Bernie Sanders

[Sleepless_in_Jefferson_County]

While I see the appeal in some respects, I think he's a little far left.

His positions on affirmative action, crime (to an extent), as well as some of his economic thoughts are troubling. Not deal breakers, just give me pause.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm

 

[wcowherd]

His economic thoughts should be troubling. He's a socialist.

 

[3Rfan]

His economic thoughts should be troubling. He's a socialist.

He has NEVER said that government should own all property that I know of. THAT would be soclialist.

 

[Duck_walk]

Cowherd either hasn't really studied his voting record or doesn't know what socialism is.

 

[wcowherd]

He has NEVER said that government should own all property that I know of. THAT would be soclialist.

Yeah, that's not socialism. Study up on the economies of Scandinavia. That's what sanders wants.

 

[wcowherd]

Here's what Bernie Sanders had said in the past. Feel free to defend it.

And Sanders has long been unabashed about his socialist beliefs. “Nobody should earn more than $1 million,” he told the Burlington Free Press in 1974.

“I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves,” he wrote in 1976.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-socialist-surge-119785.html

 

[Expect2Win]

A million in 76 is different than today. That is probably equal to the CEOs making 30 million and running business into the ground. Shouldn't we let Sanders philosophy have a shot? It's not like the crony capitalism has worked well.

 

[wcowherd]

A million in 76 is different than today. That is probably equal to the CEOs making 30 million and running business into the ground. Shouldn't we let Sanders philosophy have a shot? It's not like the crony capitalism has worked well.

It's equal to $4M in today's dollars. Do you really think people shouldn't make $4M? Why would we ever limit what a person can make?

If you want reform, I agree with you. I don't want socialism.

 

[Duck_walk]

It's equal to $4M in today's dollars. Do you really think people shouldn't make $4M? Why would we ever limit what a person can make?

If you want reform, I agree with you. I don't want socialism.

Your example is a freakin quote from 1976? Really? Like I said, look at his voting record and his current policy proposals. He isn't a pure socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Even yours.

 

[Expect2Win]

You are right. I should have worded it different. People who were getting the million then are making the 30 million now. Should we have a limit on what a person makes. Yes, we should limit what a person makes, but not necessarily the government. Companies should not pay 10 million to CEOs if they are paying minimum wage to 75 percent of their employees. I am fine with a Scandinavian economy.

 

[Expect2Win]

It's equal to $4M in today's dollars. Do you really think people shouldn't make $4M? Why would we ever limit what a person can make?

If you want reform, I agree with you. I don't want socialism.

The Berniesoblack hash tag has been funny today.

 

[wcowherd]

Your example is a freakin quote from 1976? Really? Like I said, look at his voting record and his current policy proposals. He isn't a pure socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Even yours.

Yeah, really. He still believes that stuff. He's never recanted any of that.

I'm looking at his voting record...free 4 year college for everyone, lots of tax raises, breaking up Goldman sacks, Bank of America...I could go on. He's absolutely a socialist. Pure socialist means nothing. No country practices pure socialism. Heck, China doesn't ever practice pure communism. Doesn't mean he's not a socialist. If you're for all that stuff, you're a socialist.

Not like it matters anyway. He's got 0 shot to win.

 

[wcowherd]

You are right. I should have worded it different. People who were getting the million then are making the 30 million now. Should we have a limit on what a person makes. Yes, we should limit what a person makes, but not necessarily the government. Companies should not pay 10 million to CEOs if they are paying minimum wage to 75 percent of their employees. I am fine with a Scandinavian economy.

A Scandinavian economy wouldn't work here. Those countries have relatively few people in a relatively small area to worry about and, most importantly, they've got a ton of oil money that bankrolls their system. The government owning 30% of the economy would be disastrous here.

 

[Duck_walk]

So those banks moving into investment banking and the subsequent implosion of our economy was really a wonderful thing. No it wasn't. GS was a good thing.

We have free high school. That is one of the greatest strengths of this nation, our public school system.

You are starting to act like a Fox news guy. Oh he is a socialist. He is for a strong federal government. He is more for democracy than any one else running. True democracy. Not money is free speech democracy.

 

[Neutron Monster]

A Scandinavian economy wouldn't work here. Those countries have relatively few people in a relatively small area to worry about and, most importantly, they've got a ton of oil money that bankrolls their system. The government owning 30% of the economy would be disastrous here.

Pretty sure only Norway has a lot of oil money.

 

[Neutron Monster]

You are right. I should have worded it different. People who were getting the million then are making the 30 million now. Should we have a limit on what a person makes. Yes, we should limit what a person makes, but not necessarily the government. Companies should not pay 10 million to CEOs if they are paying minimum wage to 75 percent of their employees. I am fine with a Scandinavian economy.

CEO pay is a red herring argument, the alternative is the money goes to shareholders not the rank and file

 

[Neutron Monster]

So those banks moving into investment banking and the subsequent implosion of our economy was really a wonderful thing. No it wasn't. GS was a good thing.

We have free high school. That is one of the greatest strengths of this nation, our public school system.

You are starting to act like a Fox news guy. Oh he is a socialist. He is for a strong federal government. He is more for democracy than any one else running. True democracy. Not money is free speech democracy.

Glass steagall wouldn't have prevented 2008 though. The real problem sat in countrywide and others making awful loans. And the pure I banks like Bear Stearns, Lehman, and Merrill were destroyed by the buying and selling of these loans. Those entities all existed in formats that were allowed prior to glass steagall.

The core problems weren't driven by the end of glass steagall, they were caused by poor regulation of entities making and selling home loans, especially entities which weren't traditional money center banks subject to more stringent government regulation.

Glass steagall is the democratic equivalent of the republican obsession with Fannie/Freddie - it wasn't the cause of the downturn, but people like blaming it anyway because it supports a policy goal they support.

 

[wcowherd]

Pretty sure only Norway has a lot of oil money.

I think they all benefit from the oil because of the ports needed for the exporting and some people can get jobs there if they live close. That's what I heard when I was on travel to Norway a month ago.

 

[wcowherd]

So those banks moving into investment banking and the subsequent implosion of our economy was really a wonderful thing. No it wasn't. GS was a good thing.

We have free high school. That is one of the greatest strengths of this nation, our public school system.

You are starting to act like a Fox news guy. Oh he is a socialist. He is for a strong federal government. He is more for democracy than any one else running. True democracy. Not money is free speech democracy.

I think I'm fairly liberal, but I'm simply not for what sanders stands for.

Free 4 year college would be exorbitantly expensive. Sanders' plan to pay for this comes mainly from Wall Street (surprise). I would be more interested in his plan if everyone shared in the cost of this. Also, I don't think the high school and college comparison is accurate. There should be a baseline level of education a person receives in the U.S. I don't think there's any question that high school education is vital. There are several different avenues that one can pursue after high school, and not all of them involve a 4 year college degree. I'm in favor of easier access and more help for kids, but free for all? I'm not sure.

His quotes and his voting record are not consistent with democracy. Limiting pay is especially concerning. He's a self described socialist for God's sake. Let's take him at his word.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Policymakers should be focused on lowering the cost of attendance without spending money. College costs too much. Throwing money at it doesn't fix the problem that it costs too much, it just shifts the burden to taxpayers.

The #1 thing the federal govt could do is reform the student loan program to put more pressure on schools to manage tuition and the total cost of attendance. It should also deny loans to more schools and programs that are proven to be horrendous uses of money.

These actions could actually lower the cost of college for the government.

 

[Duck_walk]

Glass steagall wouldn't have prevented 2008 though. The real problem sat in countrywide and others making awful loans. And the pure I banks like Bear Stearns, Lehman, and Merrill were destroyed by the buying and selling of these loans. Those entities all existed in formats that were allowed prior to glass steagall.

The core problems weren't driven by the end of glass steagall, they were caused by poor regulation of entities making and selling home loans, especially entities which weren't traditional money center banks subject to more stringent government regulation.

Glass steagall is the democratic equivalent of the republican obsession with Fannie/Freddie - it wasn't the cause of the downturn, but people like blaming it anyway because it supports a policy goal they support.

GS is a symptom of the disease. Who completely controls our government?
Who writes the laws in this nation? It has gotten much worse, not better. There should be no such thing as too big to fail.

 

[Bogey Man]

I agree E2Win, it is time to try a different approach. The top 1% has had their way too long with the tax laws and entire economic system geared to make them richer. All the tax shelters, off shore accounts, and pseudo overseas headquarters are nothing short of criminal. The top 1% do not care about Americans, they only care about their incredible wealth. They didn't make this the wealthiest country in history, it was made on the backs of blue collar Americans.

But the reality is that the top 1% own Congress, regardless of who is President, and Congress will remain deadlocked along party lines.

 

[wcowherd]

GS is a symptom of the disease. Who completely controls our government?
Who writes the laws in this nation? It has gotten much worse, not better. There should be no such thing as too big to fail.

You can fix "too big to fail" without breaking up banks. It's called regulation. I'm all in favor of regulation. I'm not in favor of the government saying that if a company acquires x amount of assets, they must be broken up.

 

[Duck_walk]

We had a perfectly good law for 50-60 years.
Sanders is simply wanting to return the bank regulation to the way it was. He isn't going to divide up companies in every industry. Stop the drama.

 

[wcowherd]

We had a perfectly good law for 50-60 years.
Sanders is simply wanting to return the bank regulation to the way it was. He isn't going to divide up companies in every industry. Stop the drama.

I guess you'll have to explain to me how glass-steagall would've prevented AIG from nearly going bankrupt. You'll also have to explain to me how G-S was still relevant when it was repealed due to the fact that many banks were already merging their tradition banking practices with investment activities. The problem is not allowing banks to be both commercial and security banks. The problem is not having enough cash on hand to cover their liabilities.

 

[Neutron Monster]

GS is a symptom of the disease. Who completely controls our government?
Who writes the laws in this nation? It has gotten much worse, not better. There should be no such thing as too big to fail.

I don't disagree with a lot of this, but that's not a reason to have glass-steagall, that's a reason to be effective regulation of the banking system which ensures adequate capital reserves are in place at all banks.

 

[Neutron Monster]

We had a perfectly good law for 50-60 years.
Sanders is simply wanting to return the bank regulation to the way it was. He isn't going to divide up companies in every industry. Stop the drama.

S&L crisis of the 1980's was basically the same problem we had in the 2000's. Undercapitalized institutions making underpriced loans.

 

[Neutron Monster]

I agree E2Win, it is time to try a different approach. The top 1% has had their way too long with the tax laws and entire economic system geared to make them richer. All the tax shelters, off shore accounts, and pseudo overseas headquarters are nothing short of criminal. The top 1% do not care about Americans, they only care about their incredible wealth. They didn't make this the wealthiest country in history, it was made on the backs of blue collar Americans.

But the reality is that the top 1% own Congress, regardless of who is President, and Congress will remain deadlocked along party lines.

I think it's not a good thing that the share of GDP that is captured as profit, not wages for labor, has steadily increased over the last few decades.

But, I don't think a lot of the solutions promulgated on the left would actually help this.