Bernie Sanders, Anti-American!

[musterion]

No system ever invented has proven as confiscatory as capitalism.

That's what Marx and Lenin used to say. Of course that's why you say it too.

 

[This Charming Manc]

A much more reasoned argument.

Sanders is more a threat to anyone who leans a little to the right. He also is a threat to middle-age persons seeking retirement stability, as well Middle-Class persons who do not want income tax increases. Many moderates, who will accept Clinton, will not go for Sanders; he is to anti-capitalist.

 

[ClimateSanity]

It stole people and land, and it mortgages the natural environment against the future. It commodities lives and exploits workers for profits for owners, transferring wealth to owners. It is far more confiscatory than any other system invented to date.



Well, except for Chinese communism. Which is to say, some compromise between capitalism and socialism.

It gives people opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. It also profits the owners. Everyone wins. The ones who don't win are those who hate profit and anyone who has more wealth than they do.

The first time I hear someone utter the word " exploit ", I know I'm dealing with someone who despises profit. I also know I'm dealing with someone who thinks living anything but a spartan lifestyle is evil and that we should lower our population to before the bronze age.

 

[rexlunae]

Sanders is more a threat to anyone who leans a little to the right. He also is a threat to middle-age persons seeking retirement stability, as well Middle-Class persons who do not want income tax increases. Many moderates, who will accept Clinton, will not go for Sanders; he is to anti-capitalist.

He's the only one talking about expanding Social Security. That would be a fair measure of stability for retirees.

 

[ClimateSanity]

It gives people opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. It also profits the owners. Everyone wins. The ones who don't win are those who hate profit and anyone who has more wealth than they do.

The first time I hear someone utter the word " exploit ", I know I'm dealing with someone who despises profit. I also know I'm dealing with someone who thinks living anything but a spartan lifestyle is evil and that we should lower our population to before the bronze age.

 

[TracerBullet]

How has that been working out? The taxes are already too high, so many business folks are moving their operations out of this country. This country isn't far from being another Greece. I think that we're looking at big problems soon, and that's without offering any more free stuff that we can't pay for.

which is why Sanders is proposing getting rid of entitlements that we can neither afford or provide us with any identifiable benefit. Corporate welfare for example.

 

[brewmama]

It stole people and land, and it mortgages the natural environment against the future. It commodities lives and exploits workers for profits for owners, transferring wealth to owners. It is far more confiscatory than any other system invented to date.

You only know how to spout marxist false diatribes, I guess that's all they teach nowadays.

And while we modern Americans focus on how much more money Bill Gates has than the rest of us, our time-traveler would likely find the differences separating Gates from average Americans to be much smaller than the gargantuan differences between his own pre-industrial life and that of today’s ordinary Americans.

He would also likely find the wealth differences between ordinary Americans and the richest Americans trivial compared to the differences between most pre-industrial folk and the royalty who ruled them.

Before capitalism, royalty and the nobility had exclusive access to a deep pool of servants and amenities that made their lives vastly more agreeable than those of ordinary people. For example, monarchs spent no time washing clothing; their servants washed it for them. When dusk came and indoor lighting was needed, the rich just snapped their fingers and servants lit the chandeliers and candles of the great houses–and these or another set of servants emptied their masters’ chamber pots when necessary. Whenever the king fancied listening to a string quartet or watching a play, his court musicians and actors performed for him. If he or a powerful noble wanted to send a message to someone miles away, a messenger galloped off to deliver it. Needing to bathe, members of the royal household counted on servants to draw and heat the water for their baths. And only the rich could afford books...
The fact is, material benefits enjoyed in the past only by the superrich are, in today’s capitalist societies, enjoyed by nearly everyone. This undeniable fact demolishes accusations that capitalism creates inequality...
Please show the relevance of their accusation [it commodities (?) lives and exploits workers for profits for owners, transferring wealth to owners] in light of the larger fact that capitalism continually makes increasing numbers and varieties of goods and services accessible to ever larger numbers of people.
http://fee.org/freeman/equality-and-capitalism/

Let’s set the record straight: Far from having failed, democratic capitalism is the world’s greatest success story. No other system has improved the lives of so many people.
"Entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid.” That statement came not from a tea-party leader or a congressional Republican, but from Bono, singer, celebrity, and global anti-poverty activist, speaking to Georgetown’s Global Social Enterprise Initiative last year. As we mark the second anniversary of Occupy Wall Street this week, it is worth recalling just how much Bono is right and OWS, at its anti-capitalist core, is deeply and profoundly wrong.Yet capitalism has done more to empower people and raise living standards than any other force in history. Throughout most of human history, nearly everyone was poor. Even our wealthiest ancestors enjoyed lower standards of living than ordinary people in America today. It was not until the beginning of the 19th century that the masses started to enjoy real and growing prosperity.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358771/capitalisms-triumph-michael-tanner

Well, except for Chinese communism. Which is to say, some compromise between capitalism and socialism.

Are you kidding? If you going to use China, at least use the status of the people under Communism prior to their introduction of capitalism to compare, otherwise you are more than disingenuous.

 

[TracerBullet]

Related:

http://www.steynonline.com/7428/it-still-the-demography-stupid

Strongly advise any thinking person to carefully and thoughtfully read that link, btw.

TB, you can go watch Teletubbies.

From your link:

"Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

what they have in common is some of the worlds highest infant and child mortality rates.

 

[TracerBullet]

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Capitalism may not be perfect, but it has brought more people out of poverty than anything else in the world by far, and continues to do so.

so why does the United States have staggeringly high poverty rates while Democratic Socialist states have almost no one living in poverty?

 

[TracerBullet]

Sanders is more a threat to anyone who leans a little to the right. He also is a threat to middle-age persons seeking retirement stability, as well Middle-Class persons who do not want income tax increases. Many moderates, who will accept Clinton, will not go for Sanders; he is to anti-capitalist.

Which is why Sanders supports tax cuts for the middle and working class...

 

[Traditio]

You only know how to spout marxist false diatribes, I guess that's all they teach nowadays.

A problem with this discussion is that various of these terms can be used in more than one sense. What do you mean by "capitalism"? What do you mean by "marxism"?

If by "capitalism," you mean private ownership, then Bernie Sanders is a capitalist.

If by "capitalism," you mean that production should primarily be left in the hands of private ownership, then, again, Bernie Sanders is a capitalist. (Despite the fact that he insists on calling himself a socialist, most of the things that he proposes, if not all of them, aren't actually socialist. The only actually socialist thing that he's proposed is medicare-for-all, and most Americans are just as socialist as Sanders is in this regard (google it)!)

If by "capitalism," you mean that the government should largely stay out of economic dealings, then Bernie Sanders is not a capitalist, and no reasonable person should be.

And finally, if by "capitalism," you mean that the so called "free market" should be the sole determinant of economic distribution, then not only is Bernie Sanders not a capitalist, and not only should no reasonable person be a capitalist, but if you are a capitalist in this sense, then your opinion likely runs contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

pre-industrial life and that of today’s ordinary Americans.

Unless you want to identify "industry" and "science" with "capitalism," the points alleged here are clearly a non-sequitur.

Throughout most of human history, nearly everyone was poor. Even our wealthiest ancestors enjoyed lower standards of living than ordinary people in America today. It was not until the beginning of the 19th century that the masses started to enjoy real and growing prosperity.

Again, as above:

You can't think of any other events at the beginning of the 19th century, other than capitalism, which might explain the "real and growing prosperity" of the masses?

 

[ClimateSanity]

so why does the United States have staggeringly high poverty rates while Democratic Socialist states have almost no one living in poverty?

People living in poverty in America are mostly there due to bad choices and lifestyle. The Scandinavian states are mostly homogeneous and with very little military. That helps keep.poverty low. Also, the poor in America often have things Scandinavians can only dream of. There isn't much room for growth in those countries either. You are pretty much set for life. In America, people who make good choices often move up very fast in life.

 

[Traditio]

People living in poverty in America are mostly there due to bad choices and lifestyle. The Scandinavian states are mostly homogeneous and with very little military. That helps keep.poverty low.

How?

Also, the poor in America often have things Scandinavians can only dream of.

Like what?

There isn't much room for growth in those countries either. You are pretty much set for life.

Why is this a bad thing?

In America, people who make good choices often move up very fast in life.

Because there are obviously no unemployed or underemployed people with college and technical degrees, right?

 

[jgarden]

I can't believe that many people would vote for a socialist. Most people are smart enough to know that somebody always has to pay for all of the free stuff. That's why the free stuff societies are doomed to eventual failure.

Perhaps "journey" should consider moving to Flint Michigan to see how far the state, under the conservative leadership of Republican Governor Rick Snyder, is willing to put people's health at risk to save a few dollars!

Flint had been placed under a state-appointed emergency manager who decided to switched to Flint River water in April 2014 from the Lake Huron supply that Detroit uses to save money while reassuring residents that it was safe to drink.

Flint residents continued to pay for the privilege of drinking the now contaminated corrosive water that leached lead from the pipes, exposing them and their children to lead poisoning.

 

[jgarden]

People living in poverty in America are mostly there due to bad choices and lifestyle. The Scandinavian states are mostly homogeneous and with very little military. That helps keep.poverty low. Also, the poor in America often have things Scandinavians can only dream of. There isn't much room for growth in those countries either. You are pretty much set for life. In America, people who make good choices often move up very fast in life.

Intergenerational Mobility

It turns out that compared to the equivalent set of parent-offspring pairs in Scandinavian countries, sons whose Fathers are in the bottom 20% are much less upwardly mobile in the US. Throw in the fact that compared to the US, there is much less concentration of wealth and income in Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, you begin to wonder why other countries aren't emulating at least some features of these economies. (A good place to start is for countries to consider Sweden's approach to financial sector regulation!)

Here are the results of the multi-nation study on Intergenerational Upward Mobility:

Estimated quintile group mobility: Assuming a Father is in the bottom 20% of all earners, what is the probability that his offspring will be in the same income group? Perfect Mobility implies that offsprings of a parent in the bottom (or top) 20% income group, are equally distributed across each of the five income quintiles.

Father is in the BOTTOM 20%: The upward mobility of sons is much less likely in the US. In the US, 42% of sons stay in the bottom 20%. Moreover 66% (or two-thirds) of all sons remain within the bottom 40% of all earners. Outside the US the comparable proportion who remain in the bottom 40% of all earners are: UK (53%), Sweden (50%), Norway (51%), Finland (51%), and Denmark (47%). Put another way, in the US a son whose father was in the bottom 20% of all earners has only a 1 in 3 chance of ending up in the top 60%. His odds of ending up in the top 60% would be much higher in Sweden (1 in 2).

http://www.verisi.com/resources/prosperity-upward-mobility.htm

The ""bad choice" is being born in the US and not Scandinavia!

Contrary to the "American Dream," the US has one of the lowest upper mobility rates of any of the world's modern democracies.

For Fathers with salaries in the BOTTOM 20%, the proportion of sons that remained in the BOTTOM 20% are as follows:
*********************
Denmark 25%

Finland 28%

Norway 28%

Sweden 26%

USA 42% (66% will remain in BOTTOM 40% of earners)

"The American Dream" should be renamed "The Scandinavian Dream!"

 

[journey]

Liberals have a hard time finding any common sense or a clue. They just want more spending, and they recommend illegal actions against those who wish to leave. That would just help us become more like Greece quicker. DUH! - spending more money than what you have is the problem. The answer certainly isn't to borrow more money so that you can give away more so-called free stuff. Our children will inherit the cost of our stupidity - IF there is anything left except debt.

 

[journey]

which is why Sanders is proposing getting rid of entitlements that we can neither afford or provide us with any identifiable benefit. Corporate welfare for example.

Sanders is a communist idiot who would run what's left of this country into the ground in record time. By the way, Social Security is not part of the free stuff I was talking about. Social Security was paid for and earned over a lifetime. Social Security is a legal debt - completely UNLIKE a free college education poor old Bernie is pushing. Poor old Bernie has no common sense and just wants to spend more money that we don't have. Rich folks could pay 100% of what they make and not solve the problem. We need to get some common sense before it's too late.

 

[rexlunae]

It gives people opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty.

Not so much. Not unless the United States is less capitalist than the scandinavian countries.
http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

It also profits the owners.

That may be its only essential feature.

Everyone wins.

Unless you happen to find yourself in a position of being exploited for cheap labor.

The ones who don't win are those who hate profit and anyone who has more wealth than they do.

Right. No one ever goes without in a capitalist utopia. Sure. Keep telling yourself that.

The first time I hear someone utter the word " exploit ", I know I'm dealing with someone who despises profit. I also know I'm dealing with someone who thinks living anything but a spartan lifestyle is evil and that we should lower our population to before the bronze age.

So, you don't think a business owner would pay less than a living wage because they know that their workers couldn't find a better job?

 

[Traditio]

Sanders is a communist idiot who would run what's left of this country into the ground in record time. By the way, Social Security is not part of the free stuff I was talking about. Social Security was paid for and earned over a lifetime. Social Security is a legal debt - completely UNLIKE a free college education poor old Bernie is pushing. Poor old Bernie has no common sense and just wants to spend more money that we don't have. Rich folks could pay 100% of what they make and not solve the problem. We need to get some common sense before it's too late.

In the US, the total income for everyone, so far as I am aware, is somewhere in the ball park of 13 trillion dollars per year. The current budget is a little less than 4 trillion dollars a year. Given that the top 10 percent of earners make roughly half of all income (and that percentage is rising over time), I think the US can afford it. [In fact, the top 10 percent, all by themselves, could afford it.] Even if the budget doubled, the US could still probably afford it.

The US isn't in debt because of a lack of ability for the taxpayers to pay. The US is in debt because a certain demographic of this country isn't paying enough.

Thus the reason I like Sanders, at least, in terms of his economics. He'll make them pay. He'll make them pay dearly.

 

[jgarden]

Sanders is a communist idiot who would run what's left of this country into the ground in record time. By the way, Social Security is not part of the free stuff I was talking about. Social Security was paid for and earned over a lifetime. Social Security is a legal debt - completely UNLIKE a free college education poor old Bernie is pushing. Poor old Bernie has no common sense and just wants to spend more money that we don't have. Rich folks could pay 100% of what they make and not solve the problem. We need to get some common sense before it's too late.

While the cost of tuition remains a major barrier for many students in the US, a number of countries have adopted a tuition-free policy - some have even extended that privilege to their subsidize their "poor" American cousins.

Countries that have free tuition
************************************
Austria (Americans can attend tuition free)

Brazil

Denmark

Finland (Americans can attend tuition free)

Iceland (Americans can attend tuition free)

France (Americans can attend tuition free)

Germany (Americans can attend tuition free)

Ireland (Americans can attend tuition free)

Norway (Americans can attend tuition free)

Sweden (Americans can attend tuition free)

Slovenia

http://www.scholars4dev.com/4031/li...uition-freelow-tuition-universities-colleges/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...versities-in-english-for-free-or-almost-free/