Topic: Bernie Sanders is the Frontrunner for the Dems - page 7. (Read 999 times)

I've seen estimates from 1.75-3.5 trillion.

Only number you got is '100% tax rates!!!', huh?

Ask Bernie Sanders. He doesn't seem to know himself when pressed on the issue of the cost for all of his plans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h7-mIhcZJY

I'm genuinely curious how much you think his plan would cost.

Yes, and I am certain that the government will delegate administering this plan to private for profit companies who will make a boat load of money. Just like how the current Medicare system is run. I suppose they could have the government do the administration themselves, like the US "manages" the VA. That is a complete, inefficient nightmare. (Although they have improved, slightly, in recent years.) Given Bernie's aversion to big corporations and billionaires, I fear we would get the later solution. I guess that would mean job security for me, since we would still need a team of people to extract payment from the government. However, I work for a company that bills ambulance for municipalities. Many municipalities might just give up and just increase the sales and property taxes to cover those services.

Are you saying all taxes will go to healthcare? I said a tax rate of 100%, not the entire tax budget going to healthcare. Nice deceptive illogical retort.

After increasing taxation to the highest level possible, simple changes in the delivery of services, such as eliminating some and restricting others, ensures that healthcare costs will stay within any arbitrary budget target.

Ravenously take money in, then be very, very stingy in metering it out.

We are going to end paygo.  You don't have to think about how everything will be paid for.  New spending doesn't need to be offset with new taxes when its covering existing consumption.

Depends on how you define "middle class" . Of course, more than the 1% are going to pay a lot more.  the typical "median" earner (the vast majority) is going to benefit.  I think it might end up costing more for people who earn over 250k.  They will be ok.  Your 401k will certainly suffer but you won't need it as much.  Greater good.

Total gross annual income for Americans is ~18 trillion
Are you saying his healthcare plan would cost more than that?

If Bernie even gets the healthcare plan he is advocating for, a 100% tax rate won't cover it. Feel the Bern. Bern it all down.

His changes are way too radical. It's going to be a tough pill to swallow for me to vote for this guy. In order to be a loyal Democrat, I'm just going to have to tell myself that only watered down versions of his proposals have a chance to be passed by Congress, even if the Democrats somehow manage to control both the Senate and the House. However, I don't see how this guy is going to go on to win. Perhaps loyal moderate Democrats such as myself are willing to swallow the pill, but I think many just won't vote. I also can't see many moderate independents or Republican "Never Trumpers" voting for him.
My biggest problem with Bernie is if his proposals actually get passed into law, in the end, the Middle class is going to pay. I really can't see the top 1 % paying more taxes and that not translating into them cutting expenses by laying people off or passing off the loss in higher prices. Also, since the fat cats will be investing less in the stock market, my 401K plan isn't going to do so well, either.

Sanders is no Trump. And he is almost only one who can defeat Trump. I like that he is seeking some changes. The system needs to be reformed. That's why Sanders is widely supported.

That same problem of lazy lemmings as you call them happen to be a something that many countries have an issue with during very important or dare I say critical (general/local) elections. For example the UK had its Brexit referendum with a sizeable turnout of just over 72% from 46.5 million eligible voters. That vote returned the following result:

Remain: 16,141,241
Leave:  17,410,742

Considering the referendum was to decide whether the UK left the European Union or stayed as a member state - the turnout really should have been higher because of the importance attached but 1,269,501‬ more people voted to leave and that was what mattered and after years of political deadlock in Parliament, the breakthrough to end the uncertainty came when the present government won the general elections in December 2019 as they now have a huge majority so they will be able to pass through almost any bill and legislation and they did that with the UK exiting on 31st January 2020. The present government won the popular vote and most seats too (363 from 648). Their nearest rivals won just 203 seats.

The status quo for almost all rules of European project are still there but a deal has to be completed by 31st December 2020 otherwise there will be a break off between both with the UK going on to WTO terms with the EU and vice-versa. As for everything else from tax, trade, commerce, travel, security, finance etc everything will probably have to be negotiated individually. Having said that the UK government announced yesterday they would happily walk away from talks in June 2020 if they felt the EU was playing games and was not serious - therefore much remains to discuss beteeen both parties but the UK has left the European Union as a member state because the people voted for it. Who knows what would have happened if 82% or 92% of the population had turned out for the referendum instead of the 72% but it was still a good turnout.

Looking at the 2016 US Presidential elections when Trump won and Hillary lost, those statistics are very proof for many of a system that needs reforming. Hillary won the popular vote by having around 2.86 million votes more but it was Trump who won the electoral college. What impact could the lazy lemmings have made when it came to the states that Trump won which tipped the balance in his favour? Even though I am no fan of Hillary I would like to think it would have made a lot of difference.

That voter disenfranchisement and disillusionment is a real thing and a lot of people worry about it. Is Sanders really the man to get people jumping in their seats getting all excited at the prospect of seeing him in the Whitehouse or seeing Trump out of it? Not sure on that one.

"The Myth Of Incompetence: DNC Scandals Are A Feature, Not A Bug"

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-myth-of-incompetence-dnc-scandals-are-a-feature-not-a-bug-4f264352d4f7


There most certainly is a lot of stupidity, incompetence, hurt pride, and laziness in the DNC, but this is the perfect environment for the Democrat establishment to illicitly manipulate outcomes in the directions they desire, even if it is contrary to the wishes of their general voter base.

The 2016 election process showed pretty clearly there was a conspiracy to disenfranchise Bernie. Unfortunately he just bent over and spread his ass even wider rather than protesting it, and as a result, a lot of people who were voting Bernie are now voting Trump as a giant "FUCK YOU!" to the DNC.

I don't worry too much about one party or the other eating itself from inside. Granted the entrenched two-party system limits the ability for a third party to rise quickly so that may cause some chaos. I recently visited a country that I've lived in for a while but haven't been there for 10+ years... many party names were completely unfamiliar but the institutions (parliament, executive branch, judiciary) still work just fine and nobody seems to mind that they need to vote for "democratic libertarian peasants union" or some shit like that in order to have their voice heard, so the multiparty system is more resilient in that respect IMO. But even in a two-party system something will fill the vacuum, maybe some faction from one of the parties, or some independents could grow a spine or something.

I do worry about voter disenfranchisement and disillusionment. I know I call them lazy lemmings every chance I get but the whole system kinda depends on them getting off their asses and voting. Maybe some chaos is actually good for motivation, not sure.

I meant the DNC, and specifically the distinction between support and "support". Yes the electorate are lemmings, but I think that's a separate issue.

I'm going to shut up about the UK in a minute, because I don't want to derail a fascinating thread, but over on this side of the Atlantic we have seen over the last few decades that politicians have become more centrist. Of course centrism is relative, and the movement has largely been the left moving rightwards, because socialism was invalidated in the eyes of the electorate with the fall of the Berlin Wall. But the two main parties have become more alike, and on occasion indistinguishable. Now at the same time, inequality has been rising and a lot of voters feel disenfranchised and unrepresented. Many voters have abandoned the centre to support radical outsider candidates from both the far-left and the far-right. The result of this is that the representatives of both parties are more similar to one another than they are to their respective voters. It is against this backdrop that we saw a huge body of Labour MPs preferring to sabotage their own electoral prospects in order to bring down their outsider leader. They saw having a Conservative government for a few years as a small price to pay in exchange for rooting out the socialism in their own party.

This is what I worry about in the US. I know the systems are somewhat different, but beneath it all people are people and the same everywhere. Support and "support" can produce profoundly different outcomes.

Do you mean DNC or the voters? DNC would "support" him in the general election, I mean they have no choice if he's the nominee. But the electorate are terrible lemmings, particularly in these multi-billion-dollar elections in the US. If Republicans or Russians or whoever can run a few successful anti-Bernie ads it could be enough for 5-10% of laziest Democrat voters to see it as an excuse to stay home and hand the win to Trump.

I doubt there is some major Democrat establishment conspiracy, I don't think there was one in 2016, there's just lots and lots of stupidity and incompetence and hurt pride and laziness.

The mainstream liberal people here in the US will prefer Trump to win.

The fact that international influences and a decades long infiltration of the universities props up Bernie right now does not mean he's acceptable.

He's not.

Exactly what happened in the UK. Jeremy Corbyn won the leadership of the Labour party back in 2015 on a radical leftist platform (or what passes for radical these days - would have been mainstream a few decades back). He secured 60% of the vote of party members and affiliated supporters... but prior to this he only just got on the ballot in the first place, barely scraping past the minimum threshold of votes from Labour MPs, who were mostly centrist Blairites. Once elected leader, he faced a constant barrage of attacks from his own MPs, a series of carefully orchestrated resignations and even a leadership challenge that was absurd to the point of pantomime, with the challenger desperately trying to win votes by claiming to support all of Corbyn's own policies (in which case why challenge?). Finally, after losing the 2019 election - which was all about Brexit rather than domestic policy, Corbyn resigned.

Really don't want this to happen with Bernie, but the parallels are striking. There is this huge disconnect between the elected representatives and the voters who they supposedly represent. If Bernie gets past the party, and wins, and then goes up against Trump, will his own party support him, or will they prefer Trump to win because it would mean that next time around Bernie is out and they can pick one of their own instead of this impertinent upstart outsider? Genuine question, because that's what happened here in the UK.

Plus it's about time the dozen channels of foreign money into the Bernie campaign are brought out into the open. There is a solid 50-80 years of documented evidence of Russia and to a lesser extent, China, trying to influence elections here.

Lying, knuckle dragging lowbrow morons of the left, reciting 19th century buzz words and phrases of the Ol'dialetic, never learn. Now voting praising salivating over total BS...

Really doesn't matter what he said in the world of politics, its what the people think he said and understand that he said. A large deal of people think that Bernie was praising the regime as a whole, which he wasn't.

I still don't think it makes sense to praise the Cubans in anyway, because while they may have been educating the people -- it didn't change the fact that the regime was a horrid one and praising them at all is going to enrage a large deal of Americans -- especially Cuban democrats (especially in Florida)