The problem with Bernie

[jgarden]

The problem with Bernie

Conservatives have been forced to resurrect the "bogeyman" of socialism because despite having had control of the White House and both Houses of Congress, they don't have a positive track record worth running on!

As for Senator Bernie, he represents Vermont which gives him the perfect venue to observe as to how the Canadian universal healthcare system has operated for the last 50 years!

Given that the average Canadian lives 2 to 3 years longer than their US counterparts, how any years of lifespan are Americans willing to forgo for themselves and their family - for the sake of being good "capitalists?"

 

[RDKirk]

Nordic countries are not socialists either.

See Forbes: Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialist

Sounds like Bernie, then, isn't socialist either.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

If Bernie has some of his intestine breaks through his abdominal wall would he have a Bernia?

 

[jgarden]

The problem with Bernie

People's expectations for government evolve over time, where Obamacare was criticized as "socialist" a decade go, the Republicans were unable to produce a suitable private sector alternative - despite having majorities in both the House and the Senate!

It would be cheaper to bypass private insurance companies and provide a universal healthcare system financed out of general revenues - allowing federal and state governments to negotiate the costs of drugs and medical services, while saving $billions in administrative costs and bureaucracy!

 

[Albion]

Socialism is when everyone (the public) owns the means of production and distribution (and exchange).

It's where the government owns them and says that it is done in the name of the people.

 

[Albion]

Um, really?

Yes. Really.

 

[Yekcidmij]

It's a shame that so many Republicans have a problem with socialism while they still support the military and the police. Do Republicans support the G.I. Bill and veteran benefits? It's humorous to hear all these Republicans ranting about socialism taking over, but I'm confident that they would call the fire department if their house was on fire and they like having their trash picked up once a week by the garbage collection. I'm also confident that they have used the postal service before, driven on public highways, borrowed books from the public library and send their children to public school. I'm guessing that they are also relieved to see criminals locked away in the jail and prison system too.

I can't help but wonder how many of the Republicans who are ranting about socialism went through college depending on federal student loans or how many of them receive social security checks or how many of them received unemployment payments if they lost their job and were out of work for awhile.

List of government social programs

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

And to be honest, they really shouldn't complain about socialists because it's a socialist program that funds border security, which regulates Mexican immigrants from coming through the southern border.

66. Customs and Border Protection - the CBP is the largest law enforcement agency in America. This is big government that republicans actually do like because they don't like Mexicans immigrating to our country like our ancestors did. However, this taxpayer funded, socialist agency of the federal government regulates trade, imports, and immigration. (75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America)

Maybe you're conflating "socialism" with "government" in general? You're also conflating local government services (be it state, county, city, or maybe the neighborhood HOA) with federal government services.

It could also be that some people don't mind local government services as much but are more skeptical about centralizing control of all services in Washington DC. So, you don't differentiate in scale of services provided by various governments. Take your fire truck example. A local fire service is certainly more preferable to me than a federal fire service, and I would be willing to bet that it would be more efficient as well.

You're also conflating genuinely collective goods and services (like a judicial system or defense apparatus) vs. transfer payments.

(BTW, I define socialism in it's fullest form as state ownership of the means of production. So that's the definition I'm using.)

 

[jgarden]

The problem with Bernie
A government that provided a $1 trillion "tax cut" for the wealthy and corporations using borrowed money could be considered a form of socialism - but the "have-nots" in American society are stuck with the bill, but none of the benefits!

 

[Yekcidmij]

The problem with Bernie
A government that provided a $1 trillion "tax cut" for the wealthy and corporations using borrowed money could be considered a form of socialism - but the "have-nots" in American society are stuck with the bill, but none of the benefits!

How does that one work? How is letting someone keep their money "socialism?" How much do the "have-nots" pay in federal taxes? Structurally, it seems they pay the least in taxes.

 

[Yekcidmij]

It would be cheaper to bypass private insurance companies and provide a universal healthcare system financed out of general revenues - allowing federal and state governments to negotiate the costs of drugs and medical services, while saving $billions in administrative costs and bureaucracy!

How does that work? So you're financing healthcare out of "general revenues" which I assume means federal taxes, but you're allowing state governments to negotiate costs of drugs and medical services? And this federal financing with federal and state government collusion on prices will be more efficient?

I doubt my state can negotiate the price of a park bench or public urinal. Not sure I want them negotiating medical prices for all of us.

 

[seekingmuch]

The problem with Bernie
A government that provided a $1 trillion "tax cut" for the wealthy and corporations using borrowed money could be considered a form of socialism - but the "have-nots" in American society are stuck with the bill, but none of the benefits!

Ron Paul said, "why do we have to pay for tax cuts? It's your money."

The top 10% of income earners pay the majority of the income tax. So, when you have a tax cut, they get the majority of it. It's simple math. The percentages are the same, but the cash pile is bigger.

Our corporations faced the (some of the) highest taxes in the industrial world and it made them anti-competitive, and made them move their HQs to places like Ireland, that had low taxes. Corporations stuck at least $2 trillion (some say $4 trillion) in cash in places like that to avoid U.S. Taxes. Now, at a 15% tax rate, among the lowest in the industrial world, they are going to bring a lot of that money home and invest it here because it makes financial cent$. It's called "repatriation" of income.

 

[RDKirk]

The problem with Bernie
A government that provided a $1 trillion "tax cut" for the wealthy and corporations using borrowed money could be considered a form of socialism - but the "have-nots" in American society are stuck with the bill, but none of the benefits!

The debt is socialized, but the profits are privatized.

 

[jgarden]

Apparently conservatives see nothing wrong with this concentration of wealth in he hands of just a few individuals - what did Jesus say about "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle ....!"

 

[RDKirk]

Apparently conservatives see nothing wrong with this concentration of wealth in he hands of just a few individuals - what did Jesus say about "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle ....!"

Is that red dot Austin TX? If we own that, I'm okay with it.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Apparently conservatives see nothing wrong with this concentration of wealth in he hands of just a few individuals - what did Jesus say about "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle ....!"

(a) I don't know why that's a good analogy.

(b) There is something of a sort of moral claim in your post. It seems your moral claim is that it's not right for X% to own Y% of "wealth." But you haven't said why, other than a vague reference to their not being able to get into heaven, and I assume their entry or banishment from heaven is business between themselves and God.

First is a problem of arbitrariness since I'm not sure at what percentages you draw your moral lines.

Second is a problem of acquisition and transfer. Did all of the X% of people acquire their holdings through some sort of injustice? If so, how?

(c) There is also a problem of consistency. If it's really a problem for a small number of people to own that much "wealth" then why is it better, not to mention more moral, to transfer that wealth to an also small number of people (such as yourself, or Bernie Sanders, or <insert your favorite names here>), by force no less, so that they can do with it as they see fit? I'm not sure you have a legitimate moral complaint given that the solution you seem to advocate.

(d) There is a problem of comparability. What does the distribution of holdings in a non-market economy look like? Do those places have exponential distributions too?

 

[jgarden]

It's where the government owns them and says that it is done in the name of the people.

Military
Justice
Public Education
Parks/Wilderness Areas
Interstate Highways
Airline Regulation
Public Utilities
Broadcasting Regulation
Currency
Financial Regulation
US Census
Law Enforcement - FBI
National/State Museums, Art Galleries
..........

 

[Albion]

Socialism, my friend, not just government.

 

[jgarden]

The problem with Bernie

In 2016, Bernie and his "socialist" politics were largely relegated to the fringes of the Democratic Party and American politics.

Fast forward 3 years and Bernie is now surrounded by a new wave of presidential hopefuls who have come to the conclusion that America voter is now prepared to embrace such policies!

Despite having a majority in the Senate, the Republicans were unsuccessful in their repeated attempts to repeal Obamacare and replace in with private alternatives that failed to garner the confidence of much of the general public.

In fact, most congressional Republicans were "missing in action" when it came to holding public forums to explain their voting record on healthcare to their constituents!

Whatever Bernie's shortcomings, he has now provided the American voter with a range of options that had not been previously available on the political landscape!

 

[SinoBen]

Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

What you posted is not socialism.

Cops are the government's job. Regulating things with enforcement is the govt's job, regardless of the economy. Military are basically cops against foreign aggression.

Socialism is when everyone owns the means of production and distribution (and exchange). Communism is when the state owns the means of production and distribution. Neither have been proven to work long-term.

Social security and Medicare/Medicaid are socialistic programs, but that doesn't make America socialism. If we can make it work, I really don't mind Universal Health Care for citizens. Yes, citizens not every Tom, Dick and Harry living here unless they are taxpayers and legal. That would exclude illegal aliens. They shouldn't be in the country in the first place.

True, but the problem with Socialism which will lead to Communism is the inevitable Ruling Class controlling the Masses mixed with underlying Atheism. Those elements are the reasons why they won't work. Christians everywhere should reflect on its history.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Whatever Bernie's shortcomings, he has now provided the American voter with a range of options that had not been previously available on the political landscape!

You make it sound as if this is a virtue. Is it? I mean, if laws permitted my 2 year old to run for president, she would also give the voters a range of options that had not been previously available on the political landscape! But this doesn't seem to be some sort of political bonus for the rest of us...

(I think her platform would be to change the national anthem to Baby Shark)