Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777
That's fine, but Bernie has been losing supporters bigly. Rather than touting how many wealthy people dislike his policies, his time might be better spent explaining how he realistically intends to pay for all the free stuff he's promising, why he believes prisoners should be able to vote, and other positions way too extreme for moderate Dems.
Just claiming a bunch of wealthy people don't like him sounds a little desperate--and like something Trump would do. He's insecure about his socialist creds and is trying to convince people he's totally against what exactly? Wealth? He is a millionaire, so that is pretty empty. Why tell us who isn't supporting him?
|
I think you are being overly critical.
For one he does have a plan to finance most of his government policies, and despite what many say they are not all a free give away. Remember welfare is not socialism, his policies are much more than just hand-outs.
In fact most of his policies are restructuring existing capital in a way that lowers overall costs. Plans like raising the Capital Gains Tax aren't meant to fund social security, but to limit cash gained from Wall Street speculations, funneling capital away from hedge fund managers.
Laborers themselves are set to benefit from these gains more as his policy to to transfer joint shares (not stocks) of multinational corporations into a worker held fund will give more democratic power over vast swaths of our nations assets.
This isn't just to increase the income of average workers, but to keep internal policy decisions of corporations from making decisions that are averse to our interests. This isn't radical by any degree, in fact before 1973 it was a bipartisan agreement that multinational corporations like GM and Boeing be seen as "public utilities" due to their importance to US employment and tax revenue.
It would be seen as a radical position to allow these companies to do what they want with American based capital, but that is exactly what happened. When Boeing was merged in the 90s innovation in industrial production stopped and business executives moved to make the company's income financial. That meant lowering costs, off shoring labor, and lower overall quality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas
It was also a step in turning our country into a service industry based economy reliant on foriegn capital. Not only does it create a national security threat, but it also destroyed job security in the country that was once bipartisan.
A different thing happened with GM. Where once it was responsible for the well being and healthcare of its employees and entire communities, it was decided that to compete against German and Japanese companies it needs to give capital control to its executives to act liberally in raising their spreadsheet value and look more attractive in the stock market. Today the Stock Market is the deciding factor in economics much to the danger of retirees across the country; today if the stock market crashed millions of Americans would lose their job, tax revenue would fall, and savings would be destroyed. Compare that to china which hasn't off shored their physical capital, a stock market crash has limited affects.
In fact before the 1980s America was much the same. Returning to this status quo is unrealistic, but it is a very moderate position to use internal forces to keep capital inside the country through worker democratization.
And again like a lot of his policies it isn't a question of funding, be restructuring. In fact it is most likely to increase tax revenue. Same with healthcare, its not a handout, just a restructuring of our healthcare industry. Now doctors and Hospitals will deal with one insurer (or multiple regional ones); the point of everyone being on the same system isn't just about access.
In fact access is a redherring in some ways. The point of having one system is to keep those with more wealth from diverting the system by paying for extra care, that way overhead costs that aren't accounted for in government spending will be done away with; and along with the fact that the lower end of the country will no longer have to worry about saving extra money for healthcare, and small businesses no longer have to compete with large companies offering private insurance plans. The added money that goes into the economy and increases sales tax means by most calculation average costs will go down.
That means the government will save money, not needing to increase taxes.
That is one problem with those that say they want a public and private option. It doesn't work both ways and you can't have the best of both worlds.
And our situation is different from Finland or Japan for example. Finland and Japan's cost come from a large elder population, one that we don't have to deal with comparatively.
Another example of his left wing policies is his opposition to free trade agreements backed by corporate lawyers.
NAFTA, the TPP, and others weren't meant to increase trade between an avocado farm in Mexico and a strawberry farm in California. What they have been seen to do is give US multinationals access to foriegn markets, giving them access to labor to extend their supply chain.
Remember it is often more profitable to extend a supply chain across the globe, especial if cross border trade is financed by trade agreements that give corporations a special rule set that is not applied locally (so Exxon will be at liberty to use capital in a way the host country does not traditionally allow).
And there is nothing progressive about supporting these policies as the export countries don't always benefit. Sure they have more wages, but often at a high cost. For example farmers in southern Mexico couldn't compete with Tyson's food as they couldn't offer the same low price of labor. Combined with the fact that the Mexican government gives US multinationals preferable treatment the land is bought up and the labor is collectivized (and why not, the Mexican government want the land developed, foriegn investment is the easiest way).
The small farmers that are suppose to trade with American buyers no longer exist in this scenario and the 'trade' is just an internal supply chain crossing between borders.
So if Bernie wants to reverse the affects of free trade negotiations or rework them offshoring of capital can be further mitigated. The benefits aren't just a more stable job market, but also a national security protection. When we have stable employment and control over our industrial base, the threat from military and economic competitors is greatly minimized.
National security is generally seen as a right wing position so framed in that way it is one example of Bernie's moderation. His trade policy which has been popularized (rhetorically at least) by Trump is another example of a moderate position.
But the benefits of the aforementioned trade renegotiation is a change in the migrant crisis. The crisis right now comes from migration driven by family reunification and job opportunity. Americans tend to take advantage of migrant labor as a source of cheap labor. In fact the entire system is based on Milton Friedman's free market system;
Free movement of capital and labor cross borders. Its not really progressive as it is done to offer companies the cheapest source of labor and capital at its highest quantity to keep production high but costs low. None of this has helped migrant countries and have often caused further destabilization in central America.
-(why do you thing Reagan was supportive of amnesty).
Its similar to the reason why US politicians pushed Haiti to eliminate their minimum wage to keep corporate investment. Such an ultimatum does not help these countries and increases the immigration crisis at our border.
Speaking of of moderation, despite this being a left wing, Bernie's opposition to an extreme liberalization of the border makes him seem more moderate in American politics:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...orders-1261392
Gun Control is another more moderate position he holds, differing from Eric Swalwell's gun confiscation plan.
As for whether he is desperate or not... I think you are unfairly projecting what you think he is feeling. In fact I don't agree with him on a lot of things.
My politics are a bit more unorthodox, and I don't agree with his healthcare policy and a few of his economic positions. More widely I don't share his vision for society in the long run (or any of the other candidates).
The reason I support him is because of his rhetoric and how he handles himself. If you are a person who thinks there is nothing fundamentally wrong with our country's political establishment, then it makes sense to be annoyed by him.
In fact you may support Warren or someone like her who seems to offer sensible policies to big problems. For me I have always been bothered by the careerist attitude in our elite class.
Not only have has their arrogance lead to a social crisis in our country, veterans who are homeless, and drug addiction it feels for me this comes down to our values. Sebastian Junger writes about this in his work on Veteran homelessness and PTSDs.
A lot of it comes from the social isolation they feel returning to our consumerist society and the loss of brotherhood they had overseas:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015...bastian-junger
I don't pretend to be an expert on this issue but it reflects a wider trend in our own political and economic system.
We don't value kindness as much as we do experience, and we think all our solutions will be solved economically by increasing wealth and development. Social problems are seen as a stimulate of this same goal. More women in the workforce increases productivity, more demographics to market to increase consumer spending, more migrants and H1B visas make America more competitive.
I'm not complaining, my parents are immigrants, but the singular goal has been one of our greatest failure.
It makes our foriegn policy extreme as we push for hard domestic policy in central America and access to resources in the middle east to boost economic progress at home. It is not a moral based system, and extreme 'humanitarianism' meant to promote development abroad just destroys local cultures and captures their capital into the hands of foreign shareholders.
It means domestically we have left communities to die and collectivized our labor population into a few metropolitan areas. We have made the job market incredibly high skilled and 'global' meaning people feel they need a college degree, they get pounded by student debt, and pretty soon their entire lives are funded by credit.
And the banks control that credit. When Bernie says he wants to break the banks up policy think tanks in DC scoff because they finance consumer activity and home buying, but its all relative. Increase corporate development is sourced in consumer spending, which then increases property value, that in turns increases the need for a long credit line, and gives banks and hedge fund managers more control over our domestic population. Is that freedom? And is opposing it 'radical'?
And I'm angry at our intellectual leaders and politicians for creating and nurturing this dynamic. I'm angry at Clinton and Reagan for their free trade policy, I'm angry at the Bush family for their formulation of more foriegn bases in the middle east. And I'm mad at Obama for working with Geithner to protect the fincialization of corporate America and our source of wages for workers and savings linked to the stock value.
And you can say you want a winner, but that is the value our economic and political system has built. Greatness is better than kindness, wanting to keep people afloat with their own job and dignity means nothing compared to getting rich or finding innovative ways to collect funds.
Silicon valley isn't an association of engineers and programmers wanting to help people, its a collection of management methods to find new revenue sources without expenditure costs. They innovate on advertising, subscription based payment, and other ways to increase their attractiveness to wall street.
That's our nation's value, getting ahead in life. Its why politics can't be public service anymore and has to be a career, its about moving up in life.
Its why the Obamas and Clintons made millions after their presidency, its why republicans work betray their core constituency. Its why Geithner went to work in the financial sector after protecting them in DC.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-...ive-1523021400
And its why intellectuals believe they are right; the average value of common people no longer has value, it is about how much you can achieve in a short period of time. Its why the population is seen as consumers and not people, and its why I hate them.
I'm angry at 'humanitarians' and think tanks in DC, at congress members, at Obama, at Clinton, at Bush, and its why Trump is president.
So I appreciate it when Bernie doesn't try to attract the same power brokers to win the election (even if they mean well). Its why I smile when he attacks the establishment and loses favor with party elite and top dollar donors.
Its why he won't win, and its why I support him.
Warren or Kamala may want to make allies with party leaders and top 'activists' because they are looking to the future. They want to achieve greatness as president, and then sell books and build a legacy afterwards. They want what everyone in America wants, to succeed.
But it doesn't matter, most of our tax revenue comes from the top end income bracket earners. Promoting corporate investment is the only way to succeed in DC. It's what we have built as a country.
Policy leaders and intellectuals may not like Bernie's revolutionary rhetoric and despise him for not gaining support from community leaders of union heads or pandering for this group or that. And some may call him socially insensitive for doing so. Maybe you believe it. Maybe its why you won't support him. That's fine.
But its why I support him.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
