Because most of the reforms he talks about are completely unfeasible in America today.How is Sanders delusional?
Donald Trump (and other election 2016 talk)
Yeah I totally agree.
I have no doubt he knows that little of what he proposes would get done during his presidency. It makes him less appeal able to a lot of democrats. People might agree with his philosophies and ideas but see him as too radical and are afraid he wouldn't be able to get anything done.
Its really unfortunate. I don't think he would be able to get much done as he is too polarizing. I agree with him on a lot of things and disagree pretty staunchly on others. I think he would do especially poorly as in today's political climate.
If he were convinced that he'd be able to implement all of those reforms on day one, then he would be delusional. But just believing in those reforms and fighting for them doesn't make him delusional. Every step we've taken for social progress was needed in the first place precisely because at some point it was unthinkable. Reform doesn't become feasible if you just wait around.
Not to go down the road of syntactical arguments with you (you do know how much I love them), but from where I'm sitting I think his political ideology is, in fact, delusional.
slater ohm
History
- Member for
- 17 years 10 months
Location:
MontageComp16MontageComp16Mont
Post count:
25,087
coming from the Netherlands it sounds pretty decent. itd totes be lovely if your financial system didnt get out of hand again (with ours following along). Also, its someone who actually seems to want to get out of the status quo (which isnt pretty), so that is a pretty good goal to begin with. Im not hearing anything crazy really. Its just not another right wing politician, its the first candidate whod be considerer left wing here. About time there was some counterpush. If he gets anywhere with any of his proposed policies Id be chipper. Of course I hope you guys are way more informed on this race than I am but thats my view on the ' ole BS.
I personally dont think that sanders is delusional. But many media outlets seem to be using that word as a descriptive, even progressive/liberal outlets. If the perception at-large is that he is even quasi-delusional then he doesnt stand a chance against Hillary.
Of course i could be wrong. Thought the panthers were gonna win the super bowl look how that ended up.
Who do you want to see in the White House?
Probably Gary Johnson. I think Bernie is probably the most genuinely interested in making things "better" for the average American, but I just can't get behind a candidate who's ideology is based on force and tyranny of the majority. Not to mention I already give a substantial amount of my money to the government every year.
Let me ask you something. How much of your income do you think the government should be able to take and redistribute?
Do you expect me to pull a specific number out of my ass?
My answer is, more than they do now. Yeah sure it sucks to have to pay taxes. But it also fucking sucks to be one of those people who is on the receiving end of the government programs my tax money funds.
Do you expect me to pull a specific number out of my ass?My answer is, more than they do now. Yeah sure it sucks to have to pay taxes. But it also fucking sucks to be one of those people who is on the receiving end of the government programs my tax money funds.
Yes. How much more?
idk you're asking stupid fucking questions.
wanna answer my question?
I'm wondering how much more you think the government should be able to withhold from your paycheck in order to solve whatever problems it is you think we are out to solve through taxation. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable question. The reason you're not answering it isn't because it's a stupid question, it's because you're clueless as to how markets work, and more importantly, how people work.
It is certainly the case that relative inequality in wealth creates an unstable environment for a community/society, but relative inequality in wealth has actually declined over the past 30 years. It's possible that part of that has to do with the ~20 trillion dollars we've poured into social welfare over the past 100 years, but that hardly accounts for the fact that the biggest exitors of the middle class have departed NOT for the slums of poverty, but rather, the zones of the upper-middle, and upper class. It's worth noting that the government spending already constitutes a little more than 40% of the country's GDP, how much further need we go to solve the poverty problem?
Did you know that nearly all the countries that have higher amounts of government spending as a percentage of the country's GDP also have slower growing economies? Some of the fastest growing economies in the world have some of the smallest amounts of public sector spending.
From where I stand, most of the criticism I hear in regards to social inequality is primarily targeted hatred of the rich, not empathy for the poor. It's something Orwell identified a long time ago when he wrote The Road to Wigan Pier, observing the hypocrisy of the middle class that had just as much class prejudice as the upper class did.
Is it possible that the move towards a social democratic economy is a direct reflection of our growing individual propensity to shuck the responsibilities we are dealt with? Responsibilities like taking it upon ourselves to provide for our families, to help those in need around us, and to accept the burden of suffering that goes along with living? Are we lying to ourselves when we cast the cause of our suffering at the feet of the successful, and the wealthy?
Now, that's not to say there aren't problems on the end of the wealthy and those with power. Certainly they are not without problems of corruption and exploitation. But considering we are, at this moment, as free and as wealthy as we have ever been in human history, it's hard to think that the problems of inequality lie directly at the feet of the people who built the bulwarks of our modern society in the first place.
Taking a step back from all of that, do you believe that increasing the taxes on the wealthy (since it seems safe to assume you're not actually in favor of a flat tax), is without consequence, or that the wealthy wont just change their behavior? If you're going to take upwards of 50-70% of what those people earn, the people that lie at the edges of those brackets are simply going to cut their productivity. After all, why put in the extra effort only to be met with a higher penalty to their bank accounts? It's been shown over and over again that when you increase the tax burden on the rich, the rich simply alter their behavior accordingly.
How do you think money came to exist?
Money is a representation of trust, and its use far predates the existence of any governmental body to enforce or uphold its value.
Hilary "supporters" aren't even supporters. It's just a bunch of feminist wanting to see a women become president
are you retarded?
Do do you actually think these things?
do you talk to real people in real life about things?
let let me guess your answers. Yes,Yes,No.
Also gunna guess you don't like Hillary. You also probably think feminists are crazy and social justice is silly?
It was a joke lmao
http://www.columbia.edu/~wk2110/bin/estate-NBER.pdf[citation needed]Relative inequality in wealth has actually declined over the past 30 years.
Call me crazy, but that seems to say the opposite of what you claimed.
It is striking that, in both the United States and the United Kingdom, top wealth shares have increased so little in spite of a surge in top income shares. Atkinson (2002) shows that the top 1% income share increased from less than 5% in the late 1970s to over 10% in 1999 in the United Kingdom. The increase for the United States has been from less than 8% to about 16% during the same period (Piketty and Saez, 2003). Such a pattern might not last for very long because our proposed interpretation also suggests that the decline of progressive taxation observed since the early 1980s in the United States and in the United Kingdom could very well spur a revival of high wealth concentration during the next few decades.
A new study finds that contrary to widespread belief, it's no harder to climb the economic ladder in the United States today than it was 20 years ago.But the study did find that moving up that ladder is still a lot more difficult in the U.S. than in other developed countries.
The study "addresses a very burning question about whether the recent rise in inequality has substantially changed economic mobility," says David Autor, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The bad news is that growing income inequality has made the gap between income levels much wider than in the past, Autor says. A person who's born at the bottom and stays there is further behind than ever before."The costs of immobility have risen, because the lifetime difference in earnings now between someone born at the bottom quartile versus top quartile is much, much greater than it used to be," Autor says.
The study also contained some other disturbing findings. It said economic mobility in the United States remains behind that of other wealthy countries. An American born at the bottom has about an 8 percent chance of rising to the top, it found; the odds are twice that in Denmark.
"The political rhetoric has gone down a path of saying, 'Oh, maybe it's getting harder to move up in the income distribution,' " Hendren says. "But the sad fact is that it's always been very hard in the United States relative to other countries, and it hasn't gotten any better, it hasn't gotten any worse."