Dem Debates

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pras. Fuck that god-complex entitled twit.

Hes the same guy Bernie was talking about not believing you should pay a little more if you net 5 billion in profits for the fiscal year.

I guess that is the ongoing ideological debate. Is it American to say "fuck everyone else, I'm getting paid regardless of exploitation". I personally think unregulated capitalism has deleterious effects on populations of its citizens, and until these side effects are addressed with appropriate regulation, I will consider welfare to be a form of "damages" awarded.

Not everyone can be a winner in an economic system that has the word "exploit" and "exploitation" included in the written definition of capitalism...

This isn't the wild Rockerfeller times of Standard Oil 1890 anymore. Bring on the welfare.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Bones]

Originally Posted by quido [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Mainstream news outlets such as CNN and MSNBC are owned by billionaires. Conflict of interest?

Al-Jazeera has better balance, perspective, and integrity in reporting US current events than any major news outlet here.

woah I agree with you on something [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[visage]

Originally Posted by quido [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't even know what that means. I'm talking about state-mandated fiscal responsibility with regards to bearing children. Unfortunately, all you need to create a child is a few body parts and a brain the size of a garbanzo bean. Millions of retards are popping out numerous children they can't afford which are a burden to the state. Let's do something about it.

He knows... He is one of these children...

[Thana8088]

Originally Posted by visage [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He knows... He is one of these children...

Hi. Here we are having a conversation that is free from immature personal attacks. If you cannot contribute to the conversation, then please move along.

[Gilder]

Personally, I would just like to know why Bernie supporters think MORE government is the answer.

[Thana8088]

Originally Posted by Gilder [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Personally, I would just like to know why Bernie supporters think MORE government is the answer.

Is it really more government, or more equitable governance?

[Gilder]

I can appreciate your Socratic response to my question... but really....

Do you really think Bernie's promises can be fulfilled without a massive expansion of the government?

According to this Wall Street Journal article, his proposals "would amount to the largest peacetime expansion of government in modern American history."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-ta...ion-1442271511

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by Gilder [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

According to this Wall Street Journal article, his proposals "would amount to the largest peacetime expansion of government in modern American history."

this is a very funny way of referring to but still avoiding saying "since The New Deal". [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

also, paywall

[Thana8088]

I don't subscribe to WSJ, so I couldn't read past the first paragraph, but I put this forward for consideration:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...st-18-trillion


No, Bernie Sanders' Domestic Policy Plan Doesn't Really Cost $18 Trillion


The Wall Street Journal says Bernie Sanders' domestic policy plan would cost $18 trillion over ten years. Is this true?

It depends on how you look at it. First, there's a set of proposals that the Journal estimates would cost about $3.4 trillion. That's not pocket change, but it's about as much as Jeb Bush's tax cut. The big difference is that Jeb's tax cuts mostly benefit the rich, while Bernie's proposals mostly benefit the poor and the middle class. You can decide for yourself which you prefer.

Then there's the $15 trillion price tag for universal health care. Is this a fair estimate? It's probably in the ballpark. Private health insurance accounted for about $1 trillion in spending last year, and assuming reasonable growth that will probably come to around $15 trillion over the course of a decade.

But here's the thing: this is money we already spend. Right now, employers and workers pay insurance companies $1 trillion for health care. Under Bernie's plan, we'd instead pay that money to the federal government. Generally speaking, this would be invisible to most of us. Behind the scenes, our dollars would flow to a different place, and that's about it.

So the Sanders plan wouldn't actually take money out of our pockets. It's a wash. It needs to be evaluated instead on all the usual metrics. Would the government do a better job of holding down costs? Would government control distort market signals? Would innovation suffer? Would most of us have more choice in health care providers? Would more people be covered? Etc.

Bottom line: You should think of the Sanders plan as costing about $3.4 trillion. You may or may not like the idea of universal health care, but it wouldn't have much impact on how much money you actually take home each week.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Did Bernie Sanders really say that climate change was going to make the earth uninhabitable within a couple generations?

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He did not say any of that.

Originally Posted by Bernie Sanders, Crackpot Extraordinaire

if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we're going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable