• Bernie Sanders VOX Interview: Everything you need to know about the Bern
    43 replies, posted
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5vOKKMipSA[/media] Bernie 2016!
I can't see a majority of his views actually happening without like-minded individuals in Congress helping his ideas get passed into bills. I'm sure there's some centrist Democrats that'll side with the GOP on some of his issues, especially with dealing with campaign funding from corporate interests.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48320044]I can't see a majority of his views actually happening without like-minded individuals in Congress helping his ideas get passed into bills. I'm sure there's some centrist Democrats that'll side with the GOP on some of his issues, especially with dealing with campaign funding from corporate interests.[/QUOTE] Interesting fact I learned recently (figure was last updated in 2012): 5% of of the population who identify democratic(26%) are actually conservative(by that I mean, the other 21% are actually liberal).
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48320044]I can't see a majority of his views actually happening without like-minded individuals in Congress helping his ideas get passed into bills. I'm sure there's some centrist Democrats that'll side with the GOP on some of his issues, especially with dealing with campaign funding from corporate interests.[/QUOTE] The Sanders campaign isn't just about electing him. It's also about electing progressive local, state and federal representatives. Republican or Democrat.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48320059]Interesting fact I learned recently (figure was last updated in 2012): 5% of of the population who identify democratic(26%) are actually conservative(by that I mean, the other 21% are actually liberal).[/QUOTE] I would believe it. There's plenty in both parties that would probably function better in the other.
I wish we had a polly like this in Australia. Agreed with pretty much everything he said.
What I find sort of ironic about his views and american political culture is that a lot of normally republican "anti-socialist" working class people would probably vote for him, were it not for the culture of partisanship discourse. His priorities, at least to me, seem very non-partisan and totally unambiguous in their direction, if you're lower or middle class this guy is basically the only choice for a functioning president regardless of whether you're blue or red.
I think what people need to realize is his philosophies on the implementation of tuition-free college and virtually free healthcare (among other things, such as the raise of minimum wage) are actually quite realistic and not at all a pipe dream. it's entirely obtainable and affordable, and it's good economics. this is for the middle class -- the thing every right-wing politician/corporate lobbyist says are in their best intentions but perpetually screw them over by outsourcing jobs and under-paying workers.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;48320310]What I find sort of ironic about his views and american political culture is that a lot of normally republican "anti-socialist" working class people would probably vote for him, were it not for the culture of partisanship discourse. His priorities, at least to me, seem very non-partisan and totally unambiguous in their direction, if you're lower or middle class this guy is basically the only choice for a functioning president regardless of whether you're blue or red.[/QUOTE] His fundamental leftism is seen by having more government intervention, and more money, being his answer for literally everything. His ideal is a huge government that has it's hand in every part of every single person's life. - Have the government take over Healthcare - Have the government pay for everyone to go to government run educational institutions - Higher government mandated wages (15$ minimum wage) - Governmentally increase union power - Expand social security - Government controlled campaign finance (He seems to say that the government would spend $15 billions every election. He said $100 per person to give to a candidate.) - Carbon tax - Total government control of trade He's also totally bonkers on a few topics: - Open borders being a right wing policy. I honestly have no idea where this comes from. The vast majority of people for open borders are on the left. - Wealthy nations have the moral responsibility to ensure that everyone in the world is able to "have decent paying jobs, have education, have healthcare, have nutrition for their people." If taken at face value this statement would seem to mean that, if poor nations aren't able to provide those things, then wealthy nations are obligated to, for example, give free healthcare to all the world's citizens. The absurdity of that is obvious. - He says he wants to be more like the social-democracies in Europe, but then totally misses the point on military spending. He both admires those countries for their free healthcare, education, etc., but also admonishes them for not giving enough military support... even though their lack of military spending is what allows them to give all the other free stuff out. The US subsidizing of European military power is one of the major reasons we don't have as much money to spend on welfare like other nations, but he seems to totally miss this point. - California droughts are happening because of climate change - Solar and wind can be cheaper than coal and oil in a "few years" I think his pure focus on government solutions is most clearly shown by the very last question. The interviewer asks about a guaranteed income like what was proposed by Milton Friedman (the negative income tax). This, fundamentally, is a replacement of the vast majority of welfare with a lump sum given to every person that would ensure a minimum quality of life. Sanders responds by saying that yes, he would be for that idea... but he misses the point. He then goes on to talk about government welfare and how it's necessary. He didn't even really understand the question because that sort of free market approach is so alien to his way of thinking.
[QUOTE=Boaraes;48320587]I think what people need to realize is his philosophies on the implementation of tuition-free college and virtually free healthcare (among other things, such as the raise of minimum wage) are actually quite realistic and not at all a pipe dream. it's entirely obtainable and affordable, and it's good economics. this is for the middle class -- the thing every right-wing politician/corporate lobbyist says are in their best intentions but perpetually screw them over by outsourcing jobs and under-paying workers.[/QUOTE] With education Australia has a great system (well, for now) whereby you get something called HECS (Higher Education Commonwealth Support).. actually, I think now it's called HELP, but the point is; the government pays for your undergraduate degree while you're studying, and once you've left (either with your degree or by dropping out) you only start paying back the debt (interest free, by the way) once you earn above a certain thresh hold. "The compulsory repayment threshold for the 2015-16 income year is $54,126." You start paying back at a minimum rate of 4%, which increases with your pay. It 'caps' out at a minimum repayment rate of 8% (you can, of course, pay it off sooner if you'd like, but these are minimum rates). [url]http://studyassist.gov.au/sites/studyassist/payingbackmyloan/loan-repayment/pages/loan-repayment#HowMuchWillMyRepaymentsBe[/url]
[QUOTE=sltungle;48320738]With education Australia has a great system (well, for now) whereby you get something called HECS (Higher Education Commonwealth Support).. actually, I think now it's called HELP, but the point is; the government pays for your undergraduate degree while you're studying, and once you've left (either with your degree or by dropping out) you only start paying back the debt (interest free, by the way) once you earn above a certain thresh hold. "The compulsory repayment threshold for the 2015-16 income year is $54,126." You start paying back at a minimum rate of 4%, which increases with your pay. It 'caps' out at a minimum repayment rate of 8% (you can, of course, pay it off sooner if you'd like, but these are minimum rates). [url]http://studyassist.gov.au/sites/studyassist/payingbackmyloan/loan-repayment/pages/loan-repayment#HowMuchWillMyRepaymentsBe[/url][/QUOTE] It's a good system but it's not perfect. You're also forgetting to mention that the prices tertiary institutions may charge for courses are capped by the government. I don't think there would be much hope of that kind of cap ever being implemented in the US. Then there's also the fact that the government asks graduates to only pay back 40% of the cost of their degrees. The big problem from all of that is it can strain government budgets, hence Abbott's government trying to sell-off the HECS debt and change that student-government ratio from 40-60 to 50-50. [editline]29th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Boaraes;48320587]I think what people need to realize is his philosophies on the implementation of tuition-free college and virtually free healthcare (among other things, such as the raise of minimum wage) are actually quite realistic and not at all a pipe dream. it's entirely obtainable and affordable, and it's good economics. this is for the middle class -- the thing every right-wing politician/corporate lobbyist says are in their best intentions but perpetually screw them over by outsourcing jobs and under-paying workers.[/QUOTE] They are realistic as other countries have those things, but the US government is already operating beyond its means and before it does those things it needs to fix problems it already has. For instance, social security in the US has been spiralling into a sustainability disaster and needs reform.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48320628]His fundamental leftism is seen by having more government intervention, and more money, being his answer for literally everything. His ideal is a huge government that has it's hand in every part of every single person's life. - Have the government take over Healthcare - Have the government pay for everyone to go to government run educational institutions - Higher government mandated wages (15$ minimum wage) - Governmentally increase union power - Expand social security - Government controlled campaign finance (He seems to say that the government would spend $15 billions every election. He said $100 per person to give to a candidate.) - Carbon tax - Total government control of trade He's also totally bonkers on a few topics: - Open borders being a right wing policy. I honestly have no idea where this comes from. The vast majority of people for open borders are on the left. - Wealthy nations have the moral responsibility to ensure that everyone in the world is able to "have decent paying jobs, have education, have healthcare, have nutrition for their people." If taken at face value this statement would seem to mean that, if poor nations aren't able to provide those things, then wealthy nations are obligated to, for example, give free healthcare to all the world's citizens. The absurdity of that is obvious. - He says he wants to be more like the social-democracies in Europe, but then totally misses the point on military spending. He both admires those countries for their free healthcare, education, etc., but also admonishes them for not giving enough military support... even though their lack of military spending is what allows them to give all the other free stuff out. The US subsidizing of European military power is one of the major reasons we don't have as much money to spend on welfare like other nations, but he seems to totally miss this point. - California droughts are happening because of climate change - Solar and wind can be cheaper than coal and oil in a "few years" I think his pure focus on government solutions is most clearly shown by the very last question. The interviewer asks about a guaranteed income like what was proposed by Milton Friedman (the negative income tax). This, fundamentally, is a replacement of the vast majority of welfare with a lump sum given to every person that would ensure a minimum quality of life. Sanders responds by saying that yes, he would be for that idea... but he misses the point. He then goes on to talk about government welfare and how it's necessary. He didn't even really understand the question because that sort of free market approach is so alien to his way of thinking.[/QUOTE] The government already has its hands in everything, and in everybody's lives anyways. I think that you may be so used to the government's relationship with its people being so non-symbiotic that you fear the government for, currently, good reason. Changing its structure entirely in a way that benefits the majority flips the issue on its head. A good, functional government that aids the people is something that we need. Why not attempt to improve the benefits of Americans who don't get the help they need from the government? I'm fortunate enough to be part of the upper middle class and it's blatantly apparent that the quality of life for most everyone around me is much lower, there's more stress and constant struggle in day-to-day life.
I don't believe in large American government simply because I have no faith or trust in the federal bureaucracy that constitutes for 90% of the actual government. The more cogs you put into that mash of gears, the more slowly and inefficient it's going to run.
The people quick to criticise progressives for unilateral government action are usually the same people demanding government step in and enforce their own worldviews on others. It wasn't long ago that an amendment outlawing gay marriage was considered a platform issue for Republicans, even though they have repeated countless times that it should be up to states to decide the issue [editline]29th July 2015[/editline] Also there are plenty of areas where corporate interest goes completely against public interest and the government should be there, healthcare shouldn't be a luxury its a nesscesity
[QUOTE=sgman91;48320628]His fundamental leftism is seen by having more government intervention, and more money, being his answer for literally everything. [/QUOTE] So what? Why do any of these things matter? [QUOTE=sgman91;48320628]His ideal is a huge government that has it's hand in every part of every single person's life.[/QUOTE] Which parts of government being in your life are you okay with, and which ones are you not? The computer was a wartime project of the US government. The internet was originally a Department of Defense project. Engines, like the one in the automobile you drive, owe their innovation to aircraft engines made for fighting the First and Second World Wars. [QUOTE=sgman91;48320628]Have the government take over Healthcare[/QUOTE] And your alternative is? Markets cannot adequately distribute healthcare. It's one of few goods where QD will never change regardless of price level - it's either buy it or die/suffer, people will take on the high debts or offload their costs somewhere else in order to live. This means drugs and treatments can be priced as high as the seller would like, which is America's problem. Single payer drastically reduces costs, and most of the first world has learned this lesson firsthand. [QUOTE=sgman91;48320628]- Have the government pay for everyone to go to government run educational institutions[/QUOTE] And the problem with this is what, exactly? Most primary and secondary education is already state funded, and prices for tertiary education are out of control. Note that he doesn't propose abolition of the private univeristy, just bringing down the cost of public university such that anyone can get the education they need. [QUOTE=sgman91;48320628]- Higher government mandated wages (15$ minimum wage)[/QUOTE] Again, this is not a problem for other countries whatsoever - see the Australian minimum wage, equal to around $16 USD per hour. Their economy is mostly fine, and the people live better as a result. [QUOTE]He didn't even really understand the question because that sort of free market approach is so alien to his way of thinking.[/QUOTE] "Free market" approaches to anything are a myth. There's always varying degrees to which the state subsidizes capitalism and does the R&D for new technologies before handing them off to private corporations.
You shouldn't cite our minimum wage as reason for why the U.S. for instance couldn't double theirs. Our cost of living is different, most common example here is new games sell for up to $100. [editline]30th July 2015[/editline] Also I don't see how markets can't adequately distribute healthcare. Australia has a hybrid healthcare system where there's the public option which subsidises GP and specialist services as well as public hospital services and prescription drugs to an extent, however up to 50% of Australians still opt for private health coverage.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48325807]You shouldn't cite our minimum wage as reason for why the U.S. for instance couldn't double theirs. Our cost of living is different, most common example here is new games sell for up to $100. [editline]30th July 2015[/editline] Also I don't see how markets can't adequately distribute healthcare. Australia has a hybrid healthcare system where there's the public option which subsidises GP and specialist services as well as public hospital services and prescription drugs to an extent, however up to 50% of Australians still opt for private health coverage.[/QUOTE]Not disagreeing, but using video game prices as an example of "cost of living" in the context of minimum wage is a bit silly.
[QUOTE=NixNax123;48332197]Not disagreeing, but using video game prices as an example of "cost of living" in the context of minimum wage is a bit silly.[/QUOTE] Oh it quite is, but it just seems funny that the automatic reaction when people see how much games cost here is to question why everything is so expensive as if games are representative of everything, I only mentioned it because it's a point that people are familiar with here. I'll just throw out some numbers if anyone is interested. 91 octane petrol is about $1.40 per litre, milk at its cheapest is $1 per litre, cheapest loaves of fresh bread are $2 each, and a fast food meal of a burger, chips and a drink is usually at around $6-$8.
@sgman91 He says Open Borders are a right wing policy....only if they are left unchecked. The reason behind this, would be that a total open borders policy, allows a lot of inmigrants workers to flood the country, thus making more labour available and in the process reducing wages. It's basically the famous "shock" effect on employment any econ student sees in Macro I.
Its strange how before 2008 elections, a good number of people know who obama is, and people actually have some idea of him. But nobody outside of the States heard of Bernie
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;48335201]@sgman91 He says Open Borders are a right wing policy....only if they are left unchecked. The reason behind this, would be that a total open borders policy, allows a lot of inmigrants workers to flood the country, thus making more labour available and in the process reducing wages. It's basically the famous "shock" effect on employment any econ student sees in Macro I.[/QUOTE] Except literally no republican makes the argument for unchecked open borders. So whatever theory you or Sanders wants to make... it's based on some mistaken theoretical world, not the real one. The ironic part is that people in the extreme left do actually make the argument for open borders, in the real world. [editline]30th July 2015[/editline] In the words of the Huffington Post: "[B]Conservatives malign the notion[/B] and liberals, even radical ones, haven't exactly embraced the "open borders" concept." ([URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/02/open-borders_n_5737722.html[/URL])
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;48335573]Its strange how before 2008 elections, a good number of people know who obama is, and people actually have some idea of him. But nobody outside of the States heard of Bernie[/QUOTE] the average american definitely did not have any idea who bernie sanders was prior to this election cycle. he's always had traction in niche groups (like facepunch, reddit, etc) where his radical views (embarassing that he's considered radical in our political spectrum but whatever) gain some attention and a near cult like following on the net - but prior to him starting up in the past few months, i guarantee if you walked down an average american street and asked someone if they knew who sanders was, you'd find few it's one of the primary reasons why he's doing so well in the polls right now - he's seen as an outsider (despite his long career) and a relative newcomer, compared to clinton who has a long history tied to the obama cabinet and has baggage of her own from the clinton days [editline]31st July 2015[/editline] sanders seems rather irritated throughout this interview is this just his personality or what
Does anyone of you who lives in the States think he has a legitimate chance? In a country like Canada the majority of people would agree with his views.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48320628]- Open borders being a right wing policy. I honestly have no idea where this comes from. The vast majority of people for open borders are on the left.[/quote] he's pinpointing the usage of mexican immigrant labor by republican businessowners throughout the south. the argument isn't fully fleshed out in the interview but he's likely saying that republicans would enjoy an open border policy if it existed in isolation - ie, there were no additional protections provided to immigrant labor. if that were the case, he is correct. spend any time with texan business owners and wealthy landowners it becomes extremely clear that they love having cheap immigrant labor. [quote]- Wealthy nations have the moral responsibility to ensure that everyone in the world is able to "have decent paying jobs, have education, have healthcare, have nutrition for their people." If taken at face value this statement would seem to mean that, if poor nations aren't able to provide those things, then wealthy nations are obligated to, for example, give free healthcare to all the world's citizens. The absurdity of that is obvious.[/quote] literally argues the opposite in the interview, repeatedly states that the united states' primary responsibility is to that of its own people - eventually the international mindset provides mechanisms for supporting the development of other nations but he continually discusses how it cannot be done at the expense of the american people, and that currently people have a view that foreign development and maintaining the standard of living domestically is mutually exclusive which he disagrees with [quote]- He says he wants to be more like the social-democracies in Europe, but then totally misses the point on military spending. He both admires those countries for their free healthcare, education, etc., but also admonishes them for not giving enough military support... even though their lack of military spending is what allows them to give all the other free stuff out. The US subsidizing of European military power is one of the major reasons we don't have as much money to spend on welfare like other nations, but he seems to totally miss this point.[/quote] military spending isn't the issue whatsoever, it's a fraction of what we already spend on social services and social security. the international framework would see a general backing off of unilateral action by the united states towards multilateral action by coalition forces, which is why he talks about building up the UN's power to enforce in the interview. a disaggregated coalition approach to military spending would minimize the amount that any contributing nation would need to spend and share the cost. [editline]31st July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;48336694]Does anyone of you who lives in the States think he has a legitimate chance? In a country like Canada the majority of people would agree with his views.[/QUOTE] it depends on a lot of things that are up in the air right now the big question for right now is whether or not clinton or socialism is a more dirty word clinton's got huge political baggage following her around in the form of various incidences of corruption, ineptitude (via maintaining confidential materials on an unprotected email address), and her stuff from the clinton era - a lot of people quite seriously dislike her however bernie's a self described socialist, something that for many in the united states is a very, very bad label. the first hurdle will be to get through the primaries, and he may have a decent chance - primary voters are generally more educated and more radical than the main bulk of the party, and given that he has a lot of traction among the far left, he may have a chance against hillary. however once (if) he gets to the general election it'll be an uphill battle.
So he's got a good chance of beating Hillary - And the US has a good chance of electing a Republican president, even though all the choices really suck right now, because it's less frightening than electing a 'socialist'. Is that right?
[QUOTE=archangel125;48336854]So he's got a good chance of beating Hillary - And the US has a good chance of electing a Republican president, even though all the choices really suck right now, because it's less frightening than electing a 'socialist'. Is that right?[/QUOTE] His odds of beating Hilariy are fairly low, but it'll be even lower to beat Jeb Bush, the likely canidate for the Republicans.
Shame. The Canadian elections are still anyone's game; I'm hopeful the NDP will win, but afraid that Harper's going to play dirty and secure his own victory again. I was hopeful we could have an NDP government in the House of Parliament and a democrat like Sanders in the White House - That would've really opened many doors to mutual cooperation.
[QUOTE=Ziron;48336870]His odds of beating Hilariy are fairly low, but it'll be even lower to beat Jeb Bush, the likely canidate for the Republicans.[/QUOTE] not really, the republicans will be a fractured mess right up until the RNC in september [I]of next year[/I] even then, with the multifaceted special interest campaign they're running now i doubt they'll pull their shit together after the convention
[QUOTE=sgman91;48335600]Except literally no republican makes the argument for unchecked open borders. So whatever theory you or Sanders wants to make... it's based on some mistaken theoretical world, not the real one. The ironic part is that people in the extreme left do actually make the argument for open borders, in the real world. [editline]30th July 2015[/editline] In the words of the Huffington Post: "[B]Conservatives malign the notion[/B] and liberals, even radical ones, haven't exactly embraced the "open borders" concept." ([URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/02/open-borders_n_5737722.html[/URL])[/QUOTE] He's probably using "right-wing" in the old context, as in "less government interference".
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;48336970]He's probably using "right-wing" in the old context, as in "less government interference".[/QUOTE] He names the Koch Brothers specifically. So no, he's using it in modern usage. [QUOTE=BrickInHead]he's pinpointing the usage of mexican immigrant labor by republican businessowners throughout the south. the argument isn't fully fleshed out in the interview but he's likely saying that republicans would enjoy an open border policy if it existed in isolation - ie, there were no additional protections provided to immigrant labor. if that were the case, he is correct. spend any time with texan business owners and wealthy landowners it becomes extremely clear that they love having cheap immigrant labor.[/QUOTE] The question was clearly about having an immigration policy of open borders in the US, as a real policy, and Sanders responds with: "Open borders? No, open borders... that's a Koch brothers proposal." He then says its a right wing idea. (around 6:20) He's so far off the mark, that I'm not sure how anyone could defend him on this point. There are literally people, right now, on the left who want open borders. They exist in the real world, but somehow, you and Sanders are trying to make it seem like a right wing idea. [QUOTE]literally argues the opposite in the interview, repeatedly states that the united states' primary responsibility is to that of its own people - eventually the international mindset provides mechanisms for supporting the development of other nations but he continually discusses how it cannot be done at the expense of the american people, and that currently people have a view that foreign development and maintaining the standard of living domestically is mutually exclusive which he disagrees with[/QUOTE] He literally says that they have that moral responsibility to do the things I listed. Those are his words, not mine. "I think what we need to be doing, as a global economy, is making sure that poor countries have decent paying jobs, have education, have healthcare, have nutrition for their people. That is a moral responsibility." (~9:00) [QUOTE]military spending isn't the issue whatsoever, it's a fraction of what we already spend on social services and social security. the international framework would see a general backing off of unilateral action by the united states towards multilateral action by coalition forces, which is why he talks about building up the UN's power to enforce in the interview. a disaggregated coalition approach to military spending would minimize the amount that any contributing nation would need to spend and share the cost.[/QUOTE] European countries simply don't have the funds to increase military spending, at all, and the state of their current military ability is laughable. Many are already strapped with increasing debt at their current levels, and their welfare programs are going to cost more, not less with the increasing average age of most European countries. Also, do you honestly think the UN is going to effectively solve the world's problems without the mass of US military power and infrastructure backing it up? Currently, the US is the UN when it comes to military might.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.