The corporate tax rates in Denmark or Sweden are not that high, but Bernie wants to raise it to 35%.
— NOS4A2

Corporate tax rates were above 45% from just after WW2 until Reagan. Even then they were around 35% until 3 years ago. And America had a stronger economy relative to the world in those days so a high corporate tax rate must be a good thing??

I actually think it is way more complicated than that (in fact, when corporate taxes were at 35%, the EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate was below 20%). So raising the corporate tax rate back to where it was 3 years ago (which was EFFECTIVELY the same as it is today) does not seem to be a big issue?? — ZhouBoTong

I think NOS4A2 doesn't care much about any of these details. He'll move on to the next Limbaugh talking point like "socialism always fails (even though the word is meaningless)", wonderful historical facts like "Charles I created the Post Office," or else put on his Nostradamus hat and foresee the collapse of the Chinese economy because they're too "mercantile."

I wouldn't put in much more effort.

The word "socialist" is meaningless. Until it's defined you're simply talking nonsense. This is exactly the point I made earlier. If you want to tell us what you mean by socialism, go right ahead.
— Xtrix

I spelled it out, and got a wall of blather in return. — Wayfarer

No, you didn't. You said he was a socialist (not true) and then that his policies are socialist (without defining what socialism is).

So again, I repeat:
1) Bernie is a self-described Democratic Socialist. What does that mean and how is it different from "socialism"? Good question, and worth talking about.
2) His policies are popular and are similar to other countries around the world, like single-payer healthcare. To say this is "socialist" is essentially like saying high schools and libraries are socialist too. You agree with that or not? Trick question, since you haven't defined socialism.

Bernie Sanders is an avowed, self-declared, democratic socialist, and the meaning is as clear as day. Over and out. — Wayfarer

The meaning is as clear as day. OK, then define it for us all: what's "socialism"? And what's "Democratic socialism"?

Or run away instead. Probably the best move for you.

Socialism takes on many forms, and means different things for different industries relative to capitalism. Bernie's argument is that Dumpertrumper provides socialism for the rich; from tax laws to bailouts:

"...Wall Street became big-government socialists and begged for the largest federal bailout in American history — over $1 trillion from the Treasury and even more from the Federal Reserve. But it’s not just Wall Street that loves socialism — when it works for them. It is the norm across the entire corporate world.”

The banking system was nationalised for a while, so yes, he was right.

Sorry about that Frank, here's the full quote:

In 2008, after their greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior created the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression, with millions of Americans losing their jobs, their homes and their life savings, Wall Street’s religious adherence to unfettered capitalism suddenly came to an end,” Sanders said Wednesday. “Overnight, Wall Street became big-government socialists and begged for the largest federal bailout in American history — over $1 trillion from the Treasury and even more from the Federal Reserve. But it’s not just Wall Street that loves socialism — when it works for them. It is the norm across the entire corporate world.”

Oh. Yea, that wasn't Wall St. asking for a bail out. It was the freaking chairman if the federal reserve and the secretary of the treasury.

Plus Obama forced the banks to take money to create a sense of health.

Bernie tells half truths.

Assuming you are a far-right winger, you should be happy then, yes?

Here's the thing, the trick is to distribute socialism equitably, no?

Or run away instead. Probably the best move for you. — Xtrix

No use debating something who can't deal with the obvious. Sanders himself says he's socialist, there's no need for me or anyone here to define it. SO, not running away, moving on to something useful.

Assuming you are a far-right winger, you should be happy then, yes?

Here's the thing, the trick is to distribute socialism equitably, no? — 3017amen

I dont have a wing. If Wall St CEOs showed up to Congress asking for money, they wouldn't have received it.

It's a bad example, and I would ditch that line of reasoning. If we create a social safety net and distribute wealth, it shouldn't be because rich people are protected. We should do it because it's just and good.

Bernie is an avowed socialist. Straight from the horse’s mouth. That was my only point. You don’t have to look at the countless other leaders and states who have claimed the same, but because there is always a trail of death and tyranny behind them should at least be cause for scepticism when someone once again picks up the mantle. I doubt your equivocations would occur if Bernie called himself a fascist, for instance.

salty — NOS4A2

Why does it only seem to be right-wing manchildren who use this new slang?

Fair enough, point well taken. I wish both sides viewed it that way. Unfortunately they would probably view it as too idealistic. ( Albeit what I meant by saying equitable is treating like cases likely and different cases differently.)

Nonetheless you would think a God-fearing nation such as the USA would hold true to those ideals/that ideology.

Instead we have two extremes; one for the rich and one for the poor.

Bernie calls himself a "democratic socialist".

The policies he promotes are what get called "socialist" in America.

Those policies actually fit the technical definition of social democracy (which is not a kind of socialism), not democratic socialism, or any kind of socialism. They have nothing to do with capital being owned by those who use it, they just provide a band-aid over the worst excesses of capitalism.

But most Americans don't know or care about that. They just hear something called "socialism" (which other Americans do to policies like Bernie's) and think it's authoritarian. So Bernie prefaces it with "democratic" to be clear that he's not authoritarian in promoting the things Americans call "socialist".

It's the practical way to communicate his stance to the average American, even if it's technically incorrect.

Besides, Denmark and Sweden are mainly populated by Danes and Swedes, who have the massive advantage of generally NOT being American. ;-) — Wayfarer

I can’t help thinking that a society that could elect, and in all likelihood re-elect, Trump, may not be sufficient developed for increased socialism.

There's a good Atlantic article about this under "political hobbyism." Very interesting. Very scary, too. — Xtrix

That was interesting. There is a lot in there I agree with. But they go much farther than I...I just want a more interested voter (not just interested in having their opinions agreed with). They want everyone to actually engage with their community. I am way too socially uncomfortable for that sort of behavior :grimace: But I can appreciate its usefulness and support those actions when I can. I can admit that I would definitely count as a "hobbyist" based on their description.

They would NEVER do this otherwise, in any other domain. — Xtrix

I was about to entirely agree, but then I thought of sports. I think most people think they could coach their favorite team better than the current manager (except Liverpool FC, everyone loves Klopp).

I agree that people don't do it with things like physics, but only if it stays academic. As soon as it is political, all opinions are equal (READING YOUR POST A BIT FURTHER, I THINK THIS WAS EXACTLY YOUR POINT). And this idea (all opinions are equal) is only being drilled in more in our schools these days.

What about a simple "I don't know," or "tell me more about that"? I think it's because, sadly, MOST of this repeating of an opinion that Rush Limbaugh formulated often passes as intelligent, and most people don't even know enough or follow things closely enough to know that it's complete nonsense. — Xtrix

Sounds right to me.

So these people get away with it, over and over, in their own social circles and social media bubbles, reinforcing what they believe and convinced that they have a lock on truth and knowledge -- when in reality, they're parroting propaganda. — Xtrix

Ugh, indeed. And with the dawn of social media, each person spewing out their opinion is "evidence" for the next ignoramus.

This happens on the left as well, of course. — Xtrix

Indeed. I have friends that I am happy vote similar to myself, but they have not thought their position through any more than the "deplorables" they rant against.

But the hilarious part is that BOTH sides will accuse the other of this phenomenon -- and both are correct. Yet they can never see it in themselves or from their own "tribe." It's staggering. — Xtrix

I want to laugh and agree (in fact, mentally, I did both), but I probably have some blind spots of my own, so I won't be too vocal :smile:.

I think this is another reason to try and discourage people from labeling themselves "liberal" or "conservative," — Xtrix

Haha, dang. I have spent the 5-10 years trying to convince my parents to do just that (not too successful).

A little long winded. I digress. — Xtrix

Well as someone who tends to get too long almost every post, no problem. And thanks for the article.

I think NOS4A2 doesn't care much about any of these details. He'll move on to the next Limbaugh talking point like "socialism always fails (even though the word is meaningless)", wonderful historical facts like "Charles I created the Post Office," or else put on his Nostradamus hat and foresee the collapse of the Chinese economy because they're too "mercantile."

I wouldn't put in much more effort. — Xtrix

Fair enough. I do try to ignore most of it, but every now and then it is pretty easy to do a quick refutation, so it feels worth the minor effort. And yes, admitting that the meaning of socialism is unclear while maintaining that it is terrible, seems outside the realm of reason...so probably not a point worth engaging with.

reinforcing what they believe and convinced that they have a lock on truth and knowledge -- when in reality, they're parroting propaganda. — Xtrix

I discuss this phenomenon and its relationship to the origin of religion in my essay On Academics, Education, and the Institutes of Knowledge. On my view, these kinds of “truther” bubbles are formally identical to cults, which in turn are formally identical to small, unpopular religions.

1) Bernie is a self-described Democratic Socialist. What does that mean and how is it different from "socialism"? — Xtrix

You should simply learn something from Social Democracy. The 'Democratic Socialist' is just a spin to make it new and American. Good way for example would be read a bit of history about the UK Labour party and the times when it has been in power.

Or read about Francois Mitterrand and how long he ruled France and the French Socialist Party.

Social Democrats are totally different from Marxist-(Leninists). They don't want to stop capitalism. Their idea is only to milk it a bit more and have this "socialism-lite". And if you listen to Bernie, that is exactly what he's up to.

I may have gone a bit long, and my tone can get a bit rude when I am arguing. But you are actually representing the opinion I am quite interested in for this election. I realize some of my questions seem rhetorical or sarcastic (and some may be :grimace:), but mostly I am interested in your response.

That’s the kind of cynicism that everyone else here is showing. — Wayfarer

Wait, cynicism? You mean reality? I had no goal there, other than to remind you of a fact. Do you disagree? Hoover promised "a chicken in every pot". These "promises" are not really meant to be taken literally.

Ironic, considering how Sanders is running for the Idealist Party. — Wayfarer

"Idealist party" contains the word "ideal", which is pretty much "not real" by definition...unless you can point me toward perfection? Reminds me of what I said about a "direction" for the country, not some sudden massive change.

Right, because they can’t vote for Sanders. — Wayfarer

Of course they can. They are making strong implications that they won't. Otherwise, why the fear that he won't beat Trump? People aren't actually counting on swaying Republican voters, right? (yes, yes, Bloomberg and Klobuchar are trying to do exactly that - but do you really think either of them would beat trump? if so why?)

Like I said, I would *love* to see Sanders win. I would gladly eat my words or parade around the city with a sandwich board saying WRONG ABOUT SANDERS. So, get in touch later. ;-) — Wayfarer

I thought it was clear by now (correct me where wrong) that if there is a very high voter turnout, the Democrats win. Typically, Republicans actually show up to vote at higher rates. Do you really think Biden or Bloomberg are going to see high voter turnout? I am not saying Bernie is better, but it seems ridiculous to suggest that any of the other Democrat candidates will inspire more Democrats to show up and vote. Who are you suggesting is the candidate (or really you seem to be implying candidates plural) that will have more support than Bernie? Bernie will DEFINITELY get people to show up to vote that will otherwise just sit at home (and I am fairly comfortable to say he will get far more typical no-shows to vote). The question is how many moderate Dems will not show up if Bernie is the candidate?

And just to point out, Bloomberg would be the one candidate I would actually consider NOT voting for (I probably still would to at least send the message that I disagree with the direction of the last 4 years - but I would have lost hope that our country wants to be being anything better than a haven for the super wealthy). He seems the perfect choice for those who like everything about Trump, except that he is fat and Republican.

Why does it only seem to be right-wing manchildren who use this new slang?

Why is it only pantywaists who are offended by it?

Social Democrats are totally different from Marxist-(Leninists). They don't want to stop capitalism. Their idea is only to milk it a bit more and have this "socialism-lite". And if you listen to Bernie, that is exactly what he's up to. — ssu

:up:

FeelTheBern.

I do not think that Sanders would approve of the manner in which you argue in support of his platform. To be fair, I'm sure he'd scold me as well...

they can’t vote for Sanders.
— Wayfarer

Of course they can. They are making strong implications that they won't. — ZhouBoTong

It's primary season, and the DNC does not want Sanders. When he wins outright, he'll remove their wiggle room, and they will not let their dislike of Sanders get in the way of their dislike of Trump. The more one actually listens to Sanders... the more sense it all makes. It's the second hand accounts, and opinons based upon insufficient information that will all be overcome after carefully listening to Sander's propositions and reasoning.

No one who was caught off-guard by underestimating voter turnout or Trump's ability to secure enough support to beat Clinton will allow that shit to happen again, assuming that their worldview is much the same as it was four years back. Give Sanders the national spotlight. Place him on stage with Donald John Trump, and watch school start for all those willing to learn.

The most pleasant slaughter that one may ever see.

I cannot wait.

:wink:

Surely you're not really portraying Sanders in negative light... right?

Then again... both establishments, the RNC and the DNC very well may do everything they can to avoid a Sanders presidency. By the weights and measures they use, it may be the case that Trump looks less harmful to their overall aims and goals than Bernie.

That would show everyone what the swamp looks like... that case would be one in which the swamp would prefer Trump(who claimed to have the goal of 'draining' it) over Bernie who knows exactly what needs fixing and how to go about getting it done...

Hopefully there are not enough corrupt politicians left in the DNC.

It's a slow and methodical change. Draw a line in the sand with the people on one side, and huge corporations, multi-national companies, and the mega-wealthy on the other. Make elected official choose.

Remember who chose against the good of the overwhelming majority in the next elections. Remove them. Ad infinitum. Eventually, every American will be in a much better position to live the American dream, because there will be many more elected officials doing their job and upholding the sworn duty to act on behalf of what's best for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Bernie has long known that this is a slow process, but he also knew what to do in order to get it kickstarted.

I've said numerous times, I'd love to see Sanders win but that I just don't think it's on the cards. That America is emphatically not going to go down the road of European democratic socialism, despite its obvious superiority. America has institutionalised selfishness in the form of individualism - what *I* want is supreme above all other aims, the ego is the sole arbiter of value, money the main index of personal worth. Socialist cultures are by nature more collectivist in their philosophy.

I agree that Sanders makes sense, that his arguments are sound, that he's honest and principled. The same was said about Corbyn. But he's openly calling for a political revolution, a transformation of the political culture in America, and I can't see it prevailing. Again, happy to be proven wrong, if he wins in November I will gladly eat my words, but I can't get on the Bernie bandwagon.

and a caveat: even though I find Sanders arguments convincing in the abstract, I think his inability to really lay out a budget even in conceptual terms, is another fatal flaw in his approach. America is already in a state of profound fiscal emergency due to Trump basically buying favour by pumping the economy full of cheap money, when the bubble bursts, which is surely will, it's going to leave any future government with exceedingly limited options for fiscal maneuvering.

Oh. Yea, that wasn't Wall St. asking for a bail out. It was the freaking chairman if the federal reserve and the secretary of the treasury. — frank

No, it was Wall Street. It was the financial institutions -- the same ones that put millions of dollars into Obama's campaign. They received a slap on the wrist from Obama, not surprisingly.

The Chairman of the Fed and the Treasury Secretary asking for a bail-out doesn't make sense. There may have been a debate about whether or not the government SHOULD intervene, and there was real debate about that, but that's a different discussion. It was the Fed and Treasury that needed bailing out.

I'd love to see Sanders win but that I just don't think it's on the cards. — Wayfarer

Indeed. I don't see sufficient electoral college majorities voting for a democratic socialist -- any kind of politician who would wear the tag of socialist of any stripe, really. I'm Pro Sanders. But even if he were elected (which isn't an impossibility), without a solid democratic majority in both the House and Senate, he will be unable to pass so much as the time of day.

The Republican refusal to consider Judge Garland for the SCOTUS wasn't directed at Barack Obama; it was directed toward fixing a long-term conservative majority--which they have achieved. (Supreme Inequality by Cohen traces the determined 50 year shift away from the much more humane Warren Court (which came to an end early in the Nixon presidency with the appointment of the conservative Burger) to a pro-property, pro-business, anti-poor, anti civil rights expansion, etc. court. If Sanders gets elected, the Republicans will do their damndest to make sure the court stays conservative.

It's essential that Trump be defeated, and I don't see anyone in a position to do better than Sanders.

I'm going to vote for the kind of president I believe we should have; if The People vote otherwise, so much the worse.

Or run away instead. Probably the best move for you.
— Xtrix

No use debating something who can't deal with the obvious. Sanders himself says he's socialist, there's no need for me or anyone here to define it. SO, not running away, moving on to something useful. — Wayfarer

No, running away. And rightfully so. Why? Because it's a very complicated issue and extremely hard to pin down -- and that's exactly my point.

So long as it's true that "God" or "socialism" or "liberal" or any other word you use is open to a large range of interpretation, and since in this domain (politics) it's important to be as clear and precise as we can be (because the stakes for the country and world are very large), we cannot just throw words around and say "Ah, you know what I mean - it's obvious." It isn't obvious. You and I have a vastly different concept of "socialism," to take an immediate example. It's therefore worth discussing what we're talking about when we use the word to see if statements about this "entity" is reasonable and accurate or not.

I hold the following: all that's meant by "Democratic Socialism" is New Deal-type policies with the following aims:: (1) creating a society that works better for working and middle class people -- the 80+% of us. (2) Creating a fairer distribution of wealth. (3) Guaranteeing free healthcare and education, both (and especially the former) being seen as a human right.

I do NOT interpret the word to mean Communism, or the State "owning the means of production." I consider it simply the above policies with said goals. Now it's questionable I (or we) should even call it "socialism", given socialism's long and negative history in this country. That's an interesting topic, but one we can't even have if by "socialism" you mean something radically different than what I mean. At that point we're talking passed one another.