Bernie Sanders announces he is running for President

[jw3600]

I’m not a guy that says all Trump supporters are ignorant racists. But let’s face it. Some are. I feel the “never Hilary” numbers are inflated because it’s a nice politically correct way out without having to say you actually wanted Trump. Trump would steamroll Bernie.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RoyBasch]

The 2020 elections should be a freebie for the Democrats...

Very insightful. Generally agree with everything, especially with not taking the bait on some of the non issues.

 

[vector2]

I could be wrong but I don't think the country will elect a far-left nominee any more than it will pick an ultra conservative Republican.

By what definition is trump not ultraconservative? Xenophobic isolationism, anti foreign aid, antichoice, anti single payer, anti union, anti gay marriage, tax cut bill which really didn’t help anyone significantly other than corps and ultrarich, climate change denialism, pro school vouchers, pro 2A, anti federal civil rights legislation....am I missing something?

 

[getdown]

By what definition is trump not ultraconservative? Xenophobic isolationism, anti foreign aid, antichoice, anti single payer, anti union, anti gay marriage, tax cut bill which really didn’t help anyone significantly other than corps and ultrarich, climate change denialism, pro school vouchers, pro 2A, anti federal civil rights legislation....am I missing something?

Trump is neither republican nor democrat, neither left nor right. He is the party of himself -- Trump. You are correct that he does espouse and routinely displays the traits you listed above but how much of it does he actually believe personally vs playing it up for his base. He is currently attached to the Republican party and base and, despite people thinking him a *****, you have to give him credit of knowing how to manipulate and twist things to his own benefits. If he wants to be re-elected he has to play this stuff up for his base. He is conceited and narcissitic enough to say whatever and anything to get his own agendas accomplished. Now, I'm not saying he isn't all these things either but given the chance with the democrats he'd probably be saying the **** AOC and bernie says x100. He knows what people want and how to market to them.

 

[Aether2000]

Many moderates including myself exercised the choice of not voting in the last election since both major candidates were so horrifically flawed that neither deserved to be on the ballot. If it comes to Trump vs. Bernie, I will be staying home again in 2020.

 

[pgg]

Many moderates including myself exercised the choice of not voting in the last election since both major candidates were so horrifically flawed that neither deserved to be on the ballot. If it comes to Trump vs. Bernie, I will be staying home again in 2020.

So because the presidential candidates aren't inspiring enough, you won't get out of bed to vote for anyone in the Senate, House, or local elections?

 

[ChiDO]

The left has 0% chance of winning vs Trump in 2020. They are going to eat themselves alive in the primaries with their radical socialist ideas. Free everything for everyone!

AOC has to be one of the dumbest people alive. She literally killed 25k jobs and 27 billion in taxes because she doesn't understand basic economics and taxes as an economic major from Boston. She literally stated the 3 billion in tax breaks should be used for schools and infrastructure instead of for Amazon.

Bernie - old delusion socialist
Warren - her I'm a native American but not but am is the downfall of her
Harris - free insurnace for all
Spartacus fromNJ - bubbling idiot

The only thing that could topple Trump would be a major economic collapse during election year. His job growth, unemployment numbers are too hard to compete against.

 

[SlythenClaw]

The left has 0% chance of winning vs Trump in 2020. They are going to eat themselves alive in the primaries with their radical socialist ideas. Free everything for everyone!

AOC has to be one of the dumbest people alive. She literally killed 25k jobs and 27 billion in taxes because she doesn't understand basic economics and taxes as an economic major from Boston. She literally stated the 3 billion in tax breaks should be used for schools and infrastructure instead of for Amazon.

Bernie - old delusion socialist
Warren - her I'm a native American but not but am is the downfall of her
Harris - free insurnace for all
Spartacus fromNJ - bubbling idiot

The only thing that could topple Trump would be a major economic collapse during election year. His job growth, unemployment numbers are too hard to compete against.

LOL is that what they're telling you on Faux News?

 

[bronx43]

The left has 0% chance of winning vs Trump in 2020. They are going to eat themselves alive in the primaries with their radical socialist ideas. Free everything for everyone!

AOC has to be one of the dumbest people alive. She literally killed 25k jobs and 27 billion in taxes because she doesn't understand basic economics and taxes as an economic major from Boston. She literally stated the 3 billion in tax breaks should be used for schools and infrastructure instead of for Amazon.

Bernie - old delusion socialist
Warren - her I'm a native American but not but am is the downfall of her
Harris - free insurnace for all
Spartacus fromNJ - bubbling idiot

The only thing that could topple Trump would be a major economic collapse during election year. His job growth, unemployment numbers are too hard to compete against.

0%? Lol wow, perhaps you should go to Vegas.

 

[deleted50478]

The left has 0% chance of winning vs Trump in 2020. They are going to eat themselves alive in the primaries with their radical socialist ideas. Free everything for everyone!

AOC has to be one of the dumbest people alive. She literally killed 25k jobs and 27 billion in taxes because she doesn't understand basic economics and taxes as an economic major from Boston. She literally stated the 3 billion in tax breaks should be used for schools and infrastructure instead of for Amazon.

Bernie - old delusion socialist
Warren - her I'm a native American but not but am is the downfall of her
Harris - free insurnace for all
Spartacus fromNJ - bubbling idiot

The only thing that could topple Trump would be a major economic collapse during election year. His job growth, unemployment numbers are too hard to compete against.

The voting public would have to be very stupid to care if Warren thought she was part Native American (because her grandmother told her that, right?). That’s a minor embarrassment not a disqualification for the presidency. Trump makes more foolish comments before breakfast than Warren makes all year. Of course the voting public probably is that stupid.

 

[medschoolzombie]

The Constitution has something to say about 30 year olds who want to be president.

Last I checked you had to be 35 to run, but looking at our popular lot of candidates, you’d think the minimum age limit was 70 lol. Where are all the 40 year olds?

 

[DirtDocMD]

The voting public would have to be very stupid to care if Warren thought she was part Native American (because her grandmother told her that, right?). That’s a minor embarrassment not a disqualification for the presidency. Trump makes more foolish comments before breakfast than Warren makes all year. Of course the voting public probably is that stupid.

Warren has made a fortune playing up her “race”. She has also made money flipping homes, while railing at banks who loaned money to folks to buy “flipped” houses at inflated prices. Listening to her for more than 1 minute exposes her as a completely batty old woman. Her most recent support for slavery reparations does nothing to change that. She’d demand the same for Native Americans, if she wasn’t likely to become the butt of even more jokes.

For anyone who thinks Trump is a loudmouth blowhard, and there are MANY, try listening to Joe Biden. He is most certainly just as bad.

The only “sense” I’m hearing right now is out of Howard Schultz. He has built a successful business, and has a real clue about economics. It is unfortunate that the Dem party is filled with lifelong government employed hacks.

 

[vector2]

The left has 0% chance of winning vs Trump in 2020.

People always seem to forget that Trump lost the popular by 3 million votes and squeaked out an EC fluke against arguably the worst, most unpopular democratic candidate since Mondale. Trump's approval ratings (if they remain steady from their current levels til election day) are well below the threshold historically required by the incumbent to keep the WH. I would argue that literally anybody not named Clinton with a D next to their name has a decent shot in 2020

 

[BLADEMDA]

People always seem to forget that Trump lost the popular by 3 million votes and squeaked out an EC fluke against arguably the worst, most unpopular democratic candidate since Mondale. Trump's approval ratings (if they remain steady from their current levels til election day) are well below the threshold historically required by the incumbent to keep the WH. I would argue that literally anybody not named Clinton with a D next to their name has a decent shot in 2020

So, all the Democrats have to do is a pick a moderate candidate and they win by a landslide in terms of the EC and the popular vote. But, the nominee won't be a moderate or even center left candidate. "Bolshevik" Bernie won't beat Trump; but, Biden would win the election in 2020.

https://nypost.com/2016/01/16/dont-be-fooled-by-bernie-sanders-hes-a-diehard-communist/

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

For those in their 30's there is one thing for certain: Taxes are going up. Way up. Enjoy the Trump tax cuts while they last.

Social Security expansion bill poised to gain traction in Congress
PUBLISHED SAT, FEB 23 2019 • 11:00 AM EST
Sarah O’Brien@SARAHTGOBRIEN





KEY POINTS

• The measure, which would expand benefits for current and future recipients, would extend the program’s solvency for 75 years, according to Social Security’s Office of the Chief Actuary.
• To help fund the proposed changes, earnings above $400,000 would be subject to Social Security taxes. In 2019, earnings above $132,900 are not subject to the levy.
• The payroll tax also would gradually rise to 14.8 percent from the current 12.4 percent by 2043, with workers and their employers splitting that tax as they already do.

 

[pgg]

Last I checked you had to be 35 to run, but looking at our popular lot of candidates, you’d think the minimum age limit was 70 lol. Where are all the 40 year olds?

I hope they're running for / serving in lower offices, to learn how to govern, to maybe run for president later, because no 35 or 40 year old has any business running the country.

Bernie Sanders is getting a lot of press and Donald Trump is president, but they're really the only super old people out there.

Kamala Harris is 54
Cory Booker is 49
Kirsten Gillibrand is 52
Amy Klobuchar is 58
And not that any Republicans are running (yet?) but Ted Cruz is 48 and Marco Rubio is 47.

There's no shortage of people who aren't at risk for Alzheimer's who want or have recently wanted the job.

Barack Obama was 47 when he took office. So was Bill Clinton. GWB was 55.

Trump (71) and Reagan (70) are the outliers. Even Bush The Elder was only 65.


Also, let's not get too carried away with all the far left whackadoodle things these Democrat hopefuls are saying a YEAR before the primary to get the fringe of their own party fired up. This far out you either need to rally the extremists or slip methamphetamine into the water supply to get people interested. And whichever one wins the primary is going to be smart enough to pivot to the middle for the general election.

 

[pgg]

The left has 0% chance of winning vs Trump in 2020.

The unspoken assumption here is that there's a 100% chance that Trump will run for a second term.

I don't think that's a sure thing at all.

 

[pgg]

For anyone who thinks Trump is a loudmouth blowhard, and there are MANY, try listening to Joe Biden. He is most certainly just as bad.

Yeah, but Joe Biden is funny, and there isn't a malicious bone in his body.

I'm not saying I'd want him to be president, but we could do worse.

 

[vector2]

So, all the Democrats have to do is a pick a moderate candidate and they win by a landslide in terms of the EC and the popular vote. But, the nominee won't be a moderate or even center left candidate. "Bolshevik" Bernie won't beat Trump; but, Biden would win the election in 2020.

https://nypost.com/2016/01/16/dont-be-fooled-by-bernie-sanders-hes-a-diehard-communist/

Painting Bernie as the unelectable "far left fringe" candidate comes mostly from yours and others personal perspective and certainly not from any real data regarding electability. He would've more easily defeated trump in 2016 than hrc, and all of the polling done from mid 2018 to now (CNN poll: Trump trails Sanders, Biden, Oprah in 2020 matchups - CNNPolitics) (Poll: Biden, Sanders top Trump in North Carolina in potential 2020 match-ups) (QU Poll Release Detail) (Poll: Trump beats O'Rourke, nearly ties Sanders and loses to Biden in hypothetical 2020 matchups) indicate Bernie (or Biden) both defeat trump in the general and all the other candidates are either tied or behind. Granted, these polls are still early but Bernie is a very well known candidate whose policy positions are no secret. There are large swaths of the country who make less than 6 figures, have substantial college or other debt, and who have shaky health coverage for whom Sanders appeals tremendously both from an economic and social policy perspective.

Combine the enthusiastic Bernie voters with the moderate dems who get in line + the never-trump independents + blue collar independents/conservatives who voted Obama then Trump based on a populist message, throw in a bit of suppressed turnout from trump repubs who think the writing is already on the wall, and you have a recipe for a comfortable Bernie win.

But as I said before, I don't think it's gonna be Bernie anyway because the DNC will never allow that to happen plus California will go Harris.

 

[BLADEMDA]

We agree that Kamala Harris is the most likely nominee for President: Trump vs Harris. That's about as opposite and polarizing as it gets.

FYI, I think Biden would govern to the left of center. Quite Mainstream vs Harris or Sanders.

 

[deleted162650]

Whoever wins, I just hope Congress goes the other way. I’m just gonna change the year on my bumper sticker from ‘16:

GRIDLOCK 2020!

 

[medschoolzombie]

The unspoken assumption here is that there's a 100% chance that Trump will run for a second term.

I don't think that's a sure thing at all.

I think he will. If not to bolster his base then for the fact that him staying in office is really what’s starving off charges right now in all these investigations

Yeah, but Joe Biden is funny, and there isn't a malicious bone in his body.

I'm not saying I'd want him to be president, but we could do worse.

You would enjoy this

 

[Stagg737]

Jesus. Why are our only options ancient people? Where are all the 30/40 year olds who may actually be in tune with what all of us want

Plenty of under 60 option. Plus Beto hasn't been rule out yet, so there's another youngster potentially running.

I think we are only exposed to center-left, centrist, and center-right politicians so representatives of the center-left and center-right seem like extremists to their opponents.
Wealth redistribution is a center left policy. Anti-capitalism, abolition of private property is far left.

Yea, this isn't Europe though. For U.S. candidates they are pretty far left unless you want to throw Jill Stein and the green and communist parties in there.

I’m not a guy that says all Trump supporters are ignorant racists. But let’s face it. Some are. I feel the “never Hilary” numbers are inflated because it’s a nice politically correct way out without having to say you actually wanted Trump. Trump would steamroll Bernie.

Not really. Pew polls from October 2016 showed that almost 60% of both Hillary AND Trump voters were voting against the other candidate and not for someone they supported. That's how pathetic U.S. politics (and society in general) has become.

Many moderates including myself exercised the choice of not voting in the last election since both major candidates were so horrifically flawed that neither deserved to be on the ballot. If it comes to Trump vs. Bernie, I will be staying home again in 2020.

So why not go out and vote for a third party? At the very least if a third party candidate pulled a decent percentage of the vote it could break the illusion that the only valid options are the giant d***** or turd sandwich.

Yeah, but Joe Biden is funny, and there isn't a malicious bone in his body.

I'm not saying I'd want him to be president, but we could do worse.

I mean, for physicians he'd be pretty bad. He's squarely in the nursing lobby's pocket. I don't want to turn this into an mid-level independent practice thread, but I'd rather not have the pro-midlevel message being relayed at a national/federal level.

There are large swaths of the country who make less than 6 figures, have substantial college or other debt, and who have shaky health coverage for whom Sanders appeals tremendously both from an economic and social policy perspective.

And if those people had bothered to read his actual policy proposals in 2016 (and had a basic education level, which I don't think most have even if they are in college), they'd realize how ridiculous those plans were and that he's actually delusional.

 

[vector2]

I hope they're running for / serving in lower offices, to learn how to govern, to maybe run for president later, because no 35 or 40 year old has any business running the country.

Bernie Sanders is getting a lot of press and Donald Trump is president, but they're really the only super old people out there.

Kamala Harris is 54
Cory Booker is 49
Kirsten Gillibrand is 52
Amy Klobuchar is 58
And not that any Republicans are running (yet?) but Ted Cruz is 48 and Marco Rubio is 47.

There's no shortage of people who aren't at risk for Alzheimer's who want or have recently wanted the job.

Barack Obama was 47 when he took office. So was Bill Clinton. GWB was 55.

Trump (71) and Reagan (70) are the outliers. Even Bush The Elder was only 65.


Also, let's not get too carried away with all the far left whackadoodle things these Democrat hopefuls are saying a YEAR before the primary to get the fringe of their own party fired up. This far out you either need to rally the extremists or slip methamphetamine into the water supply to get people interested. And whichever one wins the primary is going to be smart enough to pivot to the middle for the general election.

pgg, whats your plan for 2020 if you care to share? I'm relatively certain you'd rather drink battery acid than vote for Harris, and you must be pretty happy with the way the judiciary is shaping out on a federal and state level. Hold nose and vote trump in anticipation of RBG and possible Breyer retirements?

 

[GastriqueGraffin]

I’m not exactly sure why people don’t think Trump will win. I have never met anyone who voted for him who disapproves enough to not vote for him again. There are conservatives who did not vote for him initially (didn’t vote at all) but I think the far left shift of Dems will make them vote. It’s pretty rare for the incumbent to lose.

 

[medschoolzombie]

It’s pretty rare for the incumbent to lose.

Bush sr was a one term. Not to mention there were a whole slew of presidents in the gilded age that were one term. It’s not that rare

 

[TheLoneWolf]

What's wealth redistribution?

It's clear you favor the current form of wealth *distribution*, with historically low marginal income tax rates and high inequality. Others favor a different plan of wealth *distribution*. But you are invoking some sort of idea that "they're gonna come take my money" with references to dictatorships and bayonets, meanwhile, billionaires keep billionairing and you too will eventually be left out in the cold.

Who determines inequality?
Who determines if you are "paying your fair share" of taxes?
The above is not a mistake.
Wealth distribution is any entity paying you for whatever it is you are providing be it a product or service.
Wealth redistribution is the government taking some of your income, mostly in the form of taxation, in order to funnel into services and programs.

We have a progressive tax system. Make more pay more. According to the Tax foundation,

"In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $543 billion, or39.48 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $400 billion, or 29.12 percent of all income taxes."

What happens when the left wants 70% income tax on high earners (AOC) to Bernie always talking about the old days when it was 91%. This is their form of wealth redistribution to level everyone, move closer to equality of outcomes. Ultimately, they will drop down the top level income brackets until you and I fall into that bracket to pay for the expensive programs they are offering. Then what, pay the higher taxes (wealth redistribution) or run foul of the IRS, and they have far more than bayonets at their disposal.

This isn't some crazy mumbo jumbo, look at nearly all countries with socialist policies or universal healthcare. The upper income tax brackets are kept low so that even non millionaires are paying over half their income for these services.

 

[pgg]

pgg, whats your plan for 2020 if you care to share? I'm relatively certain you'd rather drink battery acid than vote for Harris, and you must be pretty happy with the way the judiciary is shaping out on a federal and state level. Hold nose and vote trump in anticipation of RBG and possible Breyer retirements?

I'll probably end up voting 3rd party for president again. I was a never-Trumper and that is unchanged. I will not vote for Senator Harris if she gets the nomination.

I wouldn't say I'm joyful over the judicial appointees. Their pro-2A bent is a silver lining. I imagine when the day comes when they vote against the civil rights that evangelicals don't like I'll be appalled.

As a libertarian if I wasn't a glass-half-full kind of guy I'd be despondent all the time. Democrats and Republicans are always doing something I disagree with.

 

[GravelRider]

Then what, pay the higher taxes (wealth redistribution) or run foul of the IRS, and they have far more than bayonets at their disposal.

Bayonets? Really?

The fear-mongering over Bernie Sanders is pretty ridiculous sometimes. He is not a Bolshevik revolutionary calling for people to take up arms. He is not a Communist. He is a progressive style Democrat whose ideas are not radical when you look at them in terms of both past U.S. history and current European/Canadian societies. I honestly just don’t get the fear over Bernie Sanders. People paint this picture of a Che Guevera coming to take your property at gun point.

The biggest knock against Bernie Sanders is it would be just another 4 years of absolute gridlock in Washington. How likely is it that Bernie would be able to get a “Medicare for all” or “70% marginal tax rate on 10 millionaires” through Congress? We have a winner-take-all mentality in our government right that guarantees dysfunction no matter who is president.

I hate to tell you, but these progressive ideas are coming at some point in our lifetime. The people want them, the financial elites don’t.

 

[deleted171991]

Who determines inequality?
Who determines if you are "paying your fair share" of taxes?
The above is not a mistake.
Wealth distribution is any entity paying you for whatever it is you are providing be it a product or service.
Wealth redistribution is the government taking some of your income, mostly in the form of taxation, in order to funnel into services and programs.

We have a progressive tax system. Make more pay more. According to the Tax foundation,

"In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $543 billion, or39.48 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $400 billion, or 29.12 percent of all income taxes."

What happens when the left wants 70% income tax on high earners (AOC) to Bernie always talking about the old days when it was 91%. This is their form of wealth redistribution to level everyone, move closer to equality of outcomes. Ultimately, they will drop down the top level income brackets until you and I fall into that bracket to pay for the expensive programs they are offering. Then what, pay the higher taxes (wealth redistribution) or run foul of the IRS, and they have far more than bayonets at their disposal.

This isn't some crazy mumbo jumbo, look at nearly all countries with socialist policies or universal healthcare. The upper income tax brackets are kept low so that even non millionaires are paying over half their income for these services.

Thank you for bringing up the main issue: we should have equality of opportunities, not of outcomes.

 

[TheLoneWolf]

Bayonets? Really?

The fear-mongering over Bernie Sanders is pretty ridiculous sometimes. He is not a Bolshevik revolutionary calling for people to take up arms. He is not a Communist. He is a progressive style Democrat whose ideas are not radical when you look at them in terms of both past U.S. history and current European/Canadian societies. I honestly just don’t get the fear over Bernie Sanders. People paint this picture of a Che Guevera coming to take your property at gun point.

The biggest knock against Bernie Sanders is it would be just another 4 years of absolute gridlock in Washington. How likely is it that Bernie would be able to get a “Medicare for all” or “70% marginal tax rate on 10 millionaires” through Congress? We have a winner-take-all mentality in our government right that guarantees dysfunction no matter who is president.

I hate to tell you, but these progressive ideas are coming at some point in our lifetime. The people want them, the financial elites don’t.

Barring extreme revolution, almost an impossibility, to have a bayonet shoved in someone's face.

The point is this:
If these high tax proposals are implemented, and one does not pay their amount owed then there is a very real chance of financial and asset forfeiture and possible jail time. One would think that those in this top income bracket would leave but there are proposals by likes of Warren to a 40% exit tax above 50 million to all those who renounce citizenship and attempt to leave the country.

This isn't socialism at the end of a bayonet but it's still a matter of compliance or loss of assets and freedoms.

 

[vector2]

Wealth distribution is any entity paying you for whatever it is you are providing be it a product or service.
Wealth redistribution is the government taking some of your income, mostly in the form of taxation, in order to funnel into services and programs.

This pair of statements makes it seem like "distribution" is structured solely on fair market forces and that "redistribution" is some kind of government theft instead of what it actually is- a societal contract. Neither of your statements seem accurate.

If you want to talk honestly about "distribution," then look at any particular line in the US code pertaining to the tax treatment or regulation of a certain industry and you will likely see a line of text that was directly influenced by said industry's army of lobbyists. It doesn't matter if we're talking about agriculture, household goods, technology, energy, automotive, banking, healthcare, insurance, pharmaceuticals, and on and on. Corporations and their C-suites receive tremendous amounts of welfare due directly to lobbyist influenced government intervention- after all, they are the ones with pockets big enough to donate substantially to politicians. It is a fact that in the 50-60s the average CEO's pay was about 20-30x the average worker's, and now (that unions have been eviscerated) it is 200-350x the average worker's. It's also a fact that the average worker's wage has not kept up with inflation. That is not only unfair, it's obscene. Make no mistake that government intervention (and sometimes lack thereof) played a part in the gap growing, and it will also play a part in how that gap can be corrected.

At the end of the day, the right wing has done an excellent job with fear mongering vis a vis "socialist" policies, but yet has failed to inform the public that our current system has actually allowed those at the top to profit tremendously off of someone else's labor for decades. And this line of reasoning doesn't just apply to blue collar joe schmoes. I'm an employed physician actually providing billable services day in and day out and yet the C-suite in my hospital (who honestly can't get the simplest of things done without 2 years and 15 committees meetings) are making 3-10x my income.

 

[GastriqueGraffin]

The top 1% (household income of $390K) pay more than 90% of taxpayers combined. So get out with this “fair share” bs.

 

[vector2]

The top 1% (household income of $390K) pay more than 90% of taxpayers combined. So get out with this “fair share” bs.

The top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. Paying that share of the taxes is appropriate.

 

[GastriqueGraffin]

The top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. Paying that share of the taxes is appropriate.

Don’t count other people’s money because the pie is not fixed. I could not care less about how much money Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates has. If they hired someone and that person leaves their prior job to make 10% more than they otherwise would but the owner makes 10000% more than he was making before then good for both of them. Also many if not most young physicians today don’t come from wealth and we worked hard for what we make. So don’t tell me about lack of social mobility in this country.

 

[TheLoneWolf]

This pair of statements makes it seem like "distribution" is structured solely on fair market forces and that "redistribution" is some kind of government theft instead of what it actually is- a societal contract. Neither of your statements seem accurate.

If you want to talk honestly about "distribution," then look at any particular line in the US code pertaining to the tax treatment or regulation of a certain industry and you will likely see a line of text that was directly influenced by said industry's army of lobbyists. It doesn't matter if we're talking about agriculture, household goods, technology, energy, automotive, banking, healthcare, insurance, pharmaceuticals, and on and on. Corporations and their C-suites receive tremendous amounts of welfare due directly to lobbyist influenced government intervention- after all, they are the ones with pockets big enough to donate substantially to politicians. It is a fact that in the 50-60s the average CEO's pay was about 20-30x the average worker's, and now (that unions have been eviscerated) it is 200-350x the average worker's. It's also a fact that the average worker's wage has not kept up with inflation. That is not only unfair, it's obscene. Make no mistake that government intervention (and sometimes lack thereof) played a part in the gap growing, and it will also play a part in how that gap can be corrected.

At the end of the day, the right wing has done an excellent job with fear mongering vis a vis "socialist" policies, but yet has failed to inform the public that our current system has actually allowed those at the top to profit tremendously off of someone else's labor for decades. And this line of reasoning doesn't just apply to blue collar joe schmoes. I'm an employed physician actually providing billable services day in and day out and yet the C-suite in my hospital (who honestly can't get the simplest of things done without 2 years and 15 committees meetings) are making 3-10x my income.

Nowhere do I state that this system is the best. What I am saying is what is the proposed alternative? I think the proposed trickle down economics was flawed on the right but I am bringing to the forefront the proposed changes that some on the left are proposing. Never do I state that taxation is theft, its practically a universal concept. The market does not readily redistribute wealth, at least on any collective level. The government does. To your next point, there are lobbyists on all sides and its doubtful that their tremendous power and influence will be limited any time in the near future.

To the issue of those at the top profiting tremendously off of others labor, this will exist along any political line. Whoever controls means of some production, will control the workforce. In communist or socialist circles, the government owns the means of production and is profiting off of the laborers. In capitalism, its wealthy individuals and corporations who own the means of production. The difference is in a free market such as now, no one is forcing the laborers to take these positions. It is entirely their choice. They can move, find alternate means of work, or control their own means of production. Not so in less free societies.

I was, in my younger years, sternly pro left policies then got 'woke' as the kids call it. As the old saying goes 'Everyone is a democrat until their first paycheck.' Would recommend you look at the works of Milton Friedman, Nobel prize winner in economics.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I’ve read Milton Friedman’s work. He is a genius and I agree with him 100 percent. This country’s shift to the left is not good for the aspiring middle class. It isn’t good for Physicians or anyone wanting to work hard and keep most of what they earn. The social contract is vital to this nation and every other country but the left has it wrong. Milton Friedman recognized the free market creates the most wealth. When government gets out of the way and keeps taxes reasonable nations prosper.

Which nation has the most number of billionaires? Bolshevik Bernie can’t prevent the Billioniares any more than China or Russia.

Which nation has the most number of millionaires? The rule of law, reasonable liberties and relatively reasonable taxation has led to an economic boom for those willing to work hard. Bolshevik Bernie and the left will destroy this class of people. They will bring them down hard due to heavy taxation, regulation and redistribution of wealth.

Friedman’s America is dead. I know that for a fact. But, I’d like to see this nation avoid the slow growth policies of Europe and retain at least part of Friedman’s ideals for an economy.

I will never vote for leftist policies because they are bad for this country. While I believe in the social contract I don’t believe in a free lunch for those unwilling to work or do their fair share to fulfill that contract.

Healthcare? Sure, citizens deserve a basic level of free care. But, that’s not the same as unlimited platinum level care.

Inequality will always exist. No system of govt has ever been successful in eradicating income equality. But, I’d argue our system is the best one for equal opportunity to succeed.

Bolshevik Bernie and the left will destroy that opportunity for the vast majority of Americans seeking the dream of economic success.

 

[vector2]

Don’t count other people’s money because the pie is not fixed. I could not care less about how much money Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates has. If they hired someone and that person leaves their prior job to make 10% more than they otherwise would but the owner makes 10000% more than he was making before then good for both of them. Also many if not most young physicians today don’t come from wealth and we worked hard for what we make. So don’t tell me about lack of social mobility in this country.

What? Neither of the pools of money are fixed, and both pools contain "other people's money."

In any case, if you don't think it's a problem that one person brings their skills and ideas to a company and gets a 10% raise while the owner makes 10,000% more off their skills and ideas then there's not really any convincing you of anything.

 

[BLADEMDA]

A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”
― Milton Friedman


“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
― Milton Friedman

 

[BLADEMDA]

What? Neither of the pools of money are fixed, and both pools contain "other people's money."

In any case, if you don't think it's a problem that one person brings their skills and ideas to a company and gets a 10% raise while the owner makes 10,000% more off their skills and ideas then there's not really any convincing you of anything.

“Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.”
― Milton Friedman

 

[GastriqueGraffin]

“Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.”
― Milton Friedman

Intellectuals like Friedman hardly exist anymore. People like him would not be able to speak and debate on many universities today without some serious threats and name calling.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Intellectuals like Friedman hardly exist anymore. People like him would not be able to speak and debate on many universities today without some serious threats and name calling.

His America is dead. All we can hope for is that the USA retains some small semblance of itself over the next 20 years. AOC is bad for America and will hurt the aspiring middle class the most. You don’t create wealth by redistributing money from the successful to the poor. You create wealth by allowing opportunity and the free market to work.

The writing is on the wall. The USA is becoming a second rate nation adopting policies which slow growth and innovation. Regulation and high taxation is not the path for economic success.

 

[vector2]

Nowhere do I state that this system is the best. What I am saying is what is the proposed alternative? I think the proposed trickle down economics was flawed on the right but I am bringing to the forefront the proposed changes that some on the left are proposing. Never do I state that taxation is theft, its practically a universal concept. The market does not readily redistribute wealth, at least on any collective level. The government does. To your next point, there are lobbyists on all sides and its doubtful that their tremendous power and influence will be limited any time in the near future.

The fallacy is thinking that today's "market" is extricable from the government when it isn't. Is there really any way to separate the federal reserve, stock market, corporate banks, US treasury, and the national labor pool? Not really. Listen, I'm not arguing with doing away with capitalism, but rather approaching it with a more democratic socialist lens a la Scandinavia. You are absolutely right that the tax system there, while having a somewhat higher top marginal rate, is also somewhat flatter and more regressive, especially when a VAT is included. The flip side of that is that poverty and homelessness are almost non-existent, crime is lower, people have a basic level of medical care, higher education, and child care taken care of. Not to mention people on average are happier.

To the issue of those at the top profiting tremendously off of others labor, this will exist along any political line. Whoever controls means of some production, will control the workforce. In communist or socialist circles, the government owns the means of production and is profiting off of the laborers. In capitalism, its wealthy individuals and corporations who own the means of production. The difference is in a free market such as now, no one is forcing the laborers to take these positions. It is entirely their choice. They can move, find alternate means of work, or control their own means of production. Not so in less free societies.

No one is under any illusions that income/wealth inequality will ever be truly done away with, but make no mistake- "no one is forcing the laborers to take these positions" is an absolutely horsesh*t statement. The right has spent a few decades trying to cut social benefits while simultaneously destroying unions and creating right to work states. Politicians are in the pocket of the health insurance industry and we have a totally non-free-market system where health insurance is stupidly tied to your job which severely limits job mobility. If the alternative is to starve or not be able to afford your medicine then yes, you are forcing the laborers to take a position for less than what their labor is worth.

I was, in my younger years, sternly pro left policies then got 'woke' as the kids call it. As the old saying goes 'Everyone is a democrat until their first paycheck.' Would recommend you look at the works of Milton Friedman, Nobel prize winner in economics.

If anything, I've gotten more liberal from my mid 20s to my mid 30s. The more I read of Keynes and Friedman, the more obvious it becomes who has the more persuasive arguments.

 

[GravelRider]

Nowhere do I state that this system is the best. What I am saying is what is the proposed alternative? I think the proposed trickle down economics was flawed on the right but I am bringing to the forefront the proposed changes that some on the left are proposing. Never do I state that taxation is theft, its practically a universal concept. The market does not readily redistribute wealth, at least on any collective level. The government does. To your next point, there are lobbyists on all sides and its doubtful that their tremendous power and influence will be limited any time in the near future.

To the issue of those at the top profiting tremendously off of others labor, this will exist along any political line. Whoever controls means of some production, will control the workforce. In communist or socialist circles, the government owns the means of production and is profiting off of the laborers. In capitalism, its wealthy individuals and corporations who own the means of production. The difference is in a free market such as now, no one is forcing the laborers to take these positions. It is entirely their choice. They can move, find alternate means of work, or control their own means of production. Not so in less free societies.

I was, in my younger years, sternly pro left policies then got 'woke' as the kids call it. As the old saying goes 'Everyone is a democrat until their first paycheck.' Would recommend you look at the works of Milton Friedman, Nobel prize winner in economics.

The United States has never been a true “free market.” You don’t want that. How are you going to pay for the military? We have always been a mixed economy ever since the ability for Congress to levy taxes in order to provide for a common defense and to promote the general welfare of the United States was written into the Constitution. How else are you going to provide the social safety net necessary to allow citizens to pursue happiness? Not a single Democratic candidate has ever once even mentioned state control of the means of production. You are comparing the current Democratic candidates to totalitarian dictatorships, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but what I hate even more is the way the government has been used to concentrate power and wealth for the relative few all while destroying the middle class over the past 5 decades. The government is supposed to be the people’s voice to provide a check on Capitalism...a referee, if you will. It doesn’t. If the game was fair then there would be no one calling for wealth redistribution, as you call it. The ruling class operates under a different set of rules.

 

[vector2]

“Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.”
― Milton Friedman

Government intervention in the late 90s and early 00s to make the big banks hands-off and regulation-free worked out just super in 2007-2008.

 

[GravelRider]

Intellectuals like Friedman hardly exist anymore. People like him would not be able to speak and debate on many universities today without some serious threats and name calling.

I agree, this is a problem. Intellectuals of all stripes are looked at with suspicion in our society. We don’t like to be challenged and we like to feel comfortable. This is a societal problem, not just one at our universities. Furthermore, our universities do not exist to promote intellectuals anymore. They are corporations just like any other. Students are customers acquiring a mountain of debt. There is no time to think and be challenged when you are more worried about how you will pay that debt back.

I’ll leave you with a quote from a dirty, no good socialist:
“The whole educational and professional training system is a very elaborate filter, which just weeds out people who are too independent, and who think for themselves, and who don't know how to be submissive, and so on -- because they're dysfunctional to the institutions.” - Noam Chomsky

 

[GastriqueGraffin]

Arguing with someone only makes them more convinced of their position so I will stop. But I am honestly surprised by some of you anesthesia folks. I’d expect this from a family med forum but they got one going about “how can I make the most money”. SDN has become a bit too twilight zone for me.

 

[nimbus]

Arguing with someone only makes them more convinced of their position so I will stop. But I am honestly surprised by some of you anesthesia folks. I’d expect this from a family med forum but they got one going about “how can I make the most money”. SDN has become a bit too twilight zone for me.

Many anesthesiologists are modern day blue collar factory workers. We labor so that our capitalist overlords can cash in. We were once small business owners but we’re getting wiped out by the Amazons and Walmarts of healthcare. So rather than running our own shops, we have been forced to take jobs in their stores and warehouses. It’s a shift in perspective from owner to worker bee.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The United States has never been a true “free market.” You don’t want that. How are you going to pay for the military? We have always been a mixed economy ever since the ability for Congress to levy taxes in order to provide for a common defense and to promote the general welfare of the United States was written into the Constitution. How else are you going to provide the social safety net necessary to allow citizens to pursue happiness? Not a single Democratic candidate has ever once even mentioned state control of the means of production. You are comparing the current Democratic candidates to totalitarian dictatorships, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but what I hate even more is the way the government has been used to concentrate power and wealth for the relative few all while destroying the middle class over the past 5 decades. The government is supposed to be the people’s voice to provide a check on Capitalism...a referee, if you will. It doesn’t. If the game was fair then there would be no one calling for wealth redistribution, as you call it. The ruling class operates under a different set of rules.

A nation that produces the most number of millionaires. A nation with unprecedented wealth. We are doing a lot of things right but there is room for improvement. I just rarely see more govt. as the answer. the left turns to govt. solutions for every problem. Regulation and more taxation is the answer to every problem. I just don't see it that way.

Why do you need to control production when the plan is to take 70% of the profits? Sure, the game isn't fair. I'd argue it has never been truly fair. But, the solution makes things worse not better. Less govt. and more free market is my answer.