The Bernie Gimme Gimme Gimme Crowd

[jordanriver]

Yup, because the market allows farmers and companies to innovate. Socialism doesn't promote that.

free market anarchy overplowing caused the dust bowl.

Government regulation had to step in with Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936 to reduce soil erosion

[Cow Poke]

free market anarchy overplowing caused the dust bowl.

Wow... A classic example of the historical revisionism that must always accompany the apologetics of socialism. It had nothing to do with the great drought of 1934 to 1937, eh? (It wasn't just plowing up ground for planting of wheat - it was also overgrazing of livestock)

Government regulation had to step in with Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936 to reduce soil erosion

Yeah, they sued God and told Him He can't allow any more drought.

[Starlight]

There are as many failed socialist countries as successful ones.

Sure, countries that are 'socialist' (I use quotes because "tax and spend governments that provide social extensive social services" that Americans call socialist isn't the same thing that other countries call socialist) have failed at times for a variety of other reason that didn't have to do with them being socialist.

But look at the UN's 2016 list of the happiest countries in the world according to their survey results:
1. Denmark
2. Switzerland
3. Iceland
4. Norway
5. Finland
6. Canada
7. Netherlands
8. New Zealand
9. Australia
10. Sweden

Yes, those countries have a slew of variables in common - they're all mostly-white, western, non-corrupt, stable, free, historically-Christian, democracies. Also, they're all "socialist" in the sense of this thread (they all have the kinds of policies that Sanders wants to implement).

America is also a mostly-white, western, free, historically-Christian, democracy, though quite a bit more corrupt than the countries on that list and maybe a bit less stable (you've had a civil war). So why aren't Americans as happy as people from those socialist countries? Probably the lack of socialism. As a citizen of one of those countries, let me assure you that people here find American opposition to government-run healthcare to be hilarious, and it's commonly mocked. People here also generally can't understand why the US has not elected Sanders, since modifying US policies to match the policies of the world's more successful countries just seems sensible.

[jordanriver]

Wow... A classic example of the historical revisionism that must always accompany the apologetics of socialism. It had nothing to do with the great drought of 1934 to 1937, eh? (It wasn't just plowing up ground for planting of wheat - it was also overgrazing of livestock)



Yeah, they sued God and told Him He can't allow any more drought.

overplowing cause soil to be too fine, and too weak to survive draughts and wind, government had what you see in Kansas nowadays, rows of trees all over farms to block and slow down winds .


and now we have surpluses, an otherwise blessing of God , but in Capitalism, a punishment, for agri businesses when prices fall and they cannot sell farm equipment,

my guys lost several days of work when a plow company slowed down and laid off workers periodically.

And we lost another account when they had to get someone cheaper, replace our 23 cleaners with a company who provides 7 cleaning help.

[Cow Poke]

overplowing ...

... was ONE of the factors, and was ignorance, not greed. If ANY of those farmers had even a clue that their land would become worthless because of the way they worked it, they would not have done it.

It's just birdbrianed idiotic to think that a farmer would be so greedy that he would purposely destroy his means of feeding and caring for his family, and making a living.

[seanD]

Sure, countries that are 'socialist' (I use quotes because "tax and spend governments that provide social extensive social services" that Americans call socialist isn't the same thing that other countries call socialist) have failed at times for a variety of other reason that didn't have to do with them being socialist.

But look at the UN's 2016 list of the happiest countries in the world according to their survey results:
1. Denmark
2. Switzerland
3. Iceland
4. Norway
5. Finland
6. Canada
7. Netherlands
8. New Zealand
9. Australia
10. Sweden

Yes, those countries have a slew of variables in common - they're all mostly-white, western, non-corrupt, stable, free, historically-Christian, democracies. Also, they're all "socialist" in the sense of this thread (they all have the kinds of policies that Sanders wants to implement).

America is also a mostly-white, western, free, historically-Christian, democracy, though quite a bit more corrupt than the countries on that list and maybe a bit less stable (you've had a civil war). So why aren't Americans as happy as people from those socialist countries? Probably the lack of socialism. As a citizen of one of those countries, let me assure you that people here find American opposition to government-run healthcare to be hilarious, and it's commonly mocked. People here also generally can't understand why the US has not elected Sanders, since modifying US policies to match the policies of the world's more successful countries just seems sensible.

US is 20 trillion in debt, not including unfunded liabilities, which some estimate to be as high as 200 trillion. What would we do with that debt? Default? It's not feasible for America to completely alter its economic structure to become the so-called socialist utopia you think it should without severe social and economic upheaval in the process (though I strongly disagree we aren't just as socialist -- there's no evidence to the contrary). And I'm not so sure Bernie is even advocating the socialism you think he is. I think he's just being open about all the social programs presently in the US now (though he's advocated for free college) and he just wants to continue that norm (with the exception of what's currently taking place in the financial sector and all the free capital being supplied to them by the central bank at the expense of the many), whereas most US politicians are just too afraid to admit that.

[Catholicity]

The only thing I would say sanders is correct about? Tax hikes. The have to go up to support even the current infrastructure and only an idiot would think you can cut taxes right now and even begi. To fix our current government. Its not able to Happen. Yeah even we would get a refund but it would be after we woul pay in some amount...

[Bill the Cat]

Here's my country's national debt by contrast. Bear in mind, we've historically been the most left-wing of all Western countries, being the first Western country to introduce 'free' government-provided healthcare for everyone (75 years ago).

As you can see, our debt dropped steadily from 2000 to 2008 (we had a left-wing government who ran a surplus and paid off debt), and by 2008 our debt was only around 17% of GDP (compare to America's ~105% of GDP). So after 70 years of having government provided universal healthcare we had virtually no government debt. Clearly all that "socialism" wasn't causing us to get into huge debts. At the end of 2008 we had a change of government, and the new right-wing government has proved incompetent at balancing the budget and has run up a large amount of debt in a short time.

You still have 1 in 7 households in your country living in poverty.

Source: http://nzccss.org.nz/work/poverty/facts-about-poverty/

There is poverty amidst prosperity: There are around 622,000 people in poverty in this country or one in seven households, including around 230,000 children.

© Copyright Original Source

[Starlight]

US is 20 trillion in debt, not including unfunded liabilities, which some estimate to be as high as 200 trillion. What would we do with that debt?

The US had much higher government debt (as a percentage of GDP, which is the important way of measuring it) as a result of WWII than it does now. The progressives who were presidents over that post-war period (FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson) had reasonably high taxes, and as a result generally ran balanced budgets despite their high-spending social policies. Because of inflation and GDP growth, the debt drops pretty quickly over time if you run balanced budgets - their 15 years of balanced budgets cut the debt by about 60%. So that's how the US dealt with its debt problem last time, and that method should work perfectly fine again.

It's perfectly possible to have a balanced budget in the present day - Bill Clinton did so, which is why US debt went down over his period in office. Unfortunately Bush W instituted huge tax cuts for the rich, and the Republican congress has forced Obama to keep those tax cuts, which means the federal government is currently running at a loss. But the solution is pretty simple: Roll back the Bush tax cuts, stop the wars Bush started, and go back to the balanced budgets of the Clinton era.

While it's often worth paying back debt so you don't have to pay interest, currently interest rates are pretty close to zero, so paying it off at the moment isn't a sound financial move (better to just let inflation and GDP eat away at it over time). If and when interest rates get above 4%, it would then be worth looking at trying to run surpluses to pay it off.

It's not feasible for America to completely alter its economic structure to become the so-called socialist utopia you think it should without severe social and economic upheaval in the process

Eh? America doesn't have to do much. I'm not suggesting it alter its economic structure. Neither Sanders nor I are suggesting you abolish the free market and become a communist country, or anything like that. Just that you tinker with some of the government policies on taxation levels and healthcare and education spending.

[Cow Poke]

Eh? America doesn't have to do much. I'm not suggesting it alter its economic structure. Neither Sanders nor I are suggesting you abolish the free market and become a communist country, or anything like that. Just that you tinker with some of the government policies on taxation levels and healthcare and education spending.

But, in order to provide all the FREE STUFF, America needs a bunch of really stupid really rich people. Unfortunately, most people don't get rich by being stupid.

[Bill the Cat]

But, in order to provide all the FREE STUFF, America needs a bunch of really stupid really rich people. .

Or a bunch of middle class people who don't mind giving up a substantial portion of their earnings to pay for social programs for others. Basically giving up what they have worked for to make it so that they are equal with everyone else.

[Starlight]

You still have 1 in 7 households in your country living in poverty.

[seanD]

The US had much higher government debt (as a percentage of GDP, which is the important way of measuring it) as a result of WWII than it does now. The progressives who were presidents over that post-war period (FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson) had reasonably high taxes, and as a result generally ran balanced budgets despite their high-spending social policies. Because of inflation and GDP growth, the debt drops pretty quickly over time if you run balanced budgets - their 15 years of balanced budgets cut the debt by about 60%. So that's how the US dealt with its debt problem last time, and that method should work perfectly fine again.

It's perfectly possible to have a balanced budget in the present day - Bill Clinton did so, which is why US debt went down over his period in office. Unfortunately Bush W instituted huge tax cuts for the rich, and the Republican congress has forced Obama to keep those tax cuts, which means the federal government is currently running at a loss. But the solution is pretty simple: Roll back the Bush tax cuts, stop the wars Bush started, and go back to the balanced budgets of the Clinton era.

While it's often worth paying back debt so you don't have to pay interest, currently interest rates are pretty close to zero, so paying it off at the moment isn't a sound financial move (better to just let inflation and GDP eat away at it over time). If and when interest rates get above 4%, it would then be worth looking at trying to run surpluses to pay it off.

Eh? America doesn't have to do much. I'm not suggesting it alter its economic structure. Neither Sanders nor I are suggesting you abolish the free market and become a communist country, or anything like that. Just that you tinker with some of the government policies on taxation levels and healthcare and education spending.

Well, then what you suggest is so minor that anything you think Bernie should do wouldn't change us that much more or less socialist than where we are now. So I still don't get why both the left and right make such a big deal out of his policies.

[Bill the Cat]

Two big differences between NZ and the US in their treatment of poverty are:
- The government here provides housing to anyone who is homeless.
- The government here provides financial support to anyone who doesn't have income..

So, what motivates anyone to work then? If you have a home and an income, why bother?

[Starlight]

Well, then what you suggest is so minor that anything you think Bernie should do wouldn't change us anymore or less socialist than where we are now. So I still don't get why both the left and right make such a big deal out of his policies.

The left makes a big deal because things like healthcare, education, and housing are generally supposed to be human rights (eg see the UN declaration on human rights), and America's failure to provide those things to all its citizens is thus a big deal (especially since it masquerade as a first world country), and Bernie's statements that he will do so are thus a big deal.

The right gets so upset at him because the right is just throws silly tantrums about taxes anytime raising them is mentioned, even though they have fond memories of FDR and Eisenhower who had tax rates double what they are now. Plus they're scared of the socialist boogeyman, even though they're not quite sure what socialism is or why it's bad.