Can anyone give me a real reason Bernie is bad for America?

a reply to: ketsuko I don't really understand what you are saying. A monopoly is bad because they have the power to exploit you through price gouging. A non-profit is hardly a monopoly, because it keeps costs as low as possible. besides which.....how is it a monopoly when they have plenty alternatives that are privately funded?


Further, from what I understand, folks in Norway, or Australia, or Canada can pretty much go to whatever doctor or hospital they want. Anyone from those places here want to chime in? And what are you saying next....I don't really get it....are you saying that once you go to private system in one of these countries, then you can no longer go to the NHS or whatever? Like you voided your warranty on your body and they wont take you back? I just don't...that...I hope you are saying something else because that is ludicrous.

No, just no. medical costs are ridiculous here, and there is no cheap option. Most plans cost us 12k a year each (are the private plans in Europe much more than that then?) have large new deductables (a few grand before they kick in....worse than that in Europe?) and are limited as well, only covering up to a certain amount. I'm quite sure that the cost left not covered if I were to have say aids, or cancer is probably still more than the cost of private treatment for them in nations with national healthcare services. Other than that, for the vast majority of health issues....what, I'm going to be upset with my diagnoses of a cold or flu? and want a second opinion on whether I need a cast from my broken arm or leg? This is the vast majority of visits, and I don't really care if its tom, dick, or jane giving me a splint or steroid shot or whatever.

a reply to: ketsuko Do what? have price controls? And what, do their nurses and doctors live barely getting by or something? Are they not making enough to support themselves and their families? I've spent plenty time researching it, just not specifically whether they had some wage controls etc....I did look into wages as I was considering moving, and most of the places I looked, UK, etc had similar wages to mine in my field....which is pretty damn good.


Anyway....been fun guys, and id love to sit here debatin with youse all day, but I just got my new clevo p650re3 in the mail, and I'm going to go play with it to my hearts content. Cheers!

a reply to: Grimpachi

You asked me how the definition of socialism imply to government services and I provided you with a link. The link is still there if you earnestly want to understand.

Your source's definition of socialism is false, proving exactly what I said. No, "taxpayer funds being used collectively to benefit society as a whole, despite income, contribution, or ability" is not socialism. Tax-payer funded does not equate to socialism. If you cannot argue, I cannot help you.

a reply to: pexx421

Have you ever asked yourself, why are my premiums so damn high? Answer (ITS NOT THE HEALTH INSURANCE AGENCY)

I keep reading a lot of replies about it will do "this", to "these people" or save us "this much" in the long run. Please present some actual facts to backup the statements if they are indeed statements of fact. I appreciate the sophisticated imgur graph that I am assuming a Bernie Sanders supporter made in MS Paint...

Raising taxes to the level he is proposing has never worked in the history of the world. All of this sounds nice in principle... I really wish wish wish... But it never turns out that way.

Not only will all this stuff be free, but he is going to put all those nasty insurers out on the streets as well? How many people would that put out of work? I guess it doesn't matter though right? As long as you get yours...

a reply to: pexx421

You see.. When you pursue a career in Medicine, you have to take a lot of schooling.. This schooling provides accreditation so that you can perform medical diagnostics on a human being. This takes a lot of time, effort and of course money as these courses are typically more advanced than your average high school art class. In the course of all that hard work, time and money they take out these things called loans.. They do this so they can pay for all that schooling. These schoolings are expensive, so the loans are typically pretty large, taking an even longer time to pay off. They will graduate, take on a job someplace and perform their craft, but they will still have to repay that loan. SO yes, some people (even though they are doctors or lawyers) have large amounts of debt (having taken the risk to learn) that they have to cover eventually, and are living paycheck to paycheck, maybe just like you are.

I guess Ol Bernie will take care of those meddling doctors and lawyers too!

a reply to: TheTory

I am sure you remember quoting the below excerpt bolding is done by me.

Socialism is a political ideology and movement[1] which has proposed a set of social and economic measures, policies[2] and systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[7][11][12]

Your source's definition of socialism is false, proving exactly what I said.

That wasn't a definition. It gave a dumbed down explanation for those who will not make the extra effort to actually understand.

You must have missed the first paragraph where it started talking about Democratic socialism which would make sense because Bernie is a democratic socialist. (context is important)

State ownership (also called public ownership and government ownership)refers to property interests that are vested in the state or a public body representing a community as opposed to an individual or private party.[1] State ownership may refer to ownership and control of any asset, industry, or enterprise at any level (national, regional, local or municipal); or to non-governmental public ownership. The process of bringing an asset into state ownership is called nationalization or municipalization. State ownership is one of the three major forms of property ownership, differentiated from private, cooperative and common ownership

I believe Highways, schools, police, fire department, libraries, would all fall under that as well as many other things.

If you cannot argue, I cannot help you.

So you want to argue and call it help?

No thanks you can keep it to yourself.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Here's my bolding, and perhaps we can agree on this common theme:

Socialism is a political ideology and movement[1] which has proposed a set of social and economic measures, policies[2] and systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[7][11][12]

You must have missed the first paragraph where it started talking about Democratic socialism which would make sense because Bernie is a democratic socialist. (context is important)

There has never been a democratic socialist state, and no proof that democratic socialism is a viable option. Support for such a candidate requires emotion and guesswork only. Socialist economies have consistently been disasters.

I believe Highways, schools, police, fire department, libraries, would all fall under that as well as many other things.

You fund them, but you don't own them.

a reply to: smitastrophe not exactly. I have a degree in the medical field...took me a little over two years, was very easy, and I start at 70k, with about 30k in student debt. Thankfully I don't live paycheck to paycheck, my work is extremely easy, and there is plenty opportunity. I also have many friends who recently finished med school....yes, they have 300k in student loans....which is about 1k a month for ten years to pay back. But at a starting salary of $200 an hour, which is about 7k a week, or close to 30k per month, they are hardly living paycheck to paycheck either.....unless you consider 29k a month a paycheck to paycheck situation. Not to shoot my own argument in the foot or anything, but no, medical jobs and education are not our problem. I can easily make much more money, there is tons of ot and call available...so I would gladly take a moderate pay cut to provide healthcare and education for my descendants...and I'm sure a doctor could get by with a measly 15k a month and still pay their loans and bills.

On a separate but related subject (Apologies if this too off topic and frowned upon) I'm very interested to hear your thoughts and opinions regarding the loss of Iowa by both parties leading and popular candidates Bernie and Trump. I am certain fraudulent dealings are and will occur just like they do in every election (i.e. throwing out entire voting districts) but ignoring these common tactics, I am inclined to believe that outright thievery is a definite possibility and find it very disconcerting. This opinion comes from both my education in Computer Engineering as well as participation in vetting vendors for the first touchscreen voting machines for a local county representative during an internship long ago. (Note: I regret ever having a hand in it, I'm sorry. We chose Diebold).

The fact that BOTH iconoclast and enormously popular candidates lost the very first primary being closely watched nationwide seems far too coincidental. I mean seriously, Hilary should and still could be prosecuted for what essentially is treason and as for Ted Cruz, who in their right mind would vote for that guy? He's a nobody. Both candidates reactions were somewhat abnormal and out of character. A stunned Trump slamming Cruz as a liar while he largely ignores the other keeping mum in front of cameras but laying it thick offhandedly. Then you have Bernie who in a very unusual move wants a recount for transparency. For the results of one state during the primaries, this is unheard of and yet the absence of 60 delegates warrants reexamination. While I would have liked him to call out the manipulation directly he held back from accusations and instead emphasized its importance for the transparency of the rest of the election. Then again, it is a very difficult subject to broach and could also likely demonize him.

Finally, if neither candidates wins the primaries or if the assumption can be made that HIlary or Cruz stole the election, what would be your response. What should the public do and what do you think they do?

a reply to: pexx421

Under Bernie Sanders, school would be provided for free, so any high paying jobs that require lots of schooling should take drastic pay cuts. Also, under a Bernie Sanders, the top marginal tax rate would be around 90%, so let's say anything over 50k made in a year would be taxed at 90%; meaning the next $100k you made in that year you would only receive about $10k after taxes. Also, under a government controlled medical system, doctors would no longer have a need for malpractice insurance, since any claims would be directed at the state, rather than the individual, which would mean medical doctors would take another large pay cut.

Under a socialist system, after taxes, doctors should make maybe as much as $35 - 55k a year.

a reply to: GodEmperor

The 90% thing is a myth. Even multi millionaires, I think it's somewhere around 53? I'd have to look it up.

His idea is he would not raise them as high as Eisenhower, who had 90% tax rate

a reply to: GodEmperor yeah, flagrant fear mongering. Under bernies proposal, the highest tax bracket, people making over 10 million annually would pay 52%. Taxes would not even go up for those making under 250k a year which is....like 99.3% of the population. And how much DO doctors make exactly, in places like Canada (225000 average), or uk (121000) or Australia (108,000) and so on.

a reply to: GodEmperor

A 90% tax bracket ?!

Doctors making $35k per year ?!


Where the hell do you people get this stuff from ?!

Oy vay...

a reply to: deadlyhope

Hell, we haven't even gotten our Democracy yet. One step at a time. Besides, if he's wanting to take our guns...that's a deal breaker for anyone, or any ideology...fix that and I will vote for him.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: pexx421

Under Bernie Sanders, school would be provided for free, so any high paying jobs that require lots of schooling should take drastic pay cuts. Also, under a Bernie Sanders, the top marginal tax rate would be around 90%, so let's say anything over 50k made in a year would be taxed at 90%; meaning the next $100k you made in that year you would only receive about $10k after taxes. Also, under a government controlled medical system, doctors would no longer have a need for malpractice insurance, since any claims would be directed at the state, rather than the individual, which would mean medical doctors would take another large pay cut.

Under a socialist system, after taxes, doctors should make maybe as much as $35 - 55k a year.

A lot of this sounds good, however the elites who really own and run this country would NEVER let any of this happen. This is all just a smoke and mirror campaign and he will never become President unless he is willing to help ONLY the bankers and the corporate giants. Look at our history and prove me wrong.

a reply to: CranialSponge

During the 1950's, considered the golden age of America, the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

Here is a chart.

As for the salary I suggested, it would be more than fair, considering free schooling and the revocation of malpractice liability on the individual.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Taxable income vs earned income are two very different things.

When the tax rate was at 90% during that time you could practically write-off the hat on your head as a reduction to your taxable income.

Nobody actually paid the 90% tax rate.

And the evidence for this is shown by the fact that overall tax revenues have consistantly been roughly around 20% of your overall GDP for the past 70+ years... even during the 90% tax rate era. Had anyone actually been paying this 90% tax rate, those tax revenue ratios would have sky rocketed by comparison to the GDP at that time.

There is no need to jack tax rates up to 90% to pay for social services and safety nets. A simple reallocation of your currently misappropriated tax revenues would be the proper remedy to the problem.

a reply to: pexx421

You are citing salaries from capitalist nations, this is a discussion of Bernie Sanders and socialism.

Under a socialist system, the state owns the means of production. Since health and healthcare is seen as a human right, these institutions would be non-profit, so they would be more in line with the salary of a policeman or firefighter.

If we are going to talk about a socialist system, every company would be owned by the state, any nation that has privately owned corporations, that nation is not socialist.

Now, we have brought to light, the fact that Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. I have yet to see him propose Wal-mart become Gov-mart.

a reply to: CranialSponge

I must know, who needs more than $100,000 annually? Are these people suffering if they are only allowed to make $80,000 a year as opposed to $180,000? The disparity between rich and poor has never been more pronounced, since right before the Great Depression. A socialist system, would equalize the income of all peoples, creating true economic equality.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: pexx421

You are citing salaries from capitalist nations, this is a discussion of Bernie Sanders and socialism.

Under a socialist system, the state owns the means of production. Since health and healthcare is seen as a human right, these institutions would be non-profit, so they would be more in line with the salary of a policeman or firefighter.

If we are going to talk about a socialist system, every company would be owned by the state, any nation that has privately owned corporations, that nation is not socialist.

Now, we have brought to light, the fact that Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. I have yet to see him propose Wal-mart become Gov-mart.

That's all fine and dandy except for the fact that Bernie Sanders isn't advocating for a market socialism.

This is the problem when some people hear the word "socialism", they automatically think in all or nothing terms. There are many many forms and branches of socialism.

Taking only one form of socialism and using that as your example of what all forms of socialism are, is simply a hyperbolic fallacy.

That's like taking Ben & Jerry's version of vanilla ice cream and using it as a proof of what all ice cream tastes like.