment which distorts the job market.

An economy that depends to a very large extent on undocumented Hispanic immigrants to be viable.

The most bizarre element of American politics is watching people scream blue murder about fixing some of these things and say that the fixes cannot possibly work, blithely ignoring all the countries where the suggested solutions come from which have better outcomes than you do for the population as a whole. Americans are peculiarly reluctant to adopt ideas from other countries, even when there's hard data to show that those ideas are working.

The form of capitalism that many Americans are so desperate to defend is a form that encapsulates the great American dream of 'making it'. But here's the thing: hardly any of you will actually 'make it'. You end up defending a system that's most unlikely to benefit you personally, because of clinging onto the slight aspirational hope that it will. And you end up rejecting systems that do a little good for a lot of people in favour of systems that do lots of good for only a few people, because you think that 'making it' has to have rewards and people have to be given incentives to drive them forward.

It's all very prosperity gospel.

[Florestan]

Actually, what is socialism? I was born and raised in the Socialist Republic of Romania whose society was officially labelled as "developped socialist society" so socialism as I experienced it was characterized by:

- one-party state (actually, there was no differenece between the Party and the State: most governmental agencies were officially described as "state-and-party entity")

- complete government control over the completely state-run economy, absolutely no privately-owned businesses whatever

- heavy censorship and suppression of any ideas not in line with the official ideology

- omnipresent, omnipotent and universally feared secret police with an extensive network of informers (after 1989 there were numerous cases in which people discovered they had been reported by some of their closest friends and relatives)

- shameless cult of personality of the Party leader and his wife

- relentless anti-Western propaganda by the state-run newspapers, radio and TV stations.

- in the last few years of the regime, chronic and dramatic shortages of pretty much anything, from bread, meat and potatoes to toilet paper and deodorants, plus frequent power, gas and heating outages.

- etc etc etc along the same lines.

This is socialism for me, an odious regime which trampled under foot the common people and their liberty, impoverished, indoctrinated, persecuted them and made them unhappy while securing a life of political and economical privileges for the party nomenklatura, the secret police members and their minions.

Now, I'm sure your mileage --- and Bernie's --- might vary. So, what is socialism, actually?