Do any of his economic policies actually make sense? I've listened to him for a while and he's got some good ideas and seems like a really genuine person.
Anyone here voting for him?
Do any of his economic policies actually make sense...
Aiden Perry
Easton Edwards
sorry never heard of him he's never mentioned on CNN or network news
Wyatt Reyes
That's a difficult question. The problem people have, not only in the real world but on Veeky Forums as well, is that they think there are "right" economic policies, and there are "wrong" economic policies. In reality, economic policy is ALWAYS a "on one hand... but on the other hand..." sort of thing. No policy is all good. No policy is all bad. There are winners and losers to all policies. Generally, the US government uses a cost-benefit analysis where they look at the net economic gains of any policy, and even if many people lose out, as long as the winners win by more than the losers lose, it's a policy we don't rule out.
The problem with that is that it's impossible to truly tell the impact of any policy, and that it's entirely short-sighted without consideration of long-term problems or benefits.
So that's the framework this question is posed in. Generally speaking, here's how most economists see his policies.
The good
>single-payer healthcare
>reducing too-big-to-fail banks
The bad
>$15 minimum wage
>Free college
>protectionism (probably the biggest problem they have with him)
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. And there's an argument for and against each one, and it's always silly to say "economists say...." since they never really agree. Protectionism is the only part that nearly every economist disagrees with. The only reason it wins out is because working-class folks and labor unions are the losers in free-trade and they wield a lot of political power.
So, tl;dr:
Yes. Some make sense. Most however are probably bad for the economy, but it's arguable, and one is universally reviled.
Luis Lopez
Noone should vote for Bernie. His policies appeals largely to the majority that are too fucking stupid to even do their own taxes. They will be just as blind to the new tax system as they were to the old. I literally see teenagers and millennials biting down on his "lmao legalize weed" card and this shit pisses me off to no end. It parallels Trump's promise for a fucking wall.
Jason Johnson
Just making sure but are you a regular user of /pol/?
Isaac Ward
If you're going to vote in the Democratic primaries, you're best off voting for Sanders rather than the thoroughly corrupt Hillary Clinton.
As for a presidency, assuming Sanders can win the Democratic nomination, I would argue he is still the best candidate available with Trump second.
You can ignore all the talk about Sanders being very far left wing and all that garbage. He is most certainly left wing but do you really believe his most left-wing ideas will ever be approved by Congress? There's no way.
But what the U.S. will have is one branch of the government being left-leaning which may nudge the rather right-leaning Congress a bit closer to center. Don't let the Democrat-Republican side show fool you: Neither of those two political parties is left of center although, historically, the Democrats have been left of center.
As for Sanders' economic policies, they would work for the most part. The only thing I really hate is his leniency toward illegal aliens. That's just giving away free money to non-Americans who are most likely to be failures. If this country is going to allow immigrants, it either needs to eliminate the welfare state and have open immigration; or it keeps its welfare state and only allows for immigrants who are going to be above average.
The $15/hour minimum wage will work despite what all the idiots say. It'll just raise the general price levels for a lot of things.
You didn't hear too many people complaining about high housing prices, did you? And yet, that makes it more expensive to do business in the U.S. and makes the U.S. economy less competitive.
At least in Sanders' case, the extra money will go to labor instead of the rentiers.
You really have to be careful of statements from economists as most are incredibly stupid despite their degrees from elite institutions. They're either utter idiots, smart people who've diligently learned the wrong things, or they're shills. They generally support a rentier economy.
Charles Martin
Why not legalize all drugs?
I've never taken drugs nor dealt in them but over the past few decades, the war on drugs has not stopped them from being used and traded in the U.S. In fact, drugs seem more readily available than ever before. Meanwhile, we've made South American drugs lords filthy rich while incarcerating a lot of people in the U.S. for possession of drugs.
Many of these incarcerated people are black. Like them or dislike them, it is one more excuse for black people to say that the system isn't fair. So let's stop penalizing them for possession of drugs.
The U.S. should legalize all drugs but regulate them and tax them. Rather than spending billions of dollars trying to stop a trade and then failing, the government will now cease to spend that money on enforcement and will start turning a profit on the tax revenue.
If people destroy themselves on drugs, well, that's what they wanted. The government cannot be the 24x7 babysitter for every lily-livered weakling in this country.
Everybody else will get on just fine.
And maybe we'll put those drug lords out of business, have less violence in those south of the border countries, and won't have so many useless illegal aliens flooding into the country and consuming all the government benefits that have been paid for by Americans and should only be used for Americans.
Colton Diaz
yes thank you agreed. this is NOT a far-left SJW, #occutard, socialist sanders idea btw
Carson Jenkins
Nope. I do, however, run a politics Yt channel.
>I've never taken drugs or dealt with them
There's your problem. You have never experienced what drugs do to people, what those people in turn have to do to recover from their drug use. I've volunteered at soup kitchens, I've been to AA meetings, I've lived 10 minutes away from Compton and the Skid Rows. Drugs are not a mean to weed out weaklings, because under Bernie's reformed tax system, you will be paying for everyone's rehab/medical expense. It's literally suicide and all these wide-eyed, ideal-loving idiots jizzes themselves at the sight of anything not capitalist.
Logan Clark
It would be better to just decriminalize all substances. Retarded people will always chase them, they will always be available.
Connor Foster
Are Sharpies illegal? No, but middle school kids sniff them anyway to get high. Is Robotussin illegal? No, but middle school kids chug a whole bottle to get high anyway. It's not about the drugs being criminalized, it's about getting fucking high.
Evan Gonzalez
did you respond to the wrong person?
are you proposing a war on all forms of getting high? will you make caffeine illegal? cigarettes? alcohol? dafuck are you talking about
>It's not about the drugs being criminalized, it's about getting fucking high
no it's about the government not fucking with people's lives when their laws are not preventing anything either way. alcoholic can drink himself to death no problem but someone trying to buy pot gets 10 years in prison HURR DURR b-but war on drugs
Luis Campbell
Bernie threads are not business or finance. They belong on /pol/
His entire campaign is nothing but rhetoric, aimed at the most low information voters on the far left (teens, niggers, women)
His campaign itself is a great metaphor for socialism.
He has spent over twice as much as Shillery per vote, and is now laying off most of his staff.
Over promise and under delivered is the core of socialism
Adrian Sanders
I really like him and voted for him in my state's primary, but even I think $15 min. wage is ridiculous. It's too much too fast. I'd be happy to see min wage somewhere between 10-11 dollars.
Brayden Diaz
I've never taken drugs. True. I've never smoked, either.
The people who are going to ruin themselves will do so. Period. Even today, getting that first does of drugs is not as easy as going to McDonalds or Starbucks. Some effort has to be made to find an initial supplier. So again, those people who are ruined by their usage of drugs; I cannot say I feel too much sympathy for them. They could have just said no. No one forced them to take drugs.
Enforcement efforts have totally failed and have made a criminal element very wealthy.
To be certain, a portion of the tax revenues collected would have to be used to run rehabilitation clinics. I think it would still be less expensive than the multi-billion dollar war on drugs that has utterly failed.
Your views, IMO, are not practical. Drunks and drug addicts are always going to be around. In fact, the question about legalizing drugs is much like the argument toward repealing Prohibition albeit drugs are much more dangerous than alcohol.
Should we ban alcohol to protect the weaklings from themselves? A society should do something to protect the weak but when the weak go out of their way to force everybody else to save their sorry asses, well, that ain't right.
Really. How do we solve the drugs problem? Obviously warning people about the dangers of using and telling them to not use drugs doesn't work. Banning doesn't work as Prohibition and the current War on Drugs has shown.
Places like Amsterdam seem to do okay with relatively lax drug laws. It's difficult for me to say for certain but it seems the removing the ban on a substance reduces people's curiosity about it.
Dylan King
Already voted for him in the primary here. You probably don't follow politics or know the electoral process very well if you're asking 'Anyone here voting for him?"
Jason Moore
I don't know what point you're trying to make and whether you're in support of my post or not.
dribs of drudth :DDD
Justin Jones
>gets flooded
>builds flood gate
>the flood gate doesn't entire contain the flood
>fuck it, just rip open the flood gate and drown everybody
That's you, that's your logic.
The problem is not the criminalization of drugs, it's about poor impulse control that has been culturally ingrained in your consumerist brain. People are now addicted to food, to TV, to the internet and to shopping. You're literally trying to battle the flood gate and not the flood itself.
Dylan Evans
That's a fucking retarded analogy. There is no battling 'the flood' it has been around forever, even if there was a way to do so it is simply immoral to throw someone in prison for doing what they want to their body. Here's your logic: My rabbit is not behaving the way I want it to so I'm going to hit it with a stick. That should make it stop behaving that way. Okay, not only does me hitting it with the stick do nothing at all to stop the behavior, but sometimes it's acting even worse! hmm what to do... better just hit it harder.
Using a floodgate analogy implies you're protecting people or some shit- you're not. You're just punishing them for doing things you don't like.
Benjamin Jones
I've been on 4ch long enough to spot paid shills that read off given scripts. I will say this one more fucking time: THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE CRIMINALIZATION OF DRUGS.
Chase Johnson
Are you saying I'm a paid shill? Interesting.
And OK so then you agree they should be decriminalized right? That people should be educated about their harmful effects and left to do as they please instead of making them criminals?
Jordan Morris
>this idealist bullshitter, war mongering corrupt Hillary and crack pot Trump
>one will take charge of the biggest economy in the world
jesus
Ian Peterson
w-what the fuck? ok maybe you're just trolling
Yes the problem with the drug war is the criminalization of drugs. Yes that IS the problem whether you like it or not. ALL forms of drugs are easily available now. Your flood analogy made no sense because there's water everywhere fuckstick unless you're talking about building new levies in New Orleans after it flooded. I can go down the street right now and buy cheap shit to get high. Gov't makes heroine illegal so there's a dozen alternative versions that are 10x worse drugs like meth, etc.
It is not the role of government to teach citizens impulse control fuck you Bloomberg. You're going to make obese people Veeky Forums by making large sodas illegal? Really? How's that going for you? Is everyone Veeky Forums now? Has your plan EVER worked ANYWHERE? Same questions for Bernie #occutards. Where is your socialist utopia?
>inb4 fictional hybrid of 1970's Denmark and modern Denmark
Logan Torres
I caucused for Bernie in Washington state. I was elected an alternate delegate and will be going to our county convention tomorrow to try and steal votes from Hillary delegates who probably won't show up.
I'm 42, happily married for 6 years, proud father of 3 boys, homeowner and gross a base pay of $95,000/year (not including bonuses and investments)
Trump is a moron, Cruz is an asshole, Kasich is pointless and Hillary is an evil bitch. Sanders is old and naive but I believe if he's elected he'll bring in a wave of Congress who would actually do something, anything.
Gavin Martin
You are the hero this campaign needs. It's just not fair. Hillary does nothing but lie, shamelessly pander, and steal Bernie's left-leaning ideas, and yet she keeps fucking winning.
Aiden Myers
I'm on board with the old chap
youtube.com
Camden Stewart
He's nearly 300 down but:
> Washington isn't even *close* to finished counting or handing out delegates, and he's about to net another 80 tomorrow just from Washington
> Indiana hates her
> West Virginia hates her worse
> he's going to sweep Oregon by 80% or more
> California could wind up being a blow out
> James Comey hates her guts, hates her husband more, and has significant evidence gathered
I'm not going up hope.
The DNC is going to have a brokered convention. This is inevitable.
Owen Bell
Peace be upon you my noble friend
Jaxson Adams
I've actually donated money to groups that run anti-Bernie sites and disrupt his rallies.
It's just too bad I can't write it off on my taxes.
Bentley Lewis
Robin Hood Tax is garbage
raise in FICA won't pay for Medicare for All
revised tax brackets won't support Scandanavian type welfare state
a bunch of trendy pop-policies for gullible children
Brayden Brooks
Veeky Forums is a capitalist board. Fuck off shill.
Anyone else who is even CONSIDERING Sanders can fuck off.
t. Capitalist
Samuel Johnson
Where is the arbitrary line in the sand drawn? Are only Randroids allowed? Are only Austrian-and-freer allowed? Bernie is certainly far left as far as American politics go, but his ideal economic system still seems far more capitalist than Marxist.
Joseph Myers
Bruh, have you looked at his tax plans? I understand he doesn't want to control every aspect of the economy, but still I believe socialism is, at its very core, the antithesis to freedom and liberty.
Rons and Rands are allowed. Austrians are bro-tier.
Also:
>ideal
Nothing will ever reach his rational constructivist ideal. This is the problem with leftists and socialists in general. They truly believe that they have all the relevant information needed to create a perfect system. Just reference Hayek's notion that prices convey all the relevant information in a free market. With coercion by the state and rent seeking capitalists, however, these prices no longer convey meaningful information. Then the whole issue of liberty and freedom arises, which, if these aren't important to the individual (which often they are not too leftists) then there is no point in discussing them because you cannot change someones idiotic core beliefs.
Isaiah Ward
>larger tax brackets mean socialism
Are you a retard or something?
Michael Ward
Reread what I just said... then comment again. :^) I know you feel the berns are easily upset.
Here, I will even green text it for you.
>I understand he doesn't want to control every aspect of the economy.
Now, go back to your comfort hug box called Reddit. Thank you.
Jack Brooks
>the bernie #occutard horde awakens
Carter Flores
You didn't answer the question. Where is the line? There's a large spectrum of economic idealism, and saying that people on the far right side of that are allowed is not helping determine where you think the line is where people aren't allowed to be on this board anymore. Keynesians, perhaps? Furthermore, who are you to decide who is allowed on a board?
Justin Torres
Nice attempt at sophistry but not good enough. The line is as long as you believe in private property and private means of production you are allowed in.
>inb4 well, what if the government subsidizes/bans/regulates
Kevin Russell
And Bernie believes in both of those things.
Lucas Butler
So do you think his policies are socialist or not?
Because if you dont the rest of the post is as pointless as your obsession with "freedom"
Isaac Parker
I feel like very few people on this board are even in support of him. You folks just seem to think everyone who doens't think he's literally Stalin is a berniefag.
Asher Davis
So the man has identified a sector of the economy that he wants to eliminate via financial means, because his (unproven) view of economic theory dictates it.
And you don't consider this the equivalent of outright theft?
Because if I'm a politician, there's no reason my pet theories can't be the reason I would target fields in a similar fashion, picked on an arbitrary basis.
Julian Sanchez
>what the U.S. will have is one branch of the government being left-leaning which may nudge the rather right-leaning Congress a bit closer to center.
This is what we have had for the past 7 years and it is not working for the country.
We already have more government than we an afford. It's the problem Europe is having also.
Jayden Miller
>You didn't hear too many people complaining about high housing prices, did you?
Yes I have. I'm trying to sell my second house and I've heard buyers complain.
It will be the same at restaurants and retail stores if some idiot gets the $15 minimum wage put through.
Logan Lee
>unions are bad
germany
>minimum wage is bad
yes purchasing power for the consumer economy is fucking terrible
if jobs were not sustainable then they aren't. if a business can't be profitable due to - a what? 10-20% overhead increase - then they aren't successful businesses anyways...
>protectionism
this is ludicrous; oil&gas; grains+farming in general; intellectual property buy ins ( pharma + tech ) are all incredibly 'protectionism' driven anyways
im so sick of these fucking terrible argument written by eco 101'ers being considered valid
its like the wall street apologists claiming 'it was a liquidity crisis' when it was the QE-driven, banker and AIG funded, uncontrolled derivatives market that america paid off with 10TR...
fucking what the actual fuck people
Connor Robinson
what sector are you referring to? Healthcare? Because frankly i'm dubious that any service with perfectly inelastic demand won't be subject to serious price inflation and fail to see how it is efficient unregulated by the market.
Cameron Lopez
>unproven economic theory
just like the rest of them ya fucking ingrate
this isn't hard science its 100% conjecture and geopolitical intervention determines as much of the justification for profit/demand as does any 'market forces'
Daniel Ramirez
>outright left
so is taxation amirite? nu-righters really believe the derivatives market adds value to the economy rather than destabilizing/adding volatily and increasing liquidity ( i.e. allowing big players to manipulate small players to a greater extent ).
The stock market is disgusting.
Jacob Williams
>the stock market is disgusting.
How much did you lose?
James Clark
How much did you lose on Robinhood?
Mason Sanders
>uses bernibros as an argument
same deal as the anime-faced nu-righters that spout vitriolic bullshit, or the Cliton supporters who stop a discussion as soon essentially any hot button topic comes up. (Israel, emails, or war)
Adrian Jones
>unions are bad
How the fuck did I imply that?
>minimum wage is bad
How the fuck did I imply that either? How does thinking a doubling of the national minimum wage is bad imply that I think minimum wage in general is a bad thing?
And finally, your example of "protectionism" are ludicrous. Grains and farming protection are unequivocally bad, and literally nobody but farmers benefit from it. No economist I know of advocates for farming subsidies. Even fucking Paul Krugman thinks free trade is a good thing. Any politician who tries to "bring back manufacturing job" can be dismissed as either pandering or refusing to acknowledge economic and political realities.
>I'm so sick of these fucking terrible argument written by eco 101'ers being considered valid
And i'm sick of people who took two econ classes and then read a bunch of op eds on the New York Times and believe they're experts on political policy. I have a degree in economics. And while this doesn't make me an expert by any means, it does mean I know the very basics.
Adrian Wilson
i had to look that up lol
You guys are claiming you made money 2008? Show me. I made money on BoA later, but during the crisis? before the bailouts? Show me.
you included unions, min wage in the negatives... please stop baiting
>protectionism
ok dude so its bad, but its also the working order of our economy in order to provide stability and generate stable returns on high investment or high risk ventures ( no one wants farmers to quit cause they busted out from a drought, same with an OPEC starve out)
>experts
I'm not claiming i'm an expert - I'm stating that being an expert is irrelevant. Everyone could have looked up the toxic assets, the payouts of AIG ( its been written backwards to be only 50% more than their assets, but then why did the audit turn up more??? ) and decided not to buy them, but the deutsch was competing with HSBC which was competing with BoA to keep their profit hopping highest profile clients...
which want the QE returns; it is a toxic system, and the economy shouldn't be a plaything for high-capital investors. It should be just like basic science - protected. Why should there ever be another Rothschilds or Walmart? They are an outdated idealism of the 'worthy-invidual'.
You shouldn't be able to accumulate a city-state worth of wealth.
Kevin Foster
but the stock market is disgusting
that it can provide you - an already rich person - more wealth is more important than its wider impacts?
I guess that's why american politics are so fucked; americans believe they should have the right to fuck each other over for some wealth.
Michael Price
I bought bitcoin I literally just move money all day while shooting guns on my privately owned range
Adam Reed
>an already rich person
Who said I was?
>fuck each other over
This is how you think the stock market works?
The fact that some lose while others gain in no way means that the two are directly related.
You sound like the type that would chuck the whole thing despite its benefits, just because some people have lost money.
Dylan Gomez
>reducing too-big-to-fail banks
How would you do this?
>Sanders: *Crickets*
Tyler Gonzalez
that sounds pretty fun
then why are you apologising for them?
>how the stock market works
no one fucking knows how the stock market 'works'; the more money you have the more diversified you can be, and the more you can leverage particular outcomes ( look at puts on friday on apple for the last 5 fucking years )
What is insider trading? Do you think that's stopped because it is illegal m8?
>chuck the whole thing despite the benefits
What are the benefits? Point to one other than liquidity ( which only panders to the incredibly large globo-corps, or companies on the verge of attaining that size: IPO ).
There is no fucking advantage to the fucking Stock market; for the average citizen it has become a god damn red herring to replace the social security, so that is can be looted.
Caleb James
you're a retard
the banks have to decide how to best separate their assets - amortized - and risks. Obviously there will be economic oversight, but you literally can't say anything about it except that you will ask the 1˚ through 3˚ bank to do it.
That's the fucking executive power of the goddamn president.
Leo Butler
>then why are you apologising for them?
Advocating against arbitrary targeting of industries is apology?
Great argument.
"What do you care what we do to "X" people, you're not "X"
>other than liquidity
Doesn't only benefit those you mentioned, though I wouldn't expect you to know that. But even if it did, you would shitcan IPO's because you hate the stock market?
I'll ask again. How much did you lose?
Grayson Rodriguez
what argument? i asked you a legitimate question, you haven't even provided a contraposition providing the reason they should be a protected group. This is called a circle.
>liquidity
this is classic nu-right bullshit; you're trying to turn this into an endless redirection to my person; provide an argument, or stop responding.
>how much did i lose
>disclosing financial information beyond generalities
>not assuming i made it all back from BoA ( already included in my posts )
> misdirection from a lack of arguments
Please nu-righter go back to pol.
Noah Turner
>legitimate question
And I answered you. Protesting arbitrary enforcement of financial penalty is not apology.
>a protected group
Protection from being wiped out? That's rich.
I hope everyone gets "protected status".
>classic nu-right bullshit
If you say so, jackass. Only an idiot would try to crush liquidity. The fact that it doesn't benefit you personally notwithstanding.
What a selfish prick.
Sebastian Rogers
>arbitrary targetting
>industry
what does the industry of the stock market provide beyond liquidity of capital?
It is persons that support businesses in their early stages - the only ones that matter. Look at the timeline for when Facebook got their money from a hedge fund as a good example of how large a company is ( and how stable anything but a tech company would be ). Theranos is another great case study how the individuals support companies in their early stages ( look at the board of directors ).
> protectionism for the most protected group in the world
Yeah, ok, so what are we to do exactly?
>Protesting arbitrary enforcement
>financial penalty
What the actual fuck are you trying to say? That tax brackets are all immoral as they attack the higher earners? We should have a flat tax?
Are you going to come out and say 'taxation is theft' now?
Or that without the rich no one would have a job? Bahahahahaha.
>personal benefit
This conflation is what you seem to be looping in your head, the American dream.
I'm well off; I effortlessly benefit off of manipulation of capital. That's what the upper class does and if the panama papers didn't flash a lightbulb into your head of just how pervasive manipulation of markets is then you need to read a bit more.
• Japan's investment in Iran and how that's affecting the US-Sino relations
• China's currency manipulations
• Tax-haven status in Ireland, NZ, BVI
• dirty banks ( HSBC )
The reality the lower classes don't benefit from fucking slapchops and fastfood you ingrate.
Justin Garcia
>what does the industry of the stock market provide
Laughable.
Just admit you can't argue the point and move on.
You can't accomplish that, so you want to attack the industry to show how it deserves to be targeted.
Logic fail.
>protectionism
Again, all you're doing is avoiding the fact that you believe not getting cornholed utterly by the government is "protectionism".
Also laughable. And you obviously have zero understanding of his tax proposals.
>Are you going to come out and say 'taxation is theft' now?
>without the rich no one would have a job
Hey, Strawmen! Yet another logic fail.
>blah blah I'm well-off
No one gives a fuck about that.
Logan Jackson
You tried to make this an attack my person in order to invalidate my argument, "how much u luze cuz?".
If anyone failed here it'd b you b. You didn't provide any examples, and you didn't point out why his 'tax proposals' would fail, although I agree many of them would fail in the House. Getting corporations to pay taxes they haven't in decades is going to be nearly impossible.
From the TPC, "The plan would improve incentives to work, save, and invest, but unless accompanied by very large spending cuts, it could increase the national debt by as much as 50 percent of GDP by 2036, which would tend to put a drag on the economy."
What the fuck is this red herring; how about addressing the elephant in the room? The states needs to fucking man up and start paying down their debt; how exactly can they do this without more revenue?
washingtontimes.com
I don't think you've even read the propo
>protectionism
What the actual fuck are you on about? Are you against the agitation against chinese manufacturing...? Or are you for the TPP? What about his supposed 'protectionism' is bad specifically?
Lucas Bell
>in order to invalidate my argument
You don't have an argument.
I accused Bernie of arbitrarily targeting industries. You turned that in to a debate on the suitability of targeting.
Then you made assumptions about my personal wealth.
You said that I thought the market industry wanted to be a "protected group".......because I would say imposing on them a tax of unlimited percentage is pretty much the definition of a screw job.
Holy shit, I better get in to a "protected group" so that doesn't happen to me.
Just admit it. You advocate the forceful seizure of assets produced from activity you disagree with.
Nothing more.
That's why that senile old fuck will never win, because the people like you who support him are sad, deluded creatures.
Hunter Morales
Do you really believe Obama is left-leaning?
Come on. Have the poor people in the U.S. been made better off under his presidency?
Sure, he's doing some sort of garbage to prevent the illegal aliens from being deported but: 1. He waited until his final year in office to start doing anything and 2. He's only doing this because both the Democrats and Republicans actually want the illegal aliens: Democrats want the illegal aliens for votes, Republicans want the illegal aliens for cheap labor. And actually, new Democrats (Clinton Democrats) also want the illegal aliens for cheap labor.
Replace the body of Obama with that of a white man with blond hair and blue eyes but keep the domestic and foreign policy. Does he still look left leaning to you?
About about the mess in Libya and Syria? Is that the mark of a left-leaning president? The appointment of Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State who is incredibly hawkish?
You have to get over the animal logo of the political party as an identifier of what a politician is. The Democrats haven't been traditional Democrats for over 20 years now. The Republicans haven't been traditional Republicans for over 40 years now.
The Republicans and Democrats are the *same* political party and unless you're a player (and I know you're not because you're here), voting for the establishment candidate is not going to help you.
They're not the best candidates possible but Sanders and Trump are the only two candidates that are unconventional and can turn the U.S. ship around.
Clinton? How much more can this whore steal? Cruz? Is there anyone he wouldn't sell for a dollar?
Mason Butler
I should have clarified. When I said "people", I meant professional economists. The approval or disapproval of economic policy by one of the unwashed masses doesn't matter as far as the publicized national dialog is concerned.
They (the professional economists such as Tweedle Dee Krugman and Tweedle Dum Bernanke) believe that higher house prices will help restore the economy by getting people to spend more money they don't have, I guess through home equity withdrawals.
It won't. It's a short term boost based on debt which ultimately must be repaid. Kind of like being very sleepy (recession), drinking a bunch of coffee to be not sleepy (false recovery), only to have the body desperate crave sleep when the stimulus wears off (tendency to crash.)
Kayden Bennett
BTW, Seattle has enacted a $15/hr minimum wage. Of course, we have to give it time to see how it plays out in the long term. But, so far, Seattle hasn't turned into third world hell hole. It hasn't turned into Zimbabwe where there are tons of unemployed people.
Michael Nelson
Sanders has stated that he will appoint William Black as a regulator of the banks, which I'm sure really makes the banks soil their pants.
Black and his cohorts worked to generate evidence and criminal referrals that led to *thousands* of *convictions* of bank executives in the Savings and Loan Crisis of the 1980s.
Sanders doesn't need to know precisely how to fix those banks; he only need to know whom to appoint who knows how to fix that situation. Black is eminently qualified.
Black is so qualified that Obama would not hire him (Black actually offered to work for free) to help prosecute the criminals that caused the 2008 crash.
Mason Johnson
underrated post
Dylan Evans
>you included unions, min wage in the negatives.
yes... doubling the minimum wage at once probably isn't good. Are you literally retarded? Do you not see the difference between small, incremental increases nad sudden, massive increases?
You seem to have a lot of anger toward wall street and as such i'm not sure you're able to make rational decisions. YOu're the equivalent of a Trump supporter, just on the other side.
Tyler Johnson
And I literally never included unions in the negatives. I said they are the losers to free trade and they fight against it, which is true. It's a fight that they should lose for the economic good of the country. THat does not imply that they themselves have no use.
Thomas Butler
A ten to twenty percent increase in overhead? That's fucking enormous you retard.
Jaxon Davis
he would cut military spending and would make sure companies dont get tax breaks
he would redistribute taxes for things like college education and healthcare.
John Ward
>That's fucking enormous
They never get this part.
You: "This kind of massive increase will wipe out any profit margin"
Them: "You must suck at your job, then"
Brody Ross
And that's why he won't win. not the military thing, which he wouldn't pull off in his wildest dreams, but the redistribution part. As a member of a former communist nation, it goes very poorly. And as an American now, Fuck redistribution.
Leo Bell
Luke Howard
Being "genuine" doesn't do much when you are a socialist populist rat that will crash the economy with more welfare, protecionism and market interventionism.
Dominic Edwards
all i know is he is going to get rid of my student loan and legalize weed
Brandon Brooks
Muh fellow Austrian Economist capitalist libertarian nigga !
Alexander Davis
They work and have workedin the past, but they require the rich to have slightly less than everything, so they'll never be tried again.
Christian Stewart
hernie... lol
Blake Hill
Back to /pol/ faggot. You said nothing useful
Jace Price
fat nutritionists and smoking doctors
education is not a cure.
Logan Campbell
With anywhere from 50 to 90% tax on the richest?
I'd say that's far more marxist than capitalist, or maybe even just downright unfeasible, considering that under his rule that money would be used to pay for the unproductive and uncompetitive.
Jose Butler
The problem is that you have already quite high taxes in States, and unlike in europe, your "costly" education etc. retirement are not included in those rates
Julian Hughes
They are not strictly socialist in the old meaning of the word. They are socialist in the moddern one; neo-socialists are the people who want to regulate in order to ensure the things which are impossible to ensure.
You cannot ensure that all the poor people will have enough money to live "in decent conditions"; they want to regulate a minimal wage which would ensure that.
You cannot ensure that no company will violate the environment; they issue regulations and licenses in order to ensure that.
You cannot ensure that no man will be addicted to drugs; they declare war on drugs and criminalize them in order to ensure that.
It goes on and on, and when you consider this modern, new kind of socialism, it's entirely obvious that this is the political camp of Bernie Sanders.
Justin Peterson
Only single-payer Medicare for all makes sense. Healthcare shouldn't be a free market because the consumer doesn't have the power to comparison shop doctors and hospitals while they're unconscious and bleeding to death in an ambulance. Supply and demand regulating price only works if people have the power to walk away when they disagree with the deal. If you need a drug or operation to survive, you're going to pay whatever they ask even if it makes you homeless.
Ian Gray
Literally nothing about taxation is inherently Marxist or capitalist. ALL forms of economic policy involve taxes.
Josiah Morris
>ALL forms of economic policy involve taxes
Not bizarre taxes that can approach 300, 500, or 1000% percent, like his FTT.
That's more in line with forcing an industry out of business.
That they call it a "tax policy" only shows that admitting this isn't good politics.
Hudson Brown
Wow that's a retarded post. Why would the consumer need to choose while unconscious if they follow the law under Obamacare which goes into effect in 2017 requiring them to have insurance? How do you know Obamacare didn't work yet? Are you a time traveller from 2018?
pls respond