Why (or why not) to vote for Bernie Sanders

Not just Norway; this thread has also mentioned Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Sweden, and there are others, all of which have had success with democratic socialist policies to more or less the extent they have tried. They also, incidentally, tend to show that such policies have positive returns on investment – things like public health care don’t bankrupt governments, they make them money through having a functional society to tax.

And really, despite special pleading like the US being almost as populous and diverse as Europe, those are the sorts of policies that have been most successful there when tried. All the evidence shows that’s just the best approach to running a country with a high standard of living. So excuses for exceptionalism and thought-terminating cliches like socialism works great until you run out of other people’s money are just that, excuses without anything to back them up.

If things like reducing poverty are important to you, there is a lot that works well for you to consider. If that’s less important than to maintain the pure fiction that the US and extreme capitalism have been the best…well, then Sanders is probably not the one for you, but it’s really heartbreaking to see that as a priority over the lives of other people.

That’s funny! You’re the one who talked about there being only 540 billionaires in the US, and now you’re not sure how to count them? It’s almost as if you don’t believe in your own statements, you’re just doing a Gish gallop where you throw out chaff to get out of having to defend them. Sorry, but such disingenuity does not play well here.

16 Likes

Do you really think it’s more likely that marriages were happier in the 30s, or that women stayed in relationships they’d prefer to leave because of the overwhelming financial & social cost of being divorced?

And what does marriage have to do with Bernie Sanders anyway? Is anyone running on an anti-marriage ticket? (I guess you could argue that the Republicans would like to make a lot of people’s marriages illegal…)

21 Likes

Increasing rates of divorce seem to be one of Gerard’s rather flailing efforts to say something meaningful while keeping his eyes and ears shut to sensible counterguments. Like this one:[quote=“chenille, post:1476, topic:59394”]
Not just Norway; this thread has also mentioned Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Sweden, and there are others, all of which have had success with democratic socialist policies to more or less the extent they have tried. They also, incidentally, tend to show that such policies have positive returns on investment – things like public health care don’t bankrupt governments, they make them money through having a functional society to tax.
[/quote]

I’ve met a lot of people like Gerard, and those are the kind of factual complexities about better ways to run a society that just go right through them. Or maybe over them – I wouldn’t say Gerard seems incapable of understanding how the views he’s been spouting here are simplistic nonsense. He’s just so clearly, thoroughly interpollated with plutocrat-serving ideology that factual complexities simply don’t compute for him.

Demonstrations that other ways of running a society work better Must. Be. DENIED.

10 Likes

Keep in mind that Europe is not doing well in competing for world markets. Unemployment averages over 10%, while in the US it is less then 5%.
Enonomic growth paints an even gloomier picture, there is none. The issue is that these welfare state models are not sustainable, and it just gets worse from here. The US has adopted many welfare state policies as well, just not as many. But our real economic competitors are China, South Korea, and other Asian countries that are mean and lean. If we continue to loose market share things will get worse for us too with fewer jobs, lower paying jobs, fewer benefits. We must continue to work towards better productivity, lower cost in order to stay economically vibrant. Wishing it weren’t so will not help, We even need to continue to develop Fracking and reducing energy costs. This is not Bernie’s path and if he wins he will bring our standard of living down.

I literally just yelled at my screen, “But they owe you NOTHING!”

By all means, let’s give people with the least accountability to the public the greatest influence over their lives.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to find a startled cat.

7 Likes

…This is about Bernie Sanders: if you want to talk about Socialism, go here.

8 Likes

So Gerard, do you also believe that the experience of all these countries does not apply to the US because our name starts with a “U” and theirs doesn’t?

So, for which of our enemies are you an agent provocateur?

4 Likes

My heart goes out to you here, cancer tears things apart like almost nothing else and the fact you have survived it 4 times is… indescribably impressive and an incomprehensibly amazing feat. However I would point out that a large amount of taxpayer money currently goes towards medical research grants specifically to find better treatments for cancer and maybe even someday a cure. I wish we focused more money towards medical care and research and less towards defense but currently our countries/governments priorities seem to be mixed up but I do believe that Bernie Sanders is the candidate who can do the most out of the current group in fixing those priorities.

I also think it’s important to note that government environmental regulations (when they exist and are enforced with taxpayer money) can help prevent millions of future cancer cases by stopping large corporations and even small businesses from spewing carcinogens into the environment. Have you thought about that?


I think I want to address this separately. Private insurance is not even close to the equivalent public healthcare in a country with universal healthcare, my co-pays on say… an optometrist appointment have been over a thousand dollars before. If I was making only around 2000 a month and needed to drive to work and couldn’t do that without glasses what could I do? I would have to choose between spending over half of my income on a health necessity (even with insurance) and would have to sacrifice something else like my rent, or food, or insuran… oh right, couldn’t do that or the total would be around 3,000 dollars. I would be stuck.

In a country with universal healthcare, while maybe I would have to pay an extra 100 dollars a month in taxes (probably not that much if my income was 2,000 a month), I would no longer be paying for insurance and that optometrists appointment and glasses would have been free at the door.

17 Likes

This is Reagan-era propaganda, from a time when mass media only went one direction and people would believe any stupid thing if somebody important and respectable said it on television.

Like, inequality is because divorce?

Dude, yo, grownups are talking in here.

13 Likes

Are you watching this topic? If you are you will get notified of all replies.

You created this topic so that means you are watching it by default. The assumption is that people who start topics are extremely interested in all replies, thus the default of watch for topics you have created.

4 Likes

This is not true in Missouri, for one. The legislature refused Medicaid expansion which leaves out the most needy. Many receive tax assistance through the federal exchange, but only above a certain income level. Below that, they get nothing, apart for scorn from those who think they are too poor to deserve healthcare.

Also, poverty is about dollars. A marriage license does nothing to affect income.

15 Likes

What was your coverage through? Work, I guess? I can say that the cost of my insurance coverage has skyrocketed in the past decade. We pay more and receive less coverage.

And I’ve known plenty of people dealing with the Obama care system. It is a nightmare and it can still be costly, both financially and with regards to the time sunk in trying to figure it all out. More people are covered now, but there are still huge holes, because some states (the ones that need to most coverage for their citizens) still refuse to play ball with Obama

I’m glad to hear that you’ve survived cancer and I’m sorry about your disability. Good luck and stay health… and, as is our battle cry here on the BBS when this topic comes up - FUCK CANCER RIGHT THE IN THE GODDAMN EAR!!!

9 Likes

Largely because many couldn’t (legally, they had not right to do so and the depression meant those that could, couldn’t afford to do so), meaning that a number of individuals (mostly women, who were still covered by coverature laws- meaning they had not legal standing as single individuals) stayed in bad marriages - including abusive marriages. people divorce because they are legally able to do so, and they can get away from abusive spouses who if they stayed with them, they would end up dead.

13 Likes

That’s true, it is my babbie… I forgot that… Thanks for reminding me I’m a doofus! :wink:

2 Likes

I have not yet decided.

Kasich is your man, then. At least, unless Vlad the Imputin rides in on a unicorn at the convention.

5 Likes

Putin - makin’ Russia great again (at the expense of LBGQT Russians, all dissidents, democracy, parts of Ukraine, Syrians, etc…)

9 Likes

I’d recommend Vermin Supreme over Kasich.

5 Likes

Just north of the Canadian border the full cost of an uninsured eye exam for a person with no coverage whatsoever can be less than $100. The biggest problem with the American system is that health insurers - that is, the ones paying health bills - want healthcare costs to be higher because by paying more they are insuring a more valuable asset. Imagine if the majority of people bought houses through fire insurance companies, what would happen to home values? Just a couple of years ago I saw a NYT cover that compared costs of some very basic services in Ontario to New York. The average was five times higher in New York.

So while someone is working to earn $2000 a month, insurance companies are offering insurance on their health which the insurance companies agree is worth millions or tens of millions. A person who makes $2000 a month can’t afford insurance on something so expensive.

“Sorry, you can’t afford you.”

11 Likes

Vermin Supreme looks like the closest America has to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party

5 Likes

Within the State of NY, the cost for a normal childbirth can range from $1,400 to $22,000.

For those into spreadsheetery, NYU has assembled a pretty nifty dataset.

5 Likes