Bernie Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential election, despite being a Democratic Socialist. As of the writing of this post, he is polling the highest besides Hillary Clinton.[1]
What's your stance on Democratic Socialism in America?
Does Bernie stand a chance at all against Hillary?
I lived in New Hampshire for a little while, so I kinda knew who he was before he announced. But, it sounds like most of America had(has?) no idea who he was. I don't think the "Socialist" label will be that damning in this day and age, simply because it's been overused. The Boy Who Cried Wolf comes to mind if the Republicans try to use it against him.
The Internet (or the sites I go to, like Reddit) seems pretty hellbent on getting him elected, and he seems to be a little like Ron Paul in that respect (markedly different from the other standard 'two choices'). Case in point, even many of his most hardcore supporters don't seem to think he has a realistic chance against Hillary, but want to support him anyway as a proxy 'third party.'
Pretty much everyone that will vote for him in the Democratic Primary would rather vote for Elizabeth Warren. Who -despite having a better shot then Bernie- seems intent NOT to run against Hillary.
Currently, my plan is to vote for Bernie in the Democratic, and then vote for Hillary in the Presidential.
His policy stances? His odds of getting the nomination?
Let's go with those two. I will edit the OP to reflect those questions.
I was also hoping the discussion might touch on 'third party' concerns in America. As in, do we have them realistically and is that good, bad, or indifferent.
Third parties are a problem because they will almost always detract from a similar candidate of one of the two big parties without generating enough votes to get anywhere themselves. Just like what happened in the 2000 election with Ralph Nader effectively stopping Gore from winning the presidency.
Also, most American voters are lazy and won't do much beyond voting down party lines. Those two reasons alone are probably enough to have been what persuaded Bernie to run under the Dem nomination rather than independently.
As far as his politics go, I'm behind him 100%. I really don't want this year's election to be between two corporate puppets.
Third parties are a problem because they will almost always detract from a similar candidate of one of the two big parties without generating enough votes to get anywhere themselves. Just like what happened in the 2000 election with Ralph Nader effectively stopping Gore from winning the presidency.
This argument only makes sense if you assume there is some value in giving voters only two political viewpoints to choose from. If you go to the grocery store, you can choose between like 10 different brands of cheese. Why shouldn't voters have a similar level of choice when it comes to the direction of the country? The reason third parties tend to detract "without generating enough votes" is because we have an electoral system that provides absurd advantages to the two main parties and makes it nearly impossible for other parties to participate. If we tore down those barriers and allowed dozens of parties to get on the ballot (all on equal footing), then we'd have real choices.
There's an insightful remark in one of Nassim Taleb's books that I'll paraphrase: Imagine aliens came to earth and wanted you to explain American politics to them. Maybe they ask you why abortion and economic policy are related to each other. Why is it that the candidate who supports less restrictive abortion regulations also supports stronger economic regulations, and the candidate who wants more abortion regulation wants fewer economic regulations? Could you explain to the aliens why it makes sense for those two things to go together like that? The only "reason" has to do with the historical development of the two parties in America. There's no principled reason why those should be the only two choices available to voters.
On Sanders specifically, I think he's a marginally better candidate than Hillary but I haven't been particularly impressed with him. He repeats a bunch of platitudes, but (based on what I've read) never seems to explain how he will concretely accomplish anything. Can a Sanders supporter explain one or two of his goals they support, and how they believe he will be able to accomplish those goals?
Third parties are a problem because they will almost always detract from a similar candidate of one of the two big parties without generating enough votes to get anywhere themselves. Just like what happened in the 2000 election with Ralph Nader effectively stopping Gore from winning the presidency.
Also, most American voters are lazy and won't do much beyond voting down party lines. Those two reasons alone are probably enough to have been what persuaded Bernie to run under the Dem nomination rather than independently.
As far as his politics go, I'm behind him 100%. I really don't want this year's election to be between two corporate puppets.
This is only true because we specifically have a 2 party system. That is one of many things that need to change about our political structure.
Bernie Sanders would be great, and is the person I would choose to be President. But he'll probably just lose to Hilary, which will just be more of the same type of ***** Presidency we have seen for the last 15 years. The best thing about Sanders(his willingness to fight against the oligarchy that our country is/is becoming), is also what would keep him from getting elected. He just won't be able to keep up, financially, with other candidates.
On Sanders specifically, I think he's a marginally better candidate than Hillary but I haven't been particularly impressed with him. He repeats a bunch of platitudes, but (based on what I've read) never seems to explain how he will concretely accomplish anything. Can a Sanders supporter explain one or two of his goals they support, and how they believe he will be able to accomplish those goals?
This is the other problem. His goals are all very admirable, but they ultimately boil down to 'fight against the underlying structure behind US politics for BOTH parties'. And it's just not going to happen. If he gets elected, everything he tries to do will just fail in Congress, because neither party actually wants to make things better.
If we tore down those barriers and allowed dozens of parties to get on the ballot (all on equal footing), then we'd have real choices.
There's an insightful remark in one of Nassim Taleb's books that I'll paraphrase: Imagine aliens came to earth and wanted you to explain American politics to them. Maybe they ask you why abortion and economic policy are related to each other. Why is it that the candidate who supports less restrictive abortion regulations also supports stronger economic regulations, and the candidate who wants more abortion regulation wants fewer economic regulations? Could you explain to the aliens why it makes sense for those two things to go together like that? The only "reason" has to do with the historical development of the two parties in America. There's no principled reason why those should be the only two choices available to voters.
The only reason they would be even slightly confused about this is if Taleb's aliens (and by extension, Taleb himself, in a disappointing turn) didn't understand basic information theory.
Assuming each policy issue is a simple binary yes/no (n.b. that this is a tremendous simplification of reality, where policy issues can range over continua of possible options), in order to represent the full spectrum of choices between n uncorrelated issues, there would need to be at least 2^n representatives on the ballot. Conversely, if there are n candidates, then at most log_2(n) uncorrelated positions on issues can be completely represented.
This gets out of hand pretty quickly: even assuming every single person in the U.S. were to run for office as their own party with an independent platform, they could adequately represent at most floor(log_2(300m)) = 28 uncorrelated issues.
This has nothing to do with the choice of electoral system: in Australia, where they use a voting system more friendly to multiple parties, the average ballot has 10 to 12 candidates. Generously going with the figure of 12, those 12 candidates can adequately represent at most floor(log_2(12)) = 3 uncorrelated issues.
Since there are a lot more than 3 or even 28 contentious political issues to be considered, the conclusion is that some of these issues are going to be forcibly correlated with each other as a result of the electoral process! In a representative democratic system, issues which don't seem to have casual connections must nevertheless necessarily have a high degree of "spurious" political correlation with each other due to the informational constraints imposed by voting for representatives instead of issues. This has nothing to do with two- versus many-party systems and in fact would persist if each individual was his own political party.
(Direct democracy is one potential way out of this informational bind, however, careful consideration of that issue leads to the conclusion that it's not obviously better. I'll leave that for another thread, though.)
Quote from bitterroot »
On Sanders specifically, I think he's a marginally better candidate than Hillary but I haven't been particularly impressed with him. He repeats a bunch of platitudes, but (based on what I've read) never seems to explain how he will concretely accomplish anything. Can a Sanders supporter explain one or two of his goals they support, and how they believe he will be able to accomplish those goals?
Yeah, I was trying to figure out more about his specific stances and I was led to this section of his website, where I found mostly populist gibberish with almost no substance.
It goes wrong with the very first sentence:
The American people must make a fundamental decision. Do we continue the 40-year decline of our middle class and the growing gap between the very rich and everyone else, or do we fight for a progressive economic agenda that creates jobs, raises wages, protects the environment and provides health care for all?
"You can either have rich people or health insurance. CHOOSE NOW!"
And it really only gets worse from there. The only substantive thing in that whole subsection of his website is his opposition to Citizens United, and I think I am essentially in agreement with him on that.
I'll be generous and chalk the lack of substance here up to his website being new and unfinished. But realistically, unless ol' Bernie here is a significant departure from leftist history, I wouldn't expect to see anything there that actually makes sense.
This is only true because we specifically have a 2 party system. That is one of many things that need to change about our political structure.
Except that's just it, it's not about the political structure. There's nothing about our political structure that mandates two parties.
The reason there are two parties is simple: the vast majority of people vote for them. Sometimes a single party dominates (notice that there aren't any Federalists); sometimes another party gains prominence, usually when there's an issue that is a big deal in the country and the dominant parties aren't addressing it. But it is usually two parties, and that is because that is how Americans tend to vote. We choose for it to be a "two-party system."
Frankly, I love that there are only two parties. Our head of state usually gets about 50% or more of the vote. Imagine if the head of state was the guy who only got 35% of the vote, and this were a normal thing.
Which is why it always mystifies me when people complain about the two-party system creating divisiveness and gridlock, and then support more parties. "Put in more divisions! That'll cure divisiveness!"
As for Sanders, no. We should not have a socialist as a president. Look at Europe. See how well it's doing. And now someone wants to emulate that in the US? No, that's insanity, and we should all be very glad that we have an electorate that would not vote for such a person.
538.com lays out why Bernie has almost no chance of winning the nomination. Hilary already polls well enough with ideological liberals that there isn't a need for a candidate that is to the left of Hilary. Bernie Sanders (or anyone else) just isn't going to pull enough delegates away from Hilary to go anywhere.
What he will do, like 538.com points out, is adjust the issue discussion during the nomination process. This is his opportunity to get his voice out nationally.
Which is why it always mystifies me when people complain about the two-party system creating divisiveness and gridlock, and then support more parties. "Put in more divisions! That'll cure divisiveness!"
Actually there is some sense in it. For example, in any strategy/tabletop game with multiple players you often have to co-operate with others in order to achieve victory, whereas in a two-player game you often won't because you have a distinct "opponent" that you're trying to defeat and don't want to give any advantage to. Multiple parties encourages compromise and reduces the "us vs them" mentality. It's a lot more difficult to demonize three or four opponents and still appear somewhat rational, than it is one opponent.
There is *zero* sense in it. In order to get anywhere in a republic like ours you have to have a broad range of support. Adding more parties isn't going to mean your position will magically gain more support. It means that the already existing parties will fracture into smaller groups and cooperate less.
For example, in any strategy/tabletop game with multiple players you often have to co-operate with others in order to achieve victory, whereas in a two-player game you often won't because you have a distinct "opponent" that you're trying to defeat and don't want to give any advantage to. Multiple parties encourages compromise and reduces the "us vs them" mentality. It's a lot more difficult to demonize three or four opponents and still appear somewhat rational, than it is one opponent.
Except for the part where that's the exact opposite of how government actually works.
In our system, compromise is mandatory in order to get anything accomplished given the broad range of special interest groups that comprise America, and as such to take any extreme stance risks alienating the electorate. As such, our politics have mostly been dominated by two parties that aim mostly center, who themselves encompass a broad range of interest groups, some more extreme and some more center. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are two large parties composed of many groups who have all agreed to compromise. This is because they have to. Both parties command about half the vote, and so to compete with the other camp, the groups within the two dominant parties must compromise with the others.
So to say that more parties will lead to more compromise is precisely the opposite of true. These parties exist specifically because large numbers of people are willing to compromise with each other in the hopes of achieving common interests. That's what parties are.
So if the political environment were to change to feature, say, six dominant parties, it's not going to be because more people were willing to compromise with each other. That makes no sense. It will be because there will be more ideological divides separating people that makes them less willing to work with one another. That's why people leave a party to join another/start a new one.
Likewise, the voting public will be less unified. If some party gets 20% of the vote, that's 20% of people that won't be voting for another, because it has to add up to 100% total, right? Well in our country as a whole, both parties end up getting about 50% of the vote during an election, give or take depending on the year. So when you start adding more dominant parties, well, again, the other two sides have ~50% of the vote each. The other sides can't be dominant unless you greatly decrease the amount of votes the current two get enough so that they matter. Which means a more divided, less willing to compromise electorate.
Or let me put it another way: we've seen a divide in both parties since Obama got elected. We've seen more moderate Republicans square off against Tea Party candidates. We've seen more fiscally-conservative Democrats square off against those further left. So in light of that, let me ask you: would you rather there be a four party system? Pick which undesirable extreme to dislike, or both if that's the case, and ask yourself if you'd really like there to be MORE of these people.
Bernie Sanders, like most people on the left, is obsessed with the Nordic countries. Which really irks me, because every time someone brings up the "why can't we just be like Sweden" argument they completely ignore the size of those countries (not to mention the fact that Sweden actually created most of its wealth in a very libertarian environment before the huge welfare state was created). There is no way the Nordic model could ever work in a country with over 300 million people.
What follows is an outsider perpective, and one from a person living in a socialist country. Take it with all the grains of salt available to you.
----------
He seems to have some ideas that I would agree with. Wealth disparity is an actual problem in the states, and ridiculous levels of lobbying and throwing money at elections is another. I also agree with his stance that nuclear energy enterprises should be expected to insure themselves, and that banking enterprises too big to fail should be managed more carefully. If some system is so crucial for the government that it cannot be allowed to fall, it cannot be allowed to go without strict supervision. I am also relatively certain that a centralized and universal healthcare system would be expensive for the government but more affordable for the country as a whole - with large leverage come large savings. The fact that he is willing to talk against police brutality and racism and for gay marriage is just bonus.
There are also areas where I am not so certain. The plan for certain vacations for everyone is one, because I do not see the need to control this when corporations are quickly realizing that employees that have had decent rest are simply more productive. I am also not certain what the Trans-Pacific Partnership thing is about, and due to the secrecy of the negotiations neither does anyone else, so I really don't care much about that. But I'm certainly not going to take his word that it's going to destroy jobs.
But he really seems to have no idea how to achieve most of the things he talks about. Most of his site is pointless hodgepodge where terms and stances are not properly defined, and there are a lot of emotionally-charged words like "family values" being utilized. There is no clear plan for action and worse yet, there is no breaking down on what steps could be taken and what goals realistically achieved in one term. There is no way he'll win, of course, but from reading his site and the wikipedia site I do not even think he is trying to win. He's just trying to raise awareness to a bunch of issues, and to make these issues themes for the election.
----------
Quote from Highroller »
We should not have a socialist as a president. Look at Europe. See how well it's doing. And now someone wants to emulate that in the US? No, that's insanity, and we should all be very glad that we have an electorate that would not vote for such a person.
Considering that the US is not in the top 10 for World Happiness Report while 8 European countries are, not in the top 10 of Where-to-be-born_Index while 5 European countries are, and that US has lower life expectancy than Colombia, I will just assume this is either unsubstantiated bait or an opinion formed with concern only about economic growth and/or purchasing power.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Considering that the US is not in the top 10 for World Happiness Report while 8 European countries are, not in the top 10 of Where-to-be-born_Index while 5 European countries are, and that US has lower life expectancy than Colombia, I will just assume this is either unsubstantiated bait or an opinion formed with concern only about economic growth and/or purchasing power.
In a discussion about which economic systems actually work? Yeah. I think that matters a bit more than the damn World Happiness Report.
Actually there is some sense in it. For example, in any strategy/tabletop game with multiple players you often have to co-operate with others in order to achieve victory, whereas in a two-player game you often won't because you have a distinct "opponent" that you're trying to defeat and don't want to give any advantage to. Multiple parties encourages compromise and reduces the "us vs them" mentality. It's a lot more difficult to demonize three or four opponents and still appear somewhat rational, than it is one opponent.
A two-party system is the result of compromises. Your tabletop game analogy is misleading in some critical ways. In American politics, there aren't two players, "Mr. Democrat" and "Mr. Republican". There are 320 million players, whose compromising and cooperation have in the aggregate led to alliances which have stabilized in an equilibrium that is the two-party system. The Dems and the GOP are "big-tent" parties the leadership of which have to balance a huge array of different interests.
Considering that the US is not in the top 10 for World Happiness Report while 8 European countries are, not in the top 10 of Where-to-be-born_Index while 5 European countries are, and that US has lower life expectancy than Colombia, I will just assume this is either unsubstantiated bait or an opinion formed with concern only about economic growth and/or purchasing power.
Some observations, in ascending order of seriousness -
First, America is higher on those rankings than the European countries Americans care about - i.e., France, Germany, and the UK.
Second, Colombia's life expectancy is actually pretty decent. I find your use of that comparison suspicious, as if you're expecting people to think of Colombia as a third-world hellhole with abysmal statistics. I'm even tempted to call it a bait.
Third, the countries in the top ten you're referring to aren't just "European countries" - they're a particular subset of European countries, the Nordic countries. We're not talking about a European success story, we're talking about a Nordic success story. Which, as SurgingChaos has alluded, is an area of particular interest and inquiry and its replicability is very much in question.
Fourth, whatever variable the happiness report is measuring, I strongly doubt that sound government policies affect it in any serious way. It seems rather to be a yardstick of cultural enthusiasm. The U.S. is beaten not just by the Nordic countries but also by dysfunctional Mexico and the savagely corrupt UAE, while hovering way further down the list are such generally sensible nations as Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, and in dead last is Portugal of all places.
And finally - hey, the economy is a big deal. If you can wave your hand and dismiss economic statistics, certainly your interlocutor has just as much right to wave his hand and dismiss the statistics you favor. Hell, I actually just gave a reason for questioning the relevance of the happiness report! Shocking and unprecedented, I'm sure.
Considering that the US is not in the top 10 for World Happiness Report while 8 European countries are, not in the top 10 of Where-to-be-born_Index while 5 European countries are, and that US has lower life expectancy than Colombia, I will just assume this is either unsubstantiated bait or an opinion formed with concern only about economic growth and/or purchasing power.
It is absolutely asinine to even start to compare the Scandinavian countries to most other countries in the world.
Which is why it always mystifies me when people complain about the two-party system creating divisiveness and gridlock, and then support more parties. "Put in more divisions! That'll cure divisiveness!"
People complain about the two-party system because the entire Republican party should have gotten the guillotine a few decades ago.
You're right in that more parties would make more problems - hence my example of Ralph Nader.
War crimes, corporate shilling, deliberately causing government agencies to be financially unsuccessful so they can use that as an excuse to defund them, oppressing the poor and minorities...
Read a book, dude.
EDIT: Why even ask, when you yourself have made threads in this forum demonstrating some of those reasons?
War crimes, corporate shilling, deliberately causing government agencies to be financially unsuccessful so they can use that as an excuse to defund them, oppressing the poor and minorities...
Democratic politicians could also have these attributed to them.
And, even so, this doesn't mean that a part in of itself is bad.
The old Dems vs. GOP fight tends to take over threads, especially when it starts off on that kind of tone. So let's nip this one in the bud. Refocus on Bernie.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The fundamental issue with Bernie Sanders' policies is the same as the fundamental issue with every socialist government: where's the money going to come from to fund this?
The fact of the matter is that the government budget is currently complete insanity as it stands. Now Mr. Sanders wants to tack on the price of health care for everybody AND footing the bill for college education on top of that.
So where's the money going to come from?
I struggle to find sanity in Sanders supporters.
---
Also, brief addition to the compromise/two-parties discussion: one of the major reasons you're seeing political gridlock right now is because parties are running on a position of no-compromise with regards to certain issues and getting elected for it. There are some issues that are major dividing lines, "wedge issues" if you will, that you can't just compromise on. For example, you cannot have 50% Obamacare. The politicans running against Obamacare have run on a position of getting rid of it, and were elected for this. The politicans running in favor of Obamacare have run on a position of keeping it, and were elected for this. They were specifically elected because they vowed not to compromise. So it's not just an issue of parties, it's an issue of the electorate and their interests. If the electorate doesn't want compromise, you won't get it.
Speaking of Obamacare, let's talk about that for a second. Barack Obama had a hard time getting Obamacare passed due to opposition from within his own party despite the Democrats having a filibuster-proof majority. That was Obamacare. Sanders wants to go even further than that. And consider exactly how popular Obamacare was in the last election.
So yeah, Sanders will never have a chance of getting elected into office. He won't just alienate conservatives and moderates, he'll alienate his own party.
And all of this is a wonderful thing really. I'm rather mystified we're humoring socialism as a legitimate candidate for "direction this country should be going in."
In a discussion about which economic systems actually work? Yeah. I think that matters a bit more than the damn World Happiness Report.
I don't really see the effects of the system collapsing everywhere around me, as one would expect considering I live in a socialist country.
And you are assuming that economic growth is a goal-in-itself. You can continue to do so, but I strongly disagree with it. Governments, as well as economic systems, in my opinion, should exist to create well-being.
Considering that the US is not in the top 10 for World Happiness Report while 8 European countries are, not in the top 10 of Where-to-be-born_Index while 5 European countries are, and that US has lower life expectancy than Colombia, I will just assume this is either unsubstantiated bait or an opinion formed with concern only about economic growth and/or purchasing power.
Some observations, in ascending order of seriousness -
First, America is higher on those rankings than the European countries Americans care about - i.e., France, Germany, and the UK.
America is higher on those rankings than multiple of the way-less-socialist states of Europe, whereas the most socialistic ones are doing well. If the question is about socialism, I think it might be more relevant to compare against states that are, well, socialist or social-democratic. I suppose this is a matter of degree and that by contrast to the US, UK can be construed as socialist.
Second, Colombia's life expectancy is actually pretty decent. I find your use of that comparison suspicious, as if you're expecting people to think of Colombia as a third-world hellhole with abysmal statistics.
28.5% of Colombians live in poverty. 8.1% in extreme poverty. 15% of Colombian children suffer from chronic malnutrition, and illiteracy rate is 7.6%. It is safe to say that the States are a much more wealthy nation, with much more resources to allocate towards increasing the life expectancy. I chose Colombia because, with the exception of healthcare and life expectancy, it is a developing-world hole. Not a hellhole, nor third world, but still. US should be able to do better.
Of course, the poor in Colombia are still able to get healthcare (96% coverage rate) thanks to not living in the states.
Actually, that isn't even bait. It's a good example of something that improves the quality of life, and evidently something that can be achieved with less resources than what the United States has.
Third, the countries in the top ten you're referring to aren't just "European countries" - they're a particular subset of European countries, the Nordic countries. We're not talking about a European success story, we're talking about a Nordic success story. Which, as SurgingChaos has alluded, is an area of particular interest and inquiry and its replicability is very much in question.
I was not aware Netherlands, Austria, and Switzerland were Nordic. Pretty sure the combined population of those countries is also larger than the combined population of the Nordic countries.
Furthermore, as far as replicability goes: Canada.
Fourth, whatever variable the happiness report is measuring, I strongly doubt that sound government policies affect it in any serious way.
Quote from Wikipedia »
Six key variables explain three-quarters of the variation in annual national average scores over time and among countries. These six factors include: real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, freedom from corruption, and generosity.
I can rather easily see how socialist states, which organize healthcare and company for the elderly, rank higher on the "having someone to count on"-list. I'm also pretty sure corruption can be fought through sound government practices. And hey, real GDP per capita and healthy life expectancy seem like something one could improve as well. Perceived freedom to make life choices is a bit trickier, but I assume that a free education system that does not force everyone into debt for the first 10 years of their career could help. Can't force the generosity though.
It seems rather to be a yardstick of cultural enthusiasm. The U.S. is beaten not just by the Nordic countries but also by dysfunctional Mexico and the savagely corrupt UAE, while hovering way further down the list are such generally sensible nations as Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, and in dead last is Portugal of all places.
Japan in particular has issues with insecurity of future, due to the lack of economic growth. The completely stagnating birth rate is, at least partially, a result of the expectation of having the woman as a housekeeper with kids while the man works, which proves to be rather unsustainable with the income levels of most of the younger generation. Japan and Taiwan are also insanely highly populated - which has been shown to correlate with lower living standards and happiness. This is debatably one of the things that cannot be fixed, and one of the reasons why the Nordic countries tend to be happy, though there are US states with lower population density than the Nordics.
Also, I am assuming you were not aware that Portugal is pretty much screwed especially on the metrics of the other neighbouring countries. For the majority of the past 15 years Portugal's per capita been growing slower than the US did during the great recession, or Japan during the lost decade, and the economy has only recently started to see some improvement. Furthermore, due to the right-wing dictatorship that held Portugal until 1974, there is a significant portion of uneducated people that feel alienated from modern culture. The Gini score is pretty bad, too.
So, uh. Yeah. Low education levels, long-lasting economic crisis, overpopulation, and stark inequality breed unhappiness. Who would've known. Three of these areas can be fought with policies efficiently, and even the last one (overpopulation) can be reduced through increased education levels, better family planning advice and free contraceptives.
----------
No, I am not saying that the metric is perfect, or even nearly an end-all-be-all, but it quite clearly shows that there are areas in which the US could easily improve. It is also my impression that the US is, in general, a pretty wealthy country with a large and strong economy. So the US could easily also afford to improve in those areas. And that most countries doing better than the States are more socialistic.
And finally - hey, the economy is a big deal. If you can wave your hand and dismiss economic statistics, certainly your interlocutor has just as much right to wave his hand and dismiss the statistics you favor. Hell, I actually just gave a reason for questioning the relevance of the happiness report! Shocking and unprecedented, I'm sure.
I didn't say economy wasn't important. I said that it was not an end-all-be-all statistic, and that having a great economy that only creates well-being for 0.5% of the people would not be a very worthwhile thing to aim at. Economic growth has an instrumental value.
Furthermore, while EU isn't doing too great, I'm pretty sure that the debt-to-GDP ratio is better in here than in the states anyway. And if the countries US cares about are actually Germany, France and UK, Europe isn't even doing too bad. It's the southern-European countries that have awful public debt ratios of around 100%
Bernie Sanders, like most people on the left, is obsessed with the Nordic countries. Which really irks me, because every time someone brings up the "why can't we just be like Sweden" argument they completely ignore the size of those countries. There is no way the Nordic model could ever work in a country with over 300 million people.
What exactly is the part of the Nordic model that breaks down in a country with over 300 million people. Bear in mind that division of those 300 million into smaller groups, which we can call for example states is possible. That being said, I also agree with the fact that Bernie Sanders seems to have no idea how to change things towards a different system. As I said before, I do not think he is even trying to win.
(not to mention the fact that Sweden actually created most of its wealth in a very libertarian environment before the huge welfare state was created).
So, let me get this straight: You are arguing that a transition from a wealthy libertarian country, such as the United States or Sweden, to a welfare state is possible? In other words, the only problem you see is the size of said country.
----------
I think the bottom line is that most people find it weird to see US struggling with severe inequality and having multiple people below the poverty line, despite the apparent wealth and strong economy of the nation. It does not seem to be productive to push for GDP growth without raising taxes or systems that would allow the government to get out of debt. There really is no reason to not have centralized healthcare, since it would prove to be far cheaper for nearly everyone in the long run due to the increased leverage. I am not even sure if people in this thread disagree with me, but there seems to be some kind of form of learned helplessness or resignation into claiming that a such system could never work in the US for varied reasons. We also seem to be in clear agreement that the chances of Bernie winning anything are an epsilon away from zero.
So in other words, how many here hold the Socialist ideas of Bernie primarily (I am sure there are some mixed opinions regarding his stances), or the general move towards more socialism:
A: Desirable, but unachievable. B: Desirable and achievable. C: Undesirable and unachievable. D: Undesirable, but achievable.
Because if the difference is between A and B, the real issue here is whether or not things are achievable. If the difference is between A/B and C/D the question is regarding the merits and demerits of Socialism - and judging by the replies so far in this case the undesirability is largely a byproduct of (perceived) inability to maintain economic growth.
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
The fundamental issue with Bernie Sanders' policies is the same as the fundamental issue with every socialist government: where's the money going to come from to fund this?
The people and corporations who individually make more than the entire lower class combined, by screwing over and stepping on said lower class. "Where the money comes from" is the easiest possible thing to solve in a modern socialist economy, because technology allows us to individually produce more than we consume.
The people and corporations who individually make more than the entire lower class combined, by screwing over and stepping on said lower class.
Which would accomplish, what, exactly?
Tax every person for 100% of the income of everyone who makes over a million and you would have, what, 2/3 of a trillion dollars?
Obamacare's annual cost is about 2 trillion. That's just Obamacare. Sanders wants the government to take on the health care costs of everyone, and that's just Sanders' health care plan. Not including the other stuff he wants socialized.
So congratulations, you've accomplished funding 1/3 of the yearly cost of a program that is far less than the cost of Bernie Sanders' program. And I'm sure the economy's not going to take a hit at all from all the peoples' incomes you wiped out. Great work.
So, where's the rest of the money going to come from?
I don't really see the effects of the system collapsing everywhere around me, as one would expect considering I live in a socialist country.
How well is Europe doing right now?
And you are assuming that economic growth is a goal-in-itself. You can continue to do so, but I strongly disagree with it. Governments, as well as economic systems, in my opinion, should exist to create well-being.
A shrinking economy benefits people? A bankrupt country benefits people? This is news to me. We should go ask the people of Greece how well their being is right now.
I didn't say economy wasn't important. I said that it was not an end-all-be-all statistic,
Again, in a debate about the economic soundness of a police, you're trying to downplay the significance of looking at the economies of countries?
and that having a great economy that only creates well-being for 0.5% of the people would not be a very worthwhile thing to aim at.
Right, because only 0.5% of our country's people are better off than Columbia. Sure, that's exactly how things work.
It does not seem to be productive to push for GDP growth without raising taxes or systems that would allow the government to get out of debt. There really is no reason to not have centralized healthcare,
What do you think centralized healthcare would accumulate if not debt?
So in other words, how many here hold the Socialist ideas of Bernie primarily (I am sure there are some mixed opinions regarding his stances), or the general move towards more socialism:
A: Desirable, but unachievable. B: Desirable and achievable. C: Undesirable and unachievable. D: Undesirable, but achievable.
Ok, (A) does not exist. There is no such thing as a plan that is desirable but unachievable. If a plan is not is not feasible, it is a bad plan.
What's your stance on Democratic Socialism in America?
Does Bernie stand a chance at all against Hillary?
I lived in New Hampshire for a little while, so I kinda knew who he was before he announced. But, it sounds like most of America had(has?) no idea who he was. I don't think the "Socialist" label will be that damning in this day and age, simply because it's been overused. The Boy Who Cried Wolf comes to mind if the Republicans try to use it against him.
The Internet (or the sites I go to, like Reddit) seems pretty hellbent on getting him elected, and he seems to be a little like Ron Paul in that respect (markedly different from the other standard 'two choices'). Case in point, even many of his most hardcore supporters don't seem to think he has a realistic chance against Hillary, but want to support him anyway as a proxy 'third party.'
Pretty much everyone that will vote for him in the Democratic Primary would rather vote for Elizabeth Warren. Who -despite having a better shot then Bernie- seems intent NOT to run against Hillary.
Currently, my plan is to vote for Bernie in the Democratic, and then vote for Hillary in the Presidential.
I was also hoping the discussion might touch on 'third party' concerns in America. As in, do we have them realistically and is that good, bad, or indifferent.
Also, most American voters are lazy and won't do much beyond voting down party lines. Those two reasons alone are probably enough to have been what persuaded Bernie to run under the Dem nomination rather than independently.
As far as his politics go, I'm behind him 100%. I really don't want this year's election to be between two corporate puppets.
This argument only makes sense if you assume there is some value in giving voters only two political viewpoints to choose from. If you go to the grocery store, you can choose between like 10 different brands of cheese. Why shouldn't voters have a similar level of choice when it comes to the direction of the country? The reason third parties tend to detract "without generating enough votes" is because we have an electoral system that provides absurd advantages to the two main parties and makes it nearly impossible for other parties to participate. If we tore down those barriers and allowed dozens of parties to get on the ballot (all on equal footing), then we'd have real choices.
There's an insightful remark in one of Nassim Taleb's books that I'll paraphrase: Imagine aliens came to earth and wanted you to explain American politics to them. Maybe they ask you why abortion and economic policy are related to each other. Why is it that the candidate who supports less restrictive abortion regulations also supports stronger economic regulations, and the candidate who wants more abortion regulation wants fewer economic regulations? Could you explain to the aliens why it makes sense for those two things to go together like that? The only "reason" has to do with the historical development of the two parties in America. There's no principled reason why those should be the only two choices available to voters.
On Sanders specifically, I think he's a marginally better candidate than Hillary but I haven't been particularly impressed with him. He repeats a bunch of platitudes, but (based on what I've read) never seems to explain how he will concretely accomplish anything. Can a Sanders supporter explain one or two of his goals they support, and how they believe he will be able to accomplish those goals?
This is only true because we specifically have a 2 party system. That is one of many things that need to change about our political structure.
Bernie Sanders would be great, and is the person I would choose to be President. But he'll probably just lose to Hilary, which will just be more of the same type of ***** Presidency we have seen for the last 15 years. The best thing about Sanders(his willingness to fight against the oligarchy that our country is/is becoming), is also what would keep him from getting elected. He just won't be able to keep up, financially, with other candidates.
This is the other problem. His goals are all very admirable, but they ultimately boil down to 'fight against the underlying structure behind US politics for BOTH parties'. And it's just not going to happen. If he gets elected, everything he tries to do will just fail in Congress, because neither party actually wants to make things better.
The only reason they would be even slightly confused about this is if Taleb's aliens (and by extension, Taleb himself, in a disappointing turn) didn't understand basic information theory.
Assuming each policy issue is a simple binary yes/no (n.b. that this is a tremendous simplification of reality, where policy issues can range over continua of possible options), in order to represent the full spectrum of choices between n uncorrelated issues, there would need to be at least 2^n representatives on the ballot. Conversely, if there are n candidates, then at most log_2(n) uncorrelated positions on issues can be completely represented.
This gets out of hand pretty quickly: even assuming every single person in the U.S. were to run for office as their own party with an independent platform, they could adequately represent at most floor(log_2(300m)) = 28 uncorrelated issues.
This has nothing to do with the choice of electoral system: in Australia, where they use a voting system more friendly to multiple parties, the average ballot has 10 to 12 candidates. Generously going with the figure of 12, those 12 candidates can adequately represent at most floor(log_2(12)) = 3 uncorrelated issues.
Since there are a lot more than 3 or even 28 contentious political issues to be considered, the conclusion is that some of these issues are going to be forcibly correlated with each other as a result of the electoral process! In a representative democratic system, issues which don't seem to have casual connections must nevertheless necessarily have a high degree of "spurious" political correlation with each other due to the informational constraints imposed by voting for representatives instead of issues. This has nothing to do with two- versus many-party systems and in fact would persist if each individual was his own political party.
(Direct democracy is one potential way out of this informational bind, however, careful consideration of that issue leads to the conclusion that it's not obviously better. I'll leave that for another thread, though.)
Yeah, I was trying to figure out more about his specific stances and I was led to this section of his website, where I found mostly populist gibberish with almost no substance.
It goes wrong with the very first sentence:
"You can either have rich people or health insurance. CHOOSE NOW!"
And it really only gets worse from there. The only substantive thing in that whole subsection of his website is his opposition to Citizens United, and I think I am essentially in agreement with him on that.
I'll be generous and chalk the lack of substance here up to his website being new and unfinished. But realistically, unless ol' Bernie here is a significant departure from leftist history, I wouldn't expect to see anything there that actually makes sense.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
The reason there are two parties is simple: the vast majority of people vote for them. Sometimes a single party dominates (notice that there aren't any Federalists); sometimes another party gains prominence, usually when there's an issue that is a big deal in the country and the dominant parties aren't addressing it. But it is usually two parties, and that is because that is how Americans tend to vote. We choose for it to be a "two-party system."
Frankly, I love that there are only two parties. Our head of state usually gets about 50% or more of the vote. Imagine if the head of state was the guy who only got 35% of the vote, and this were a normal thing.
Which is why it always mystifies me when people complain about the two-party system creating divisiveness and gridlock, and then support more parties. "Put in more divisions! That'll cure divisiveness!"
As for Sanders, no. We should not have a socialist as a president. Look at Europe. See how well it's doing. And now someone wants to emulate that in the US? No, that's insanity, and we should all be very glad that we have an electorate that would not vote for such a person.
What he will do, like 538.com points out, is adjust the issue discussion during the nomination process. This is his opportunity to get his voice out nationally.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Except for the part where that's the exact opposite of how government actually works.
In our system, compromise is mandatory in order to get anything accomplished given the broad range of special interest groups that comprise America, and as such to take any extreme stance risks alienating the electorate. As such, our politics have mostly been dominated by two parties that aim mostly center, who themselves encompass a broad range of interest groups, some more extreme and some more center. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are two large parties composed of many groups who have all agreed to compromise. This is because they have to. Both parties command about half the vote, and so to compete with the other camp, the groups within the two dominant parties must compromise with the others.
So to say that more parties will lead to more compromise is precisely the opposite of true. These parties exist specifically because large numbers of people are willing to compromise with each other in the hopes of achieving common interests. That's what parties are.
So if the political environment were to change to feature, say, six dominant parties, it's not going to be because more people were willing to compromise with each other. That makes no sense. It will be because there will be more ideological divides separating people that makes them less willing to work with one another. That's why people leave a party to join another/start a new one.
Likewise, the voting public will be less unified. If some party gets 20% of the vote, that's 20% of people that won't be voting for another, because it has to add up to 100% total, right? Well in our country as a whole, both parties end up getting about 50% of the vote during an election, give or take depending on the year. So when you start adding more dominant parties, well, again, the other two sides have ~50% of the vote each. The other sides can't be dominant unless you greatly decrease the amount of votes the current two get enough so that they matter. Which means a more divided, less willing to compromise electorate.
Or let me put it another way: we've seen a divide in both parties since Obama got elected. We've seen more moderate Republicans square off against Tea Party candidates. We've seen more fiscally-conservative Democrats square off against those further left. So in light of that, let me ask you: would you rather there be a four party system? Pick which undesirable extreme to dislike, or both if that's the case, and ask yourself if you'd really like there to be MORE of these people.
----------
He seems to have some ideas that I would agree with. Wealth disparity is an actual problem in the states, and ridiculous levels of lobbying and throwing money at elections is another. I also agree with his stance that nuclear energy enterprises should be expected to insure themselves, and that banking enterprises too big to fail should be managed more carefully. If some system is so crucial for the government that it cannot be allowed to fall, it cannot be allowed to go without strict supervision. I am also relatively certain that a centralized and universal healthcare system would be expensive for the government but more affordable for the country as a whole - with large leverage come large savings. The fact that he is willing to talk against police brutality and racism and for gay marriage is just bonus.
There are also areas where I am not so certain. The plan for certain vacations for everyone is one, because I do not see the need to control this when corporations are quickly realizing that employees that have had decent rest are simply more productive. I am also not certain what the Trans-Pacific Partnership thing is about, and due to the secrecy of the negotiations neither does anyone else, so I really don't care much about that. But I'm certainly not going to take his word that it's going to destroy jobs.
But he really seems to have no idea how to achieve most of the things he talks about. Most of his site is pointless hodgepodge where terms and stances are not properly defined, and there are a lot of emotionally-charged words like "family values" being utilized. There is no clear plan for action and worse yet, there is no breaking down on what steps could be taken and what goals realistically achieved in one term. There is no way he'll win, of course, but from reading his site and the wikipedia site I do not even think he is trying to win. He's just trying to raise awareness to a bunch of issues, and to make these issues themes for the election.
----------
Considering that the US is not in the top 10 for World Happiness Report while 8 European countries are, not in the top 10 of Where-to-be-born_Index while 5 European countries are, and that US has lower life expectancy than Colombia, I will just assume this is either unsubstantiated bait or an opinion formed with concern only about economic growth and/or purchasing power.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Some observations, in ascending order of seriousness -
First, America is higher on those rankings than the European countries Americans care about - i.e., France, Germany, and the UK.
Second, Colombia's life expectancy is actually pretty decent. I find your use of that comparison suspicious, as if you're expecting people to think of Colombia as a third-world hellhole with abysmal statistics. I'm even tempted to call it a bait.
Third, the countries in the top ten you're referring to aren't just "European countries" - they're a particular subset of European countries, the Nordic countries. We're not talking about a European success story, we're talking about a Nordic success story. Which, as SurgingChaos has alluded, is an area of particular interest and inquiry and its replicability is very much in question.
Fourth, whatever variable the happiness report is measuring, I strongly doubt that sound government policies affect it in any serious way. It seems rather to be a yardstick of cultural enthusiasm. The U.S. is beaten not just by the Nordic countries but also by dysfunctional Mexico and the savagely corrupt UAE, while hovering way further down the list are such generally sensible nations as Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, and in dead last is Portugal of all places.
And finally - hey, the economy is a big deal. If you can wave your hand and dismiss economic statistics, certainly your interlocutor has just as much right to wave his hand and dismiss the statistics you favor. Hell, I actually just gave a reason for questioning the relevance of the happiness report! Shocking and unprecedented, I'm sure.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It is absolutely asinine to even start to compare the Scandinavian countries to most other countries in the world.
People complain about the two-party system because the entire Republican party should have gotten the guillotine a few decades ago.
You're right in that more parties would make more problems - hence my example of Ralph Nader.
Read a book, dude.
EDIT: Why even ask, when you yourself have made threads in this forum demonstrating some of those reasons?
Democratic politicians could also have these attributed to them.
And, even so, this doesn't mean that a part in of itself is bad.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The fact of the matter is that the government budget is currently complete insanity as it stands. Now Mr. Sanders wants to tack on the price of health care for everybody AND footing the bill for college education on top of that.
So where's the money going to come from?
I struggle to find sanity in Sanders supporters.
---
Also, brief addition to the compromise/two-parties discussion: one of the major reasons you're seeing political gridlock right now is because parties are running on a position of no-compromise with regards to certain issues and getting elected for it. There are some issues that are major dividing lines, "wedge issues" if you will, that you can't just compromise on. For example, you cannot have 50% Obamacare. The politicans running against Obamacare have run on a position of getting rid of it, and were elected for this. The politicans running in favor of Obamacare have run on a position of keeping it, and were elected for this. They were specifically elected because they vowed not to compromise. So it's not just an issue of parties, it's an issue of the electorate and their interests. If the electorate doesn't want compromise, you won't get it.
Speaking of Obamacare, let's talk about that for a second. Barack Obama had a hard time getting Obamacare passed due to opposition from within his own party despite the Democrats having a filibuster-proof majority. That was Obamacare. Sanders wants to go even further than that. And consider exactly how popular Obamacare was in the last election.
So yeah, Sanders will never have a chance of getting elected into office. He won't just alienate conservatives and moderates, he'll alienate his own party.
And all of this is a wonderful thing really. I'm rather mystified we're humoring socialism as a legitimate candidate for "direction this country should be going in."
I don't really see the effects of the system collapsing everywhere around me, as one would expect considering I live in a socialist country.
And you are assuming that economic growth is a goal-in-itself. You can continue to do so, but I strongly disagree with it. Governments, as well as economic systems, in my opinion, should exist to create well-being.
America is higher on those rankings than multiple of the way-less-socialist states of Europe, whereas the most socialistic ones are doing well. If the question is about socialism, I think it might be more relevant to compare against states that are, well, socialist or social-democratic. I suppose this is a matter of degree and that by contrast to the US, UK can be construed as socialist.
28.5% of Colombians live in poverty. 8.1% in extreme poverty. 15% of Colombian children suffer from chronic malnutrition, and illiteracy rate is 7.6%. It is safe to say that the States are a much more wealthy nation, with much more resources to allocate towards increasing the life expectancy. I chose Colombia because, with the exception of healthcare and life expectancy, it is a developing-world hole. Not a hellhole, nor third world, but still. US should be able to do better.
Of course, the poor in Colombia are still able to get healthcare (96% coverage rate) thanks to not living in the states.
Actually, that isn't even bait. It's a good example of something that improves the quality of life, and evidently something that can be achieved with less resources than what the United States has.
I was not aware Netherlands, Austria, and Switzerland were Nordic. Pretty sure the combined population of those countries is also larger than the combined population of the Nordic countries.
Furthermore, as far as replicability goes: Canada.
I can rather easily see how socialist states, which organize healthcare and company for the elderly, rank higher on the "having someone to count on"-list. I'm also pretty sure corruption can be fought through sound government practices. And hey, real GDP per capita and healthy life expectancy seem like something one could improve as well. Perceived freedom to make life choices is a bit trickier, but I assume that a free education system that does not force everyone into debt for the first 10 years of their career could help. Can't force the generosity though.
Japan in particular has issues with insecurity of future, due to the lack of economic growth. The completely stagnating birth rate is, at least partially, a result of the expectation of having the woman as a housekeeper with kids while the man works, which proves to be rather unsustainable with the income levels of most of the younger generation. Japan and Taiwan are also insanely highly populated - which has been shown to correlate with lower living standards and happiness. This is debatably one of the things that cannot be fixed, and one of the reasons why the Nordic countries tend to be happy, though there are US states with lower population density than the Nordics.
Also, I am assuming you were not aware that Portugal is pretty much screwed especially on the metrics of the other neighbouring countries. For the majority of the past 15 years Portugal's per capita been growing slower than the US did during the great recession, or Japan during the lost decade, and the economy has only recently started to see some improvement. Furthermore, due to the right-wing dictatorship that held Portugal until 1974, there is a significant portion of uneducated people that feel alienated from modern culture. The Gini score is pretty bad, too.
So, uh. Yeah. Low education levels, long-lasting economic crisis, overpopulation, and stark inequality breed unhappiness. Who would've known. Three of these areas can be fought with policies efficiently, and even the last one (overpopulation) can be reduced through increased education levels, better family planning advice and free contraceptives.
----------
No, I am not saying that the metric is perfect, or even nearly an end-all-be-all, but it quite clearly shows that there are areas in which the US could easily improve. It is also my impression that the US is, in general, a pretty wealthy country with a large and strong economy. So the US could easily also afford to improve in those areas. And that most countries doing better than the States are more socialistic.
I didn't say economy wasn't important. I said that it was not an end-all-be-all statistic, and that having a great economy that only creates well-being for 0.5% of the people would not be a very worthwhile thing to aim at. Economic growth has an instrumental value.
Furthermore, while EU isn't doing too great, I'm pretty sure that the debt-to-GDP ratio is better in here than in the states anyway. And if the countries US cares about are actually Germany, France and UK, Europe isn't even doing too bad. It's the southern-European countries that have awful public debt ratios of around 100%
What exactly is the part of the Nordic model that breaks down in a country with over 300 million people. Bear in mind that division of those 300 million into smaller groups, which we can call for example states is possible. That being said, I also agree with the fact that Bernie Sanders seems to have no idea how to change things towards a different system. As I said before, I do not think he is even trying to win.
So, let me get this straight: You are arguing that a transition from a wealthy libertarian country, such as the United States or Sweden, to a welfare state is possible? In other words, the only problem you see is the size of said country.
----------
I think the bottom line is that most people find it weird to see US struggling with severe inequality and having multiple people below the poverty line, despite the apparent wealth and strong economy of the nation. It does not seem to be productive to push for GDP growth without raising taxes or systems that would allow the government to get out of debt. There really is no reason to not have centralized healthcare, since it would prove to be far cheaper for nearly everyone in the long run due to the increased leverage. I am not even sure if people in this thread disagree with me, but there seems to be some kind of form of learned helplessness or resignation into claiming that a such system could never work in the US for varied reasons. We also seem to be in clear agreement that the chances of Bernie winning anything are an epsilon away from zero.
So in other words, how many here hold the Socialist ideas of Bernie primarily (I am sure there are some mixed opinions regarding his stances), or the general move towards more socialism:
A: Desirable, but unachievable.
B: Desirable and achievable.
C: Undesirable and unachievable.
D: Undesirable, but achievable.
Because if the difference is between A and B, the real issue here is whether or not things are achievable. If the difference is between A/B and C/D the question is regarding the merits and demerits of Socialism - and judging by the replies so far in this case the undesirability is largely a byproduct of (perceived) inability to maintain economic growth.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
The people and corporations who individually make more than the entire lower class combined, by screwing over and stepping on said lower class. "Where the money comes from" is the easiest possible thing to solve in a modern socialist economy, because technology allows us to individually produce more than we consume.
Tax every person for 100% of the income of everyone who makes over a million and you would have, what, 2/3 of a trillion dollars?
Obamacare's annual cost is about 2 trillion. That's just Obamacare. Sanders wants the government to take on the health care costs of everyone, and that's just Sanders' health care plan. Not including the other stuff he wants socialized.
So congratulations, you've accomplished funding 1/3 of the yearly cost of a program that is far less than the cost of Bernie Sanders' program. And I'm sure the economy's not going to take a hit at all from all the peoples' incomes you wiped out. Great work.
So, where's the rest of the money going to come from?
How well is Europe doing right now?
A shrinking economy benefits people? A bankrupt country benefits people? This is news to me. We should go ask the people of Greece how well their being is right now.
Again, in a debate about the economic soundness of a police, you're trying to downplay the significance of looking at the economies of countries?
Right, because only 0.5% of our country's people are better off than Columbia. Sure, that's exactly how things work.
What do you think centralized healthcare would accumulate if not debt?
Ok, (A) does not exist. There is no such thing as a plan that is desirable but unachievable. If a plan is not is not feasible, it is a bad plan.