Why Bernie Sanders should be president

And 1:20 he denies taking it that high. "I'm not that much of a socialist compared to Eisenhower"

Hillary and the Republican candidates are just throwing things out there and hoping it sticks; particularly with Trump since he's Mcguire, he will physically throw you.
Well, that's great, so wealthy Americans can be sure that they'll not have to pay more than 89.9% taxes on their top income. :p

But getting away from the numbers and back to the issue: The problem is still the same. Sanders talks a lot about making the rich pay for tons of stuff, but does not go into detail about the numbers, or how he plans to prevent the rich from leaving the country and going elsewhere, where they can get better deals. The whole "We tax the rich and then we'll have money for... literally anything (given that it's his solution for everything)!"-rhetoric just isn't backed up by any actual numbers that could be put to the test.
 
Who would leave the U.S.? Americans love America, especially rich Americans. They're not going to come to Canada, the closest thing on the planet to America. People always say they will, but then they never do.

So where would they go instead? Do you see Donald Trump moving to France? Maybe to the UK, I guess, but I think most rich Americans just damn love the place. They're going to stay, maybe re-distribute their assets a bit depending on what happens, but nobody's going anywhere. Most of the richest already use tax loopholes and offshore accounts and schemes and whatever else to pay as little in taxes in the U.S. as possible anyway.
 
Sanders would lose to multiple opponents from the clown car.
 
If Hillary wins, it gives Bill an opportunity to do more of this


Link to video.

I'd rather see Bernie Sanders dance and get his butt slapped than see Clinton rap.

Donald Trump makes horrible noises; even a Koala sounds better than him.
 
But getting away from the numbers and back to the issue: The problem is still the same. Sanders talks a lot about making the rich pay for tons of stuff, but does not go into detail about the numbers, or how he plans to prevent the rich from leaving the country and going elsewhere, where they can get better deals. The whole "We tax the rich and then we'll have money for... literally anything (given that it's his solution for everything)!"-rhetoric just isn't backed up by any actual numbers that could be put to the test.

It's no different than any other politician campaigning for office. Giving set-in-stone specifics is a bad idea regardless of the claim. At this stage, I'd rather a vague proclamation than the circus taking place in the Republican debates where one of them (I think Rubio) said that he'd lower the budget by 1%, decrease the tax rate, and that this would balance the budget (???).

Sanders could certainly fall short on presenting a viable economic plan once it becomes important. It's likely he will, just like every single other president. However, the logic that better and more efficient taxation leads to improved public services isn't one born of stupidity. It holds up to common sense. The trick is in determining how best to reach that end.
 
None of his policies would be enacted even if he won. I would prefer a left-leaning candidate who could get things actually passed, I.E Clinton. :)
 
I hope that Sanders will win, but i doubt the US system will allow for that.

Happy that Corbyn won the labour party race as well.


It would be truly fascinating to see Bernie Sanders win the election, but given the fear of 'socialism' in the U.S., that is highly unlikely, even though I would love to see this take place, just to see a variety of changes taking place, politically speaking.
If Sanders did get elected, he would possibly be in danger from some of the more far right elements, the ones who already believe that the present U.S. administration is 'socialist.'


From where I stand, the people running for the leadership of the Republican/Tea Party all appear to be on the fringe of society and do not relate to much of American society. The present candidates after the leadership of the GOP are all rather unnerving in fact and the reality that Donald Trump has been so popular for a number of people is even more so. Observing Trump is akin to seeing the return to the Ice Storm of 1998, as his election would become a chaotic and unpredictable affair.


One is reminded of those old Cold War videos, where one is advised in the event of atomic/nuclear warfare...to run and "Duck and cover" under your desk.

:twitch:
 
become dramatically poorer due to his protectionism, he's their man. The same goes for Brits and Corbyn.

Most Brits are already becoming poorer and that will likely change
for the worse before long and before Corbyn can get elected in 2020.
 
Well, that's great, so wealthy Americans can be sure that they'll not have to pay more than 89.9% taxes on their top income. :p

But getting away from the numbers and back to the issue: The problem is still the same. Sanders talks a lot about making the rich pay for tons of stuff, but does not go into detail about the numbers, or how he plans to prevent the rich from leaving the country and going elsewhere, where they can get better deals. The whole "We tax the rich and then we'll have money for... literally anything (given that it's his solution for everything)!"-rhetoric just isn't backed up by any actual numbers that could be put to the test.


The rich aren't leaving the country. That's just stupid-talk.
 
The rich aren't leaving the country. That's just stupid-talk.

Even if we assume that many will leave the country, would that really be bad ?
They don't pay their fair share in taxes now and corrupt the political system.
If high taxes drive them away they still won't pay taxes, but at least they will stop bribing congress. I'm obviously not talking about everybody who is rich, but people like the Koch brothers or Wall Street millionaires are a net loss for their society. If they threatened to leave and close down their businesses the response should be good riddance.
 
Prosperity for the CEO's anyway. Nobody else gained anything from the so called prosperity (besides longer working hours for less real wages), and he explicitly said he wouldn't raise the top marginal rate to 90%, but at least enough that CEO's don't pay less in taxes than everyone else.

Also Sanders is leading in New Hampshire and closed the gap in Iowa, so he certainly has a shot like Obama.

"Everyone is sick and tired about Hillary being the guaranteed nominee." Bee was behind close to the same percentage to Hillary at this time like Bernie is behind now to Hillary, yet we know how that went down with bee.

The wealthy did profit more from American prosperity in the last decades, there's no denying that and it is unfortunate. However, two important things should be noted:

-Since the 1980's, the US has done better than the rest of the developed world. The US has not experienced the unending stagnation we see in Japan, nor the massive youth unemployment we see in much of Western Europe (and I'm not talking of basket cases such as Greece, but of powerhouses like France and Italy, to say nothing of Spain).

-The solution is not to blow up the entire edifice that has generally worked pretty well. Anyone who says so many bad things about the American economy or the state of American workers must be pretty ignorant, and deserves suspicion at the least.

As for Sanders closing the gap... yeah, right. Hillary has what, twice the polling numbers of Sanders on the primary? Not to mention an endorsement gap of something like 450 x 2... give me a break. It doesn't take Nostradamus to call this one.

90% tax rate? Worker ownership? Haha, whaaaaat? Where are you getting this from?
From Sanders' statements themselves. On workers' ownership, he said exactly the following: " "I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves."

I would never vote for someone who made such a moronic statement, no matter how long ago, unless he specifically backtracked and conceded it is a disastrous idea. Anyone who thinks that's the way to go is an idiot, and therefore unfit to lead.

Who would leave the U.S.? Americans love America, especially rich Americans. They're not going to come to Canada, the closest thing on the planet to America. People always say they will, but then they never do.

So where would they go instead? Do you see Donald Trump moving to France? Maybe to the UK, I guess, but I think most rich Americans just damn love the place. They're going to stay, maybe re-distribute their assets a bit depending on what happens, but nobody's going anywhere. Most of the richest already use tax loopholes and offshore accounts and schemes and whatever else to pay as little in taxes in the U.S. as possible anyway.

The rich aren't leaving the country. That's just stupid-talk.

Hordes of rich people have left France, a much nicer country than America, because of tax rates lower than those Sanders endorse. So yeah.
 
Nationalization -either entirely on partially- of key industries isn't that radical of a position outside of America. The NHS and other European health services makes a strong argument for nationalization of health care while other sectors -notably rail service in the UK- have in general seen an overall decline of quality and utility since privatization.
Additionally, national investment banks have an important role in encouraging projects that are generally considered important but don't have sufficient return on investment or are too long term for most private banks to consider (high speed rail networks, for example).
 
Even if we assume that many will leave the country, would that really be bad ?
They don't pay their fair share in taxes now and corrupt the political system.
If high taxes drive them away they still won't pay taxes, but at least they will stop bribing congress. I'm obviously not talking about everybody who is rich, but people like the Koch brothers or Wall Street millionaires are a net loss for their society. If they threatened to leave and close down their businesses the response should be good riddance.


They still pay a lot of taxes. Even if you make the argument that they don't pay what they should, they still pay most. After all, they're the only ones who can.



Hordes of rich people have left France, a much nicer country than America, because of tax rates lower than those Sanders endorse. So yeah.


Not the same. The rich are in the US because it's where they can make the money to be rich. To leave is to leave the source of their wealth.
 
France, a much nicer country than America

See, I was going to do the research necessary for point-by-point rebuttal, but you tanked your own credibility at the end there.

Also, Lawn Donuts, you do know the video in the OP isn't real, right? Just checking.
 
Not the same. The rich are in the US because it's where they can make the money to be rich. To leave is to leave the source of their wealth.
While that's a fair point insomuch as it relates to rich people of very established wealth (eg, old-style industrialists), a lot of the modern rich are far more mobile. There are already some examples of people renouncing US citizenship to escape the taxman, and US taxes are pretty low.

Another, possibly bigger problem, are the would-be rich. Entrepreneurs are not nearly as attached to a particular country as an established industrialist. If taxes in the US reach the levels Sanders dreams of, what's stopping them from moving to Canada, or Australia, or Ireland, or Hong Kong, or dozens of other places? Sure, the US has a lot of advantages to offer entrepreneurs, but other countries are catching up quickly.

And this is not far fetched either - entrepreneurs are indeed quitting France by droves.

See, I was going to do the research necessary for point-by-point rebuttal, but you tanked your own credibility at the end there.
Oh no, I was so looking forward to your point-by-point rebuttal, don't do this to me :cry:
 
And this is not far fetched either - entrepreneurs are indeed quitting France by droves.

Yes, and rumour is that many of those rich French nominally came to London
often nominally relocating their headquarters in London, a reason why London
house prices are out of control and UK GNP supposedly overtook French GNP.

But it is unclear how this benefits ordinary UK people outside the upper end
London estate agent, interior decorators, restaurant classes etc.
 
While that's a fair point insomuch as it relates to rich people of very established wealth (eg, old-style industrialists), a lot of the modern rich are far more mobile. There are already some examples of people renouncing US citizenship to escape the taxman, and US taxes are pretty low.


That's crap, and you should know it. The numbers of people who emigrate out of the US and give up citizenship are 1/10th of 1% of the people who gain US citizenship every year, and rich people escaping taxes has essentially nothing to do with it. Some people move. few people move out of the US.

If your theory were true, NYC would be a ghost town and there would be megacities in Montana and Idaho.


Another, possibly bigger problem, are the would-be rich. Entrepreneurs are not nearly as attached to a particular country as an established industrialist. If taxes in the US reach the levels Sanders dreams of, what's stopping them from moving to Canada, or Australia, or Ireland, or Hong Kong, or dozens of other places? Sure, the US has a lot of advantages to offer entrepreneurs, but other countries are catching up quickly.


If they could make more money there, they already would have. They don't, because they can't. Why does the Bay Area have an explosion of population and startups? Surely it would be cheaper to do so elsewhere.
 
I think the main appeal of a hypothetical Sanders administration would be the hilarious state of the union addresses. The odds of substantial reform in healthcare, education, campaign finance, regular finance, drug policy, or criminal justice are fairly slim, but you know those speeches would be hilarious.
But Hillary will reference Star Wars and Netflix! Why don't millennials love her yet?!
 
Top Bottom