Democrat leaders - what do they have to offer?

[klaus54]

Bashing back and forth... Both U.S. Presidential campaigns are involved in a smacking campaign.

I would like to focus on what the Democrat entries -- in particular Hillary and Bernie -- have to offer that will "advance" U.S. policy?

Economic policy?

And of course, Climate Change...

And an attempt at "healing" racial relations that have been exacerbated by Black "leaders" and liberal worthless positions in big shot universities.

Well, I'm rambling, but social issues (racial relations in particular) have in my opinion are worse than they were in 1965 when I as a ten year old kid.

[Starlight]

I find it hard to judge Hillary's sincerity, and hence find it hard to know what policies she would push for as president and how strongly she would push for them or how quickly she'd "compromise" at something far far short of what she's promising. Let's assume everything she says is sincere for the purposes of this thread...

The economy, jobs, deficit, and debt, have always done much better under democratic presidents than republican ones over the last few decades. So we could expect that both of the major Democratic candidates would return the US to surplus if elected, start paying off the Republican-generated debt, create more jobs etc.

Bernie is likely to be a lot better than Hillary at those things.
1. He intends to increase taxes on the rich more, which will give the government more income to be used to balance the budget and pay debt.
2. He intends to spend more on infrastructure development, which will create more jobs.
3. He intends to move the healthcare system to single-payer which would save the country $27 trillion in healthcare costs over the course of a decade. (easily enough to repay the US national debt of $18 trillion)
4. He intends to redistribute more money to the working poor, by increasing the minimum wage to a higher level, which should stimulate the economy significantly since poor people spend 100% of their weekly income on purchasing goods and services (by contrast, money given to rich people, eg through tax cuts, just goes into their savings accounts or share portfolios, and has no stimulus effect).

Hillary and Bernie have both proposed measures to decrease pharmaceutical drug prices.

America currently has the largest prison population in the world, both in total prisoners and per capita. Much higher than 'authoritarian' countries such as Russia and China. It costs the government huge amounts of money per year to imprison those people - more per person per year than would be required to pay to give them the best university education. Plus those prisoners are non-productive - they are not working and paying taxes and buying goods and adding to the economy, so it is a huge burden on the system. The easiest way to improve America's economy and the government's cash-flow is to get as many of those people as possible out of prison and into the workforce. If America reduced its over-punitive and overly-authoritarian punishment system, and thus reduced its prison population down to the per-capita rate of China, by releasing 75% (!!!) of its prisoners and ceasing to excessively-imprison new people, that would add 1.6 million people to the work-force who could be paying taxes rather than costing the tax-payers so much money. Not to mention the humanitarian injustice of imprisoning so many people, clearly many unjustly, as no other country in the world finds it remotely necessary to imprison so many people! Both major Democratic candidates have said the current state of affairs is unacceptable and that they would take action to address this major issue. Again it is clear from their policies that Sanders intends to go further than Hillary to address this.

War is one of the most expensive things America does. From a moral standpoint I have MAJOR issues with how the Bush W and Obama administrations have conducted themselves in wars. However, from simply a cost point of view wars are pretty expensive. Bush W racked up a bill of $5 trillion for his wars while in office which he added straight to the national debt rather than bother to pay for, not to mention the long-term increased healthcare costs for veterans. Sanders is clearly better than Hillary on foreign policy, advocating not getting the country into needless expensive wars. Hillary is similar to most of the Republican candidates in terms of usually being in favor of expensive military actions. Sanders has suggested reviewing the defense budget with a view to finding ways to cut unnecessary spending (which pretty much everyone agrees there is a lot of in the defense budget).

Wall St is one of the biggest problems for the US economy, tanking it in 2008 and by most accounts gearing up to tank it again in the near future, due to a general lack of action taken to prevent a repeat of last time. Hillary has repeatedly said that she went to Wall St in 2007 and waggled her finger at them and told them to stop doing it, and obviously they didn't listen to her. Big banks are her largest donors, and most people seem to accept that she wouldn't take any serious action against them. Like the Republicans she has taken a stance against passing serious regulation that would actually prevent another crash, such as reinstating Glass-Steagall, or breaking up the largest banks. Under a Republican or Hillary administration, I would anticipate another major Wall St crash in the next 8 years. Sanders wants to take serious action to break up the banks, and pass major reform measures such as Glass-Steagall in order to ensure a repeat crash does not occur and to limit the damage that can be done by such.

On gun control, both candidates would enact common sense gun laws, already present in several states at the state level, that have the majority support of gun owners, that would be aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of those who pose the most serious risk due to mental disorders or criminal history.

Both have stated the importance of taking action to address the major world crisis of climate change. Although some of the details of Hillary's particular proposals were not well liked by some experts.


In short, Bernie has excellent policies on basically all issues, Republicans have terrible policies on basically all issues, and Hillary is somewhere in between and on some issues is just as good as Bernie and on others is just as bad as the Republicans.

[Adam]

As far as the issues he lists, Starlight is right. It's the issues that he does not list that the Dems are terrible. (But the Repubs, all told, are even worse.)

[Adam]

Oh, what isues he omits.? Moslems and (illegal im)migrants, for starters.
Not to mention Russia, China, and North Korea.
A certain class of people I can't even name without getting moderated.

[Starlight]

Oh, what isues he omits.? Moslems and (illegal im)migrants, for starters.

It's important to realize that the population of illegal immigrants in the US has now stabilized. For several years now, the number of illegals returning to Mexico has been equal to the number crossing into the US. So there simply isn't a huge flood of immigrants that urgently needs dealing with.

Something like building a wall is a meaningless act, because most illegals come to the US by plane and then overstay, and because the country is simply not experiencing a net gain of illegal immigrants at the moment.

The illegals that are in the country pay a lot of tax (which is automatically deducted from their wages and which they can't claim back due to not being able to file the IRS paperwork), they commit vastly less crime than the average person (because they're terrified of getting caught and deported), and they cost the government nothing in welfare (because they can't claim it due to not being able to file the paperwork). So overall, illegals are a huge boon for the American economy, acting as a very cheap source of labour that provides the government with a lot of money and costs it nothing. However, working out a sensible way to integrate the people who are currently in the country seems like an obvious move, and Hillary and Bernie seem to both have fairly sensible policies in this regard.

Muslims in the US aren't doing anything much exciting in general. Conservatives seem to love to work themselves up into a frenzy with various false rumors of ISIS training camps in their state etc, or calling the police about terrifying muslim signs by the road that turn out to be written in Hebrew and saying 'welcome home'. Polling pretty consistently shows that Muslims who live in America are extremely liberal - much more so than Evangelicals - and don't want to enforce their religion on anyone else.

Not to mention Russia, China, and North Korea.

Not even the most over-militaristic republican war-monger (ie Lindsey Graham) wants to attack them. (Although, several Republicans plus Hillary seem to want to provoke a war with Russia by getting really stroppy with them over Crimea and Syria, which makes me cringe.) I'm slightly baffled as to what the unspecified thing you would want a US president to do about those countries is.

A certain class of people I can't even name without getting moderated.

Gay marriage doesn't appear to have destroyed America yet, but they're probably working on it. I'll check back next week to make sure the US is still there. The Netherlands is coming up to the 15th anniversary of their legalizing it, and their country seems to be doing remarkably well in general.

[lilpixieofterror]

As far as the issues he lists, Starlight is right. It's the issues that he does not list that the Dems are terrible. (But the Repubs, all told, are even worse.)

Dimbulb just assumes his policies will work because he wants them to work. For example, he claims that raising taxes will raise more money, but in reality, what is preventing the rich from shifting their assets to a lower tax country? What is preventing the rich from hiding money? In many cases, raising taxes has had the opposite effect and has created less income, but he'll ignore that because he's a partisan hack that ignores reality.

[Mountain Man]

What do Democrats have to offer? More of Obama's "hope and change", and there's no way the country could survive another 4-years of that.

[lilpixieofterror]

What do Democrats have to offer? More of Obama's "hope and change", and there's no way the country could survive another 4-years of that.

But in Dimbulb fantasy land, it's all roses without any thorns. What I like is how he tries to use selective data selection to prove his points. Such as his 'tax plan' where he only uses rich, western countries and ignores any other country to 'prove' the US tax rates are 'too low'. In reality, the many countries have a higher GDP for government spending than the US does such as Cuba or Brazil and are they economic power houses with people that are as happy as can be? Things like that, tells me that he's just a partisan hack that shouldn't be taken seriously in the least.

[Starlight]

Dimbulb just assumes his policies will work because he wants them to work.

As most people here well know, I am an empiricist... I have a tendency to emphasize the importance of actual empirical data to the exclusion of almost anything else. Any time I make a statement like "policy X would work well" what I mean is there are numerous concrete examples of countries that have done policy X and it worked well.

For example, he claims that raising taxes will raise more money, but in reality, what is preventing the rich from shifting their assets to a lower tax country?

Because the data shows clearly that the notion of rich people shifting countries to evade taxes is an overblown right-wing talking point and doesn't actually occur to any significant degree.

What is preventing the rich from hiding money?

They do their best. Sanders has stated his intention to pass meaningful tax reforms in order to get rid of tax havens.

In many cases, raising taxes has had the opposite effect and has created less income,

Entirely false. Your statements are totally counterfactual. This simply has not happened in any modern Western democracy. Various economists have estimated that that if the tax rates were pushed above 70%, then raising taxes beyond that might create less government income rather than more, however that level of taxation has not been tested in modern economies.

Such as his 'tax plan' where he only uses rich, western countries and ignores any other country to 'prove' the US tax rates are 'too low'.

Would you prefer the US to become more like poor non-western countries?

In reality, the many countries have a higher GDP for government spending than the US does such as Cuba or Brazil and are they economic power houses with people that are as happy as can be?

I don't think you'd be happy if the US turned into a Cuba. Furthermore you're factually wrong about the people from Cuba and Brazil being the happiest. The data shows that the people from the Scandinavian countries, which have very high tax rates, are happiest.

Things like that, tells me that he's just a partisan hack that shouldn't be taken seriously in the least.

Your various non-factual rants show you should never be taken seriously.

[shunyadragon]

Bashing back and forth... Both U.S. Presidential campaigns are involved in a smacking campaign.

I would like to focus on what the Democrat entries -- in particular Hillary and Bernie -- have to offer that will "advance" U.S. policy?

Economic policy?

And of course, Climate Change...

And an attempt at "healing" racial relations that have been exacerbated by Black "leaders" and liberal worthless positions in big shot universities.

Well, I'm rambling, but social issues (racial relations in particular) have in my opinion are worse than they were in 1965 when I as a ten year old kid.

Your rambling does not amount to sincere questions.

One thing the Democrats offer for me is the separation of church and state.

[lilpixieofterror]

As most people here well know, I am an empiricist... I have a tendency to emphasize the importance of actual empirical data to the exclusion of almost anything else. Any time I make a statement like "policy X would work well" what I mean is there are numerous concrete examples of countries that have done policy X and it worked well.

No, you're selective in your quoting and only pick and choose examples that agree with you and ignore the rest like a typical idea ideological hack that is driven by his ideology and not facts. See, there's numerous concrete examples of countries having very high taxes that don't do nearly as well. It's almost as if picking and choosing your facts and ignoring cases where your ideology doesn't work out how you want it to work out makes it more true.

Because the data shows clearly that the notion of rich people shifting countries to evade taxes is an overblown right-wing talking point and doesn't actually occur to any significant degree.

That's right because rich people are going to tell authorities that they are illegally evading taxes. Does that make any sense to you dimbulb? How do you empirically measure something, that by it's very definition, is something people want to keep hidden away and unknown?

They do their best. Sanders has stated his intention to pass meaningful tax reforms in order to get rid of tax havens.

And how does he plan on enforcing this on sovereign foreign nations? As always, we hear vague claims, but no actual details.

Entirely false. Your statements are totally counterfactual. This simply has not happened in any modern Western democracy. Various economists have estimated that that if the tax rates were pushed above 70%, then raising taxes beyond that might create less government income rather than more, however that level of taxation has not been tested in modern economies.

Funny how actual reality has shown that projections for incomes, for raised taxes, almost never meet the projections made by government officials and in some cases, have actually resulted in a drop income. Of course, as always, dimbulb ignores examples that prove him wrong and only picks and chooses what he wants to hear and ignore the rest.Typical dimbulb.

Would you prefer the US to become more like poor non-western countries?

Either/or thinking. Yep, typical dimbulb. What do you do when you run out of other people's money? Raise the taxes even higher? What do you do when you run out of that money? Raise them even higher?

I don't think you'd be happy if the US turned into a Cuba. Furthermore you're factually wrong about the people from Cuba and Brazil being the happiest. The data shows that the people from the Scandinavian countries, which have very high tax rates, are happiest.

Obviously, you can't read basic English or satire. Sorry dimbulb, but as always, you are mixing up correlation with collaboration. Here, let me show you how badly your examples work:

1. Scandinavian countries are cold.
2. They are happy.
3. Therefore, being in a cold climate makes you happy.

Your logic is the same thing there, you're trying to draw up comparisons that 'happiness' is equal to X and you have no actual proof to back up that statement beyond your own confirmation biasness. They are cold countries, they have a low population density, they are small countries that rarely have a pull much beyond their own boarders, their population is homogeneous, etc. Do you have any evidence that their happiness level isn't due to those things?

Your various non-factual rants show you should never be taken seriously.

Irony at it's finest.

[JimL]

Bashing back and forth... Both U.S. Presidential campaigns are involved in a smacking campaign.

I would like to focus on what the Democrat entries -- in particular Hillary and Bernie -- have to offer that will "advance" U.S. policy?

Economic policy?

And of course, Climate Change...

And an attempt at "healing" racial relations that have been exacerbated by Black "leaders" and liberal worthless positions in big shot universities.

Well, I'm rambling, but social issues (racial relations in particular) have in my opinion are worse than they were in 1965 when I as a ten year old kid.

Democrats offer what they have always offered and achieved despite the attempt from conservatives, the representatives of the oligarchs, to stop them. A better and more dignified life for the majority of the people. A living wage, higher taxes on the wealthy, a social safety net, healthcare, unemployment insurance, Disaster relief, a belief in science and a willingness to deal with climate change.
What are republicans offering? Actually not much! Btw, republicans don't try to heal racial relations, they actually try to exacerbate them.

[jordanriver]

Democrats offer what they have always offered and achieved despite the .............

no they don't

the same plutocrat/oligarchs that own the republican "representatives" also own the democrat "representatives"


without direct democracy , only the wolves' votes count, not the sheep.

[klaus54]

As far as the issues he lists, Starlight is right. It's the issues that he does not list that the Dems are terrible. (But the Repubs, all told, are even worse.)

Your "Dems are terrible but Repubs are even worse" shtick is wearing thin.

Be specific or shut your piehole.

[klaus54]

Democrats offer what they have always offered and achieved despite the attempt from conservatives, the representatives of the oligarchs, to stop them. A better and more dignified life for the majority of the people. A living wage, higher taxes on the wealthy, a social safety net, healthcare, unemployment insurance, Disaster relief, a belief in science and a willingness to deal with climate change.
What are republicans offering? Actually not much! Btw, republicans don't try to heal racial relations, they actually try to exacerbate them.

Wrong in general, but you got that one exactly bass-ackwards.

Dems strive to keep Blacks in the dependency plantation where they are too ignorant to think for themselves.