Why Not Bernie Sanders?

[jllundqu]

I might get banned for this, but I'm kind of disappointed in the moderation on this board. Whether it's the Trump pumping or the Bernie pumping...something doesn't seem right about it.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sola_Fide again.

[Jan2017]

Rand : "Our founding documents were very clear about this, you have a right to pursue happiness but . . . (not a right to health care).

Bernie : "I guess it is fair to say Senator Paul and I have profound philosophical differences. . . . (laughter)

So Bernie thinks he won that "provocative" exchange . . . and others that he posts -
but it is obvious Bernie's brand of socialism including health care rights and Planned Parenthood funding
would turn the USA into another Sweden or something and be way too expensive and stifle potential job growth.

[Ronin Truth]

And this OP from a staff/mod?? Bryan... how does this advance the cause? How does this post fit into the mission statement?

Am I alone here?

FWIW, mods are allowed to occasionally stir the pot to keep things interesting too.

[nayjevin]

$#@! sanders.

end thread, or start a $#@!in' moneybomb for bernie op.

I think your implication is that I am supporting bernie sanders for president? I don't hold the illusion that I have enough power to control who becomes president, but I wouldn't choose Sanders. I think Rand Paul understands history and economics much better. But many people excited by the prospect of a different kind of candidate are/would be my friends.

[Krugminator2]

"He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings."

I like this, because to hell with 'em! But we are looking at endorsing a policy of letting government decide who it's okay to take money from, based on who is most hated at the time. I think we need to look a bit further down the road than that.

--

Speculators are heroes. All good things come about because of speculation. Just as Ron Paul would say, demonizing speculators was bad when the Emperor Diocletian did it which led to famine just as it is a bad idea now.

Bernie Sanders is a talking about a transaction tax. That is the worst idea on the planet. That would cause mass suffering. Traders create liquidity which is a big part of what creates the valuation companies. A transaction tax would make it much harder for companies raise capital and it would cause capital flight out of the company. A reason Wall Street is so successful is that despite its problems it is still the best place in the world to park money because we don't have as many taxes and regulations.

Here is what happened when Sweden implemented one in 1983. Their stock market immediately dropped 8% and it ended in a depression 8 years later when they got rid of it. It is an evil, immoral tax not on evil financial people, but on everyone. Read up and stare into the abyss that Bernie Sanders would cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedis...ransaction_tax This tax would lead to capital controls. That is the current accepted way to make it work.

[nayjevin]

FWIW, mods are allowed to occasionally stir the pot to keep things interesting too.

That's not my intention at all, I would enjoy a discussion with honest Sanders supporters as much as anyone else passionate about politics and increasing justice.

I'm not in favor of the status quo. $#@! ain't right. This is a war of ideas, and a challenge to find agreement.

The way folks get riled up and fight about politics isn't working. It keeps us divided. I encourage peace and friendship with everyone, entangling alliances with none.

[nayjevin]

Speculators are heroes. All good things come about because of speculation. Just as Ron Paul would say, demonizing speculators was bad when the Emperor Diocletian did it which led to famine just as it is a bad idea now.

Bernie Sanders is a talking about a transaction tax. That is the worst idea on the planet. That would cause mass suffering. Traders create liquidity which is a big part of what creates the valuation companies. A transaction tax would make it much harder for companies raise capital and it would cause capital flight out of the company. A reason Wall Street is so successful is that despite its problems it is still the best place in the world to park money because we don't have as many taxes and regulations.

Here is what happened when Sweden implemented one in 1983. Their stock market immediately dropped 8% and it ended in a depression 8 years later when they got rid of it. It is an evil, immoral tax not on evil financial people, but on everyone. Read up and stare into the abyss that Bernie Sanders would cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedis...ransaction_tax

Great post. I was confusing speculators and investors with the beneficiaries of Fed policy and the recipients of bailouts/favoritism.

[Ronin Truth]

That's not my intention at all, I would enjoy a discussion with honest Sanders supporters as much as anyone else passionate about politics and increasing justice.

I'm not in favor of the status quo. $#@! ain't right. This is a war of ideas, and a challenge to find agreement.

The way folks get riled up and fight about politics isn't working. It keeps us divided. I encourage peace and friendship with everyone, entangling alliances with none.

Seems an awful lot like forum pot stirring and cage rattling to me. (I should know. )

Carry on.

[nayjevin]

Seems an awful lot like forum pot stirring and cage rattling to me. (I should know. )

Carry on.

I'm either underestimating the degree to which being diplomatic about criticising certain philosophies will upset people, or I'm underestimating the inclination to attack me instead of Sander's ideas, or I'm seeing the recognition that any kind of unity among disparate philosophies that are anti-establishment is scary to the trollhandlers.

[moostraks]

That's not my intention at all, I would enjoy a discussion with honest Sanders supporters as much as anyone else passionate about politics and increasing justice.

I'm not in favor of the status quo. $#@! ain't right. This is a war of ideas, and a challenge to find agreement.

The way folks get riled up and fight about politics isn't working. It keeps us divided. I encourage peace and friendship with everyone, entangling alliances with none.

I got that impression from what was posted in the OP. There was a certain manner which Ron Paul had of bringing together people and promoted a coalition between unlikely forces. You cannot very well find a means of speaking peace with another person until you attempt to understand what the appeal is to the candidate inspiring them.

It seems my exposure, limited as it may be, is that Sanders supporters are all to frequently much younger idealists which don't listen to the explanations of the weaknesses within his solutions any more than the hard right listens to folks who questions their candidates' solutions for the future, in the case of the hard right all too frequently it seems they believe their experiences or history justifies them.

[Ronin Truth]

I'm either underestimating the degree to which being diplomatic about criticising certain philosophies will upset people, or I'm underestimating the inclination to attack me instead of Sander's ideas, or I'm seeing the recognition that any kind of unity among disparate philosophies that are anti-establishment is scary to the trollhandlers.

I'd say it's just the way too common here, thread originator automatically becomes the thread topic syndrome. (I should know. )

[hells_unicorn]

If cindy is telling the truth here, holy $#@!! I didn't realize he supported the Bosnian invasion and the Libyan invasion. I take back my statement that he is principled.

He most surely did support bombing Serbia, in fact one of his staff resigned in disgust over the whole thing back in 1999. (http://www.alternet.org/election-201...iolence-abroad) Sanders' so-called opposition to the Iraq war was kind of opportunistic and hypocritical given that he voted repeatedly for every appropriation bill that funded the Iraq War.

I highly recommend that anybody with friends supporting Bernie Sanders because of his so-called peace-candidate status subject them to some nice cold facts about his voting record. We've already had almost 8 years of a fake peace candidate so far (Obama) and we've had more military boondoggles than his hawkish predecessor.

[JK/SEA]

hey nayjevin....you asked, i gave my opinion, and you give me a chicken $#@! neg rep?....grow up.

''Anybody like Sanders? Disagree with me? Something to add? Welcome here as far as I'm concerned - lets start a revolution or something.

[Pizzo]

Speculators are heroes. All good things come about because of speculation. Just as Ron Paul would say, demonizing speculators was bad when the Emperor Diocletian did it which led to famine just as it is a bad idea now.

Bernie Sanders is a talking about a transaction tax. That is the worst idea on the planet. That would cause mass suffering. Traders create liquidity which is a big part of what creates the valuation companies. A transaction tax would make it much harder for companies raise capital and it would cause capital flight out of the company. A reason Wall Street is so successful is that despite its problems it is still the best place in the world to park money because we don't have as many taxes and regulations.

Here is what happened when Sweden implemented one in 1983. Their stock market immediately dropped 8% and it ended in a depression 8 years later when they got rid of it. It is an evil, immoral tax not on evil financial people, but on everyone. Read up and stare into the abyss that Bernie Sanders would cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedis...ransaction_tax This tax would lead to capital controls. That is the current accepted way to make it work.

+rep

[klamath]

He most surely did support bombing Serbia, in fact one of his staff resigned in disgust over the whole thing back in 1999. (http://www.alternet.org/election-201...iolence-abroad) Sanders' so-called opposition to the Iraq war was kind of opportunistic and hypocritical given that he voted repeatedly for every appropriation bill that funded the Iraq War.

I highly recommend that anybody with friends supporting Bernie Sanders because of his so-called peace-candidate status subject them to some nice cold facts about his voting record. We've already had almost 8 years of a fake peace candidate so far (Obama) and we've had more military boondoggles than his hawkish predecessor.

I hadn't paid that much attention to Bernie except that he was a proud socialist. Now doing a little research I can see he is the worst of the worst partisan even though he claims to be a socialist on supporting democratic wars. He isn't anti war at all.

[helmuth_hubener]

You question whether my statement is true that the vast majority of libertarians believe the wealth inequality in the U.S. is bad. I think it's true.

I know a lot of libertarians. I would say that it is not true.

Free market capitalism would automatically reduce it. Elimination of regulations would allow greater upward mobility for small businesses. Ending the federal reserve would stop the frittering of wealth from middle and lower class savers and those who receive paychecks. Lower taxes would leave more money in the hands of the poor.

All the things you mention would allow upward mobility, true. They would allow the excellent to excel. This would result in more inequality, not less. As libertarians we would allow the excellent to keep the fruits of their labors, 100% of them. This would result in more inequality, not less.

Some people are more able than others. Intelligent vs. non-intelligent. Lethargic vs. enthusiastic. Focused vs. dabbling. Anyone with any awareness of the world around him can see an almost limitless variance in the abilities of men. If freedom reigns, then this tremendous natural inequality will manifest itself in tremendously unequal results.

I think that perhaps my being nice about criticisms of socialism has caused you to believe I am sympathetic to it, whereas you are used to being vehemently opposed to it. I don't see the pain caused by socialism as any more evil than equal pain caused by any other philosophy. I just think people who are unsettled by the status quo ought get together and find agreement.

The desire to see more equality does not necessarily equate to an understanding of historical context of egalitarianism.

Look, that's fine. And kudos for stirring things up with an interesting topic. Note I am the only one so far to actually quote and reply to your OP, rather than just the title. It's great you're bringing it up. But I am not the one to give you sympathy for your views. I do not want to see more equality. I no longer relate to that, at least not at the present time.

Sanders is very appealing to those of us who are culturally on the left (a "fairness"-centric worldview) in a very similar way that Donald Trump is appealing to those of us on the right (justice [no, not the same thing as fairness] and traditionalism). They both are actually quite strong embodiments of their respective constituencies.

Why don't you ping Rothbardian Girl? She might be able to validate your feelings. Erowe1 also seems quite sympathetic to the egalitarian world-view. Basically, the people who can take your side and help make your arguments (or at least sympathize with you) are people on the left. They care about "fairness" and the Big Bad Wolf Inequality (alias Exploitation, alias Prejudice, alias Racism, alias Sexism, alias The Patriarchy...). I have chosen a different path. All the best.

You want the Blue people in the chart below:



They are a minority among libertarians / liberty-valuers, but there are some.

[nayjevin]

hey nayjevin....you asked, i gave my opinion, and you give me a chicken $#@! neg rep?....grow up.

''Anybody like Sanders? Disagree with me? Something to add? Welcome here as far as I'm concerned - lets start a revolution or something.

Your opinion misconstrued and demonstrated reading comprehension issues, demonstrated that you are willing to paint others' words with your own assumptions and run with these ill formed conclusions as fact. I am opposed to such faulty thinking and therefore I negrep. Your attempt to twist this series of events into a charge of hyposcrisy is based upon falsehood and illogic.

[Todd]

Ok....I get what you're doing here. Carry on. Sorry I jumped to conclusions.

[JK/SEA]

Your opinion misconstrued and demonstrated reading comprehension issues, demonstrated that you are willing to paint others' words with your own assumptions and run with these ill formed conclusions as fact. I am opposed to such faulty thinking and therefore I negrep. Your attempt to twist this series of events into a charge of hyposcrisy is based upon falsehood and illogic.

YOU, nobody else asked for opinions. I gave mine, mis-construed or not...

my advice still stands. GROW UP.

[nayjevin]

GROW UP.

Seems inevitable, though I do drink too much coffee.

Would you care to be more specific?

[nayjevin]

I know a lot of libertarians. I would say that it is not true. All the things you mention would allow upward mobility, true. They would allow the excellent to excel. This would result in more inequality, not less. As libertarians we would allow the excellent to keep the fruits of their labors, 100% of them. This would result in more inequality, not less.

I agree with every part except the bolded, because I just don't see how this can be so. I envision a free market allowing moral individuals to become rich, rather than immoral ones. Moral individual give more and are more charitable, which is a natural voluntary form of wealth redistribution.

Some people are more able than others. Intelligent vs. non-intelligent. Lethargic vs. enthusiastic. Focused vs. dabbling. Anyone with any awareness of the world around him can see an almost limitless variance in the abilities of men. If freedom reigns, then this tremendous natural inequality will manifest itself in tremendously unequal results.

Really well said, and I admire this position for being so hardcore. It's necessary to have folks like you, uncompromising in the best possible sense.

Note I am the only one so far to actually quote and reply to your OP, rather than just the title.

lol, yeah. Thanks

Sanders is very appealing to those of us who are culturally on the left (a "fairness"-centric worldview) in a very similar way that Donald Trump is appealing to those of us on the right (justice [no, not the same thing as fairness] and traditionalism). They both are actually quite strong embodiments of their respective constituencies.

That's a really interesting observation.

Why don't you ping Rothbardian Girl? She might be able to validate your feelings. Erowe1 also seems quite sympathetic to the egalitarian world-view. Basically, the people who can take your side and help make your arguments (or at least sympathize with you) are people on the left. They care about "fairness" and the Big Bad Wolf Inequality (alias Exploitation, alias Prejudice, alias Racism, alias Sexism, alias The Patriarchy...). I have chosen a different path. All the best.

I don't know that you have a real clear picture of my feelings. Justice is my goal, unfairness is where there is no justice. It's not economic disparity that gets my goat, it's unjust policy.

[squarepusher]

I will admit, a president Sanders may make my life better in the short term, but would destroy the country in the long term.

TBH, I would love to see the top 1% burn.

My problem is, I know that middle class like me would probably still be screwed, like now. I don't make too little money to collect any welfare or get any of that subsidized Obamacare, but I don't make enough to live a nice life.

I tell people my business brings in 300k a year and they think I'm rich. LOL give me a break. After taxes and paying for health insurance out of pocket, the teenagers making $15/hr at mcdonalds are better off than me.

My neighbor works on wall street and has a 800k salary and a yearly bonus of 10mil. He owns 4 maseratis 2 Lamborghinis and has an indoor Olympic sized heated swimming pool. He actually does no work, pays no taxes and got the job because of a family member. Now that's rich!

But according to the government, I'm so rich I have to pay 35% in taxes (more, really) which is a joke. I'm just not rich enough to get flashy lawyers like my neighbor who find him loopholes to not pay taxes.

how does he make 11 mil per year and pay no tax?

[JK/SEA]

Seems inevitable, though I do drink too much coffee.

Would you care to be more specific?

well i could, but why give you ammo to ban me?....i think i was clear enough.

[helmuth_hubener]

I agree with every part except the bolded, because I just don't see how this can be so. I envision a free market allowing moral individuals to become rich, rather than immoral ones. Moral individual give more and are more charitable, which is a natural voluntary form of wealth redistribution.

Maybe. Maybe people would be greedier, maybe they'd be more philanthropic; I don't know. Well, I think that we can both agree that as long as there's freedom, there's no real issue and things would be 1000 times better than the status quo.

If we could reorganize society with no taxes on labor and no taxes on capital gains, we would see the huge immediate benefit of not having this enormous parasite on our back, weighting us down as it sucks our blood. And as great as that is, the long term is where the effects would really start coming through. Power of compound interest. If the economy once freed grew at 10% per year instead of 0-2%, which I think is very possible, in 20 years we'd be living in a very different way than if we'd stuck with statism. In 40 years, it would be like being on a whole different planet!

If we had such high levels of prosperity, say, real incomes at double or triple what they are now (and at 10% annual growth in 20 years they'd be at seven times the present!), would inequality it really matter so much? My understanding always was that the problem with poverty was the actual material suffering, starvation, etc. That is: the actual poverty! Imagine that. But, I was wrong. Actually, to many people, it wouldn't matter how rich we all are. So long as there are some people 10,000 times richer than others, that's a big problem (supposedly). It doesn't matter if even the poorest people had yachts and swimming pools and nightly banquets. Who cares? They'd still be "poor" because there's people with 10,000 times more than them. And that's just not fair!

As you explain, that's not you, economic disparity doesn't bother you. But it does bother Bernie and many (probably almost all) of his supporters. I think it bothers Rothbardian Girl and erowe1. It bothers left-libertarians in general -- that's what makes them "left."

Really well said, and I admire this position for being so hardcore. It's necessary to have folks like you, uncompromising in the best possible sense.

Thanks, that's very kind of you. I do try!

I don't know that you have a real clear picture of my feelings. Justice is my goal, unfairness is where there is no justice. It's not economic disparity that gets my goat, it's unjust policy.

I think you're right, I don't. In my last post I tried to pigeonhole you into a framework I've become enamored with, and that was not fair to you nor was it accurate.

What would be more correct, I think, would be to say that you can sense some authenticity in Bernie Sanders and you like that, and also that he is going against the status quo somewhat and you like that, too. And obviously you do not want to go too far and seem to be a Bernie supporter, (thus obligating yourself to defend everything he's ever done to every critic on RPF), but his candidacy does excite you somewhat, just for the contrarian, going-against-the-status-quo attitude that is represents. Is that closer?

[nayjevin]

What would be more correct, I think, would be to say that you can sense some authenticity in Bernie Sanders and you like that, and also that he is going against the status quo somewhat and you like that, too. And obviously you do not want to go too far and seem to be a Bernie supporter, (thus obligating yourself to defend everything he's ever done to every critic on RPF), but his candidacy does excite you somewhat, just for the contrarian, going-against-the-status-quo attitude that is represents. Is that closer?

Much closer, but I'm not hoping/trying to appear as supporter/not supporter. I heard he had gained popularity and so I looked him up. I read his wiki and the first page of his issues and wrote what I did. Then folks seemed to be interested in painting me one color or the other, presumably so as to most easily call forth the ready made sloganeering available to them.

Thousands of passionate people who feel that something needs to change are interested in joining the effort, that does excite me.

[nayjevin]

well i could, but why give you ammo to ban me?....i think i was clear enough.

As though I'm the type to view your words as justification I would need to sell a moderator action? Do you have trouble mustering the self-responsibility to be in charge of your actions such that your behavior will not warrant a ban?

Banning you did not cross my mind until you mentioned it, I just found your comment aggressive and out of place.

[nayjevin]

I'd say it's just the way too common here, thread originator automatically becomes the thread topic syndrome.

It's really strange but as I look back it's only a few posters that made it that way.

[JK/SEA]

As though I'm the type to view your words as justification I would need to sell a moderator action? Do you have trouble mustering the self-responsibility to be in charge of your actions such that your behavior will not warrant a ban?

Banning you did not cross my mind until you mentioned it, I just found your comment aggressive and out of place.

again, you asked for opinions, did you not?...you got mine, and now you're butt hurt....makes no sense, but...you're the mod, i defer to your wisdom.

[Rad]

I think anybody who thinks that Bernie Sanders is anti-war should watch this video, and take a look at the comments and the massive number of down-votes, which should clue you in that the average Sanders supporter is about as brain-dead as the average Donald Trump or Barack Obama supporter.

Great video, he doesn't like to end wars after they are started. He is no Dennis Kucinich. The closest to what Cindy Sheehan wants in a candidate from the two major parties is Lincoln Chafee. Its sad. He gets made fun of the worst so he obviously is the best on war and peace. They always make fun of the anti-imperial candidates.

[Rad]

I might get banned for this, but I'm kind of disappointed in the moderation on this board. Whether it's the Trump pumping or the Bernie pumping...something doesn't seem right about it.

We should all try and recruit Ron Paul for another run!

Don't forget Lincoln Chafee pumping!

Also Bernie could possibly be the best candidate that can win on the Democrat side. Also beyond Rand who would you rather be president that can win? It would be Bernie, Trump, or none of the above XD