View Poll Results: Has Bernie Sanders been honest about his vision for achieving Democratic Socialism?:
Yes, he's been an honest broker. 25 45.45%
No, he's been deliberately vague. 26 47.27%
I have a cow's opinion; It's Mooo! 4 7.27%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-02-2020, 01:40 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,245

Has Bernie Sanders been honest about his vision for achieving Democratic Socialism?


Bernie has been consistent for many years on his message about achieving a Nordic/Canadian style democratic socialism in the US. He has studied both systems extensively, of this I am sure. I believe he has a deep & thorough understanding on the scope and scale of the kind of tax framework it would take to accomplish these goals in America.

The questions is (and I don't want to oversimplify it by putting it to a yes/no vote, but I will anyway), has he been honest in his messaging over the years and specifically now, about how it would impact not just the billionaires but the low and middle income earners across the board?

My feeling is that he has not and that many of his followers are fueled by a kind of cocaine socialism high that will result in a crushing disappointment when they no longer feel like the smartest and most interesting person in the room, and the realities of higher taxes come into sharp focus.

Now, this isn't to say that I'm against a Nord/Cana style democratic socialist society in America. I believe it would make for a better country overall. But there are risks, and the adjustment process will be generational. I very much wish he'd be more honest about that.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #2  
Old 03-02-2020, 01:41 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,833
What do you mean by "honest"?
  #3  
Old 03-02-2020, 01:44 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
What do you mean by "honest"?
Roll with whatever definition of honest you find most.... well, honest.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #4  
Old 03-02-2020, 01:53 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,465
I think he's been more honest than Warren, but still vague. Still unwilling to admit just how high taxes will have to be - and also, how he is going to persuade enough moderate D's and R's to go along with it.
  #5  
Old 03-02-2020, 01:53 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 607
Fareed Zakaria did an interesting piece on his show arguing the Nordic model that Sanders and his ilk like to cite is a lot more nuanced than they make it out to be.
  #6  
Old 03-02-2020, 01:58 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,833
I think he's been more honest than most politicians -- IMO he honestly believes what he advocates for, and doesn't change his mind based on polling. I think he's a politician and thus packages his preferred policies in the most positive-sounding messaging that he can, but I'm not sure if that's dishonest in any way.
  #7  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:00 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 30,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think he's been more honest than most politicians -- IMO he honestly believes what he advocates for, and doesn't change his mind based on polling. I think he's a politician and thus packages his preferred policies in the most positive-sounding messaging that he can, but I'm not sure if that's dishonest in any way.
I tend to agree with this. The man owns up to being socialist in a country where that is a dirty word.
  #8  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:03 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think he's been more honest than most politicians -- IMO he honestly believes what he advocates for, and doesn't change his mind based on polling. I think he's a politician and thus packages his preferred policies in the most positive-sounding messaging that he can, but I'm not sure if that's dishonest in any way.
I'm not after a comparative analysis.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #9  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I'm not after a comparative analysis.
I'm not sure what you're asking then. I asked you what you meant, and you said "Roll with whatever definition of honest you find most.... well, honest", so that's my response. The poll answers don't really fit because I'm not sure if vague (even deliberately vague) conflicts with "honest". I do think Bernie has been vague on a lot of points -- maybe deliberately -- and I don't see this necessarily as other than honest.
  #10  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:09 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,337
I don't think he has worked out the math for precisely how his proposals would work, how much they would cost, and how they would be paid for. Whether that's being deliberately dishonest or not is a tough call. I voted yes, but concede that he is more honest than Republicans.
  #11  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:09 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
I tend to agree with this. The man owns up to being socialist in a country where that is a dirty word.
Having convictions about your own position is important. I don't question the man's motives or convictions. I question the means by which he goes about trying to achieve them.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #12  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:10 PM
kanicbird is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,310
He may not know all the details, but such a implementation is sure to be more then a one man show. I believe he has the vision, but not the individual steps.
  #13  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:10 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 30,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Having convictions about your own position is important. I don't question the man's motives or convictions. I question the means by which he goes about trying to achieve them.
I think he is honest. Far more than the average politician. I'm not sure he's right or has a chance to make much change though.
  #14  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:11 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 607
Here's the Fareed piece

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/polit...ke-gps-vpx.cnn

Quote:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says that his proposals “are not radical,” pointing again and again to countries in Northern Europe such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway as examples of the kind of economic system he wants to bring to the United States. The image he conjures up is of a warm and fuzzy social democracy in which market economics are kept on a tight leash through regulation, the rich are heavily taxed and the social safety net is generous. That is, however, an inaccurate and highly misleading description of those Northern European countries today.

Take billionaires. Sanders has been clear on the topic: “Billionaires should not exist.” But Sweden and Norway both have more billionaires per capita than the United States — Sweden almost twice as many. Not only that, these billionaires are able to pass on their wealth to their children tax-free. Inheritance taxes in Sweden and Norway are zero, and in Denmark 15 percent. The United States, by contrast, has the fourth-highest estate taxes in the industrialized world at 40 percent.
Here's the deal, Bernie's fundamental principles of wanting to provide Medicare For All, free college, invest in social programs, expand existing ones and make the rich pay their fair share of taxes are all fine proposals. Lyndon Johnson did it and no one thinks he was a marxist. The problem with Bernie is his good policies get indulged by a fringe line of thinking where people think he's leading a war on capitalism. That's where it becomes an issue.
  #15  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:19 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm not sure what you're asking then. I asked you what you meant, and you said "Roll with whatever definition of honest you find most.... well, honest", so that's my response. The poll answers don't really fit because I'm not sure if vague (even deliberately vague) conflicts with "honest". I do think Bernie has been vague on a lot of points -- maybe deliberately -- and I don't see this necessarily as other than honest.
iiandyiiii, my man; You're playing, "the meaning of 'IS'" games.

If someone does not wish you to know the details of something, they will be "deliberately vague" on the details. i.e. If you hire a contractor to remodel your kitchen, are you going to accept a vague estimate? No. You won't. It's an important financial decision and you want to see some pretty hard numbers before you sign the contract. And if you ordered Carrara marble for the counter which is subject to market fluctuations, that too will be stipulated so that if it costs more than you planned for, you'll either pay it or go with Quartz.

To my understanding, Bernie has never said, 'UHC may cost more than what we currently think. If so, the taxes will be higher. Or we'll change direction.' No. He said, 'It will be cheaper and the billionaires will pay for most of it.' That is not an "honest" plan to my mind.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #16  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:22 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Bernie has been consistent for many years on his message about achieving a Nordic/Canadian style democratic socialism in the US. He has studied both systems extensively, of this I am sure. I believe he has a deep & thorough understanding on the scope and scale of the kind of tax framework it would take to accomplish these goals in America.
If he has, he should know that we are Social Democrats, not democratic socialists.

Democratic Socialism is a form of socialism, Social Democracy is capitalism for the middle classes. The terms only look alike.
  #17  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:26 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
iiandyiiii, my man; You're playing, "the meaning of 'IS'" games.
No games here. At most, this is a disagreement or even a misunderstanding. Games aren't required for disagreement and misunderstanding -- sometimes we just are coming from different places and different assumptions.

Quote:
If someone does not wish you to know the details of something, they will be "deliberately vague" on the details. i.e. If you hire a contractor to remodel your kitchen, are you going to accept a vague estimate? No. You won't. It's an important financial decision and you want to see some pretty hard numbers before you sign the contract. And if you ordered Carrara marble for the counter which is subject to market fluctuations, that too will be stipulated so that if it costs more than you planned for, you'll either pay it or go with Quartz.
But this is politics. Putting out details could reduce the chances of getting what he wants -- being vague can be a negotiation tactic. Starting from exactly what he wants, down to the details, could mean that the only direction he could go to negotiate would be closer to the Republicans. By being vague, he might be more likely to actually get a better outcome.

This is one of the lessons from Obama -- he was too "honest" a negotiator, if this is what you mean by honest. He might have been more successful by being more vague about his actual goals.

Quote:
To my understanding, Bernie has never said, 'UHC may cost more than what we currently think. If so, the taxes will be higher. Or we'll change direction.' No. He said, 'It will be cheaper and the billionaires will pay for most of it.' That is not an "honest" plan to my mind.
"It will be cheaper" refers to comparisons to how it is now -- and he's taking into account all health care spending. Of course he thinks UHC really would be cheaper than it is now -- have you seen how expensive our system is compared to Canada and other UHC countries? So that part strikes me as 100% honest, at least -- he believes it will be cheaper than the current system, and that's what he says. He might not go into detail about the unknowns, but I don't think that's dishonest -- just political messaging. Maybe political messaging is inherently dishonest. But I don't think this is a good example of any dishonesty.
  #18  
Old 03-02-2020, 02:48 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
If he has, he should know that we are Social Democrats, not democratic socialists.

Democratic Socialism is a form of socialism, Social Democracy is capitalism for the middle classes. The terms only look alike.
Cite: Democratic Socialism
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #19  
Old 03-02-2020, 03:04 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
No games here. At most, this is a disagreement or even a misunderstanding. Games aren't required for disagreement and misunderstanding -- sometimes we just are coming from different places and different assumptions.
Fair enough. I withdraw the "game play" insinuation.



Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
But this is politics. Putting out details could reduce the chances of getting what he wants -- being vague can be a negotiation tactic. Starting from exactly what he wants, down to the details, could mean that the only direction he could go to negotiate would be closer to the Republicans. By being vague, he might be more likely to actually get a better outcome.

This is one of the lessons from Obama -- he was too "honest" a negotiator, if this is what you mean by honest. He might have been more successful by being more vague about his actual goals.
I really appreciated that about Obama. I think he meant it when he said, "You could keep your doctor". When it turned out not to necessarily be true, he should have come out and explained why it didn't work out the way he hoped and why. That is what backfired. The lack of honesty about why things played out they way they did.



Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
"It will be cheaper" refers to comparisons to how it is now -- and he's taking into account all health care spending. Of course he thinks UHC really would be cheaper than it is now -- have you seen how expensive our system is compared to Canada and other UHC countries? So that part strikes me as 100% honest, at least -- he believes it will be cheaper than the current system, and that's what he says.
I'm am in the rare position of having the advantage of first hand experience with a full on communist healthcare system, the Canadian UHC system, and now the US insurance provided healthcare system. It is not a theoretical exercise or thought experiment to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
He might not go into detail about the unknowns, but I don't think that's dishonest -- just political messaging. Maybe political messaging is inherently dishonest. But I don't think this is a good example of any dishonesty.
If you don't know, the honest answer is, "I don't know, but I'll find out. Or, we won't make any decisions without considering and disclosing all the available information."

But HE KNOWS that taxes will have to go up on every single income earner in order to achieve his goals. He knows this because he knows that is the case for all the socialized systems he so admires. He should just be more honest about it.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #20  
Old 03-02-2020, 03:12 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,834
No. I'm a Sanders supporter and he is not honest about how to pay for everything.

Yes medicare for all will save trillions of dollars. But its going to cost trillions too. The payroll taxes and progressive taxes on wealth and income may not be enough to pay for M4A. Some of his other plans are affordable other than medicare for all. Subsidized daycare, free public college are much more affordable.

A green new deal done Sanders way will be expensive, but if you use 2050 as a benchmark rather than 2030, it is more affordable.

Also the congress is not going to work with him, even if democrats control it. There is nothing stopping deep blue states like California or Vermont from establishing massive social welfare states. But if those states with their 3/4 supermajorities in congress won't pass Nordic style reforms I fail to see why the federal congress with (at best) a 51% majority would.

Sanders is more about the overton window, and letting the democratic establishment know we are tired of being asked to pick between ruthlessly efficient plutocrats (republicans) and spineless, tepid half-plutocrats (democrats). People want politicians who will address the big issues facing our nation which requires a mix of ruthlessness, competence and a willingness to take on established oligarchical powers. Things the modern democratic party lacks.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 03-02-2020 at 03:14 PM.
  #21  
Old 03-02-2020, 03:14 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,833
IIRC he's stated that taxes will probably go up on some middle income Americans, and IIRC the calculator on his website actually makes this clear with specific numbers. He argues that UHC will overall be cheaper for Americans because the out of pocket expenses, including taxes, will go down significantly.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #22  
Old 03-02-2020, 03:36 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
IIRC he's stated that taxes will probably go up on some middle income Americans, and IIRC the calculator on his website actually makes this clear with specific numbers. He argues that UHC will overall be cheaper for Americans because the out of pocket expenses, including taxes, will go down significantly.
The, "...for some middle income American", is a lie. But never mind all that for now.

The following is not a one or two year sample size, so my figures are not creative economics or extrapolations. I was and still am in independent IT consultant.

Living in Canada my income as a married person with two kids was half of what it is now with the same status. I paid virtually exactly the same amount in taxes at the end of each year. To wit, twice as much in Canada as in the US per dollar of income. If I add my healthcare insurance in the US (I have a gold ACA plan), I still pay 10-20% less out of pocket, including taxes. Convince me that Bernie's plan will lower my out of pocket expenses, including UHC, given that he has a much higher mountain to climb with regards to population size and current cost of healthcare. Maybe you can make the math work where I can't. I want want to believe.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 03-02-2020 at 03:37 PM.
  #23  
Old 03-02-2020, 03:41 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
IIRC he's stated that taxes will probably go up on some middle income Americans, and IIRC the calculator on his website actually makes this clear with specific numbers. He argues that UHC will overall be cheaper for Americans because the out of pocket expenses, including taxes, will go down significantly.
Yup. He has a 4% payroll tax on employees and a 7.5% payroll tax on employers combined with various progressive taxes on wealth, income, stock trading, etc.

UHC will be far cheaper. One figure I'd heard is that keeping the current health system will cost 50 trillion over the next decade, but a well run medicare for all system will only cost 35 trillion. So it isn't like our choices are 'spend nothing or spend 35 trillion', our choices are spend 50 trillion in public/private funds or spend 35 trillion in public/private funds.

Also about 50-60% of all medical spending is already spent via the public sector (medicare, medicaid, VA, CDC, state/local programs, ACA, etc). So we don't need to raise 100% of the cost of a M4A system, we just need to raise taxes to cover the private spending that will disappear. Which again, because its cheaper will be less than the 40-50% we current spend privately.

But his programs are huge. I don't know if the 60 trillion price tag is correct or not. Medicare for all may only cost 1.5 trillion a year in new taxes since we're already raising another 1.5 trillion or so in pre-existing taxes to fund health care. His other big programs like daycare and public college are 1-2 trillion over a decade each.

Green new deal, I'm not sure. I mean, $100 billion in public sector spending would probably be met by $200 billion in private sector spending on renewables, which is a far more reasonable number but would still increase the US's spending on renewables by nearly 700%. One study found switching to a 100% renewable energy sector will require 2% of GDP spending a year for 30 years. If there is a 2:1 multiplier effect from the private sector for every public dollar spent, that is about $130 billion a year in public sector spending, a fairly reasonable number.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 03-02-2020 at 03:46 PM.
  #24  
Old 03-02-2020, 03:45 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Democratic Socialism is basically wanting socialism through democratic elections. No workers revolution, no bloody revolt. Socialism coming in because the population desired it, not imposed from above by a victorious junta. But it is still workers owning the means of production. It is not at all what we do in the Nordics.

Social Democracy is a very capitalist setup, in many ways more capitalist than the US. Even the biggest businesses can go under, employees are not feudal ssubjects of their employers through health care but can make competing businesses, employers can get together to negotiate for wages and benefits with employers.

The government uses the money generated by this capitalist setup to run big social programs ti benefit and grow the middle classes. UHC, free college, subsidized daycare, year-long parental leaves. Now here is the thing: The middle class is by far the best source of tax money. Poor people don't have much money and rich people have lawyers and offshore bank accounts. The middle class is where the revenue is.

So that means free college because now all the poor peoples kinds can get an education and join the middle classes. And parental leave, subsidized healthcare and suddenly everyone is a two-income family and you've doubled revenues without increasing taxes. It means UHC because sick people consume benefits and healthy ones generate taxes. And make no mistake, that is how these things are set up. To maximize revenue.

Which is fantastic for the middle class of course. It is a symbiosis, not a parasitical relationship. Thats the Nordic Model.
  #25  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:01 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
Democratic Socialism is basically wanting socialism through democratic elections. No workers revolution, no bloody revolt. Socialism coming in because the population desired it, not imposed from above by a victorious junta. But it is still workers owning the means of production. It is not at all what we do in the Nordics.

Social Democracy is a very capitalist setup, in many ways more capitalist than the US. Even the biggest businesses can go under, employees are not feudal ssubjects of their employers through health care but can make competing businesses, employers can get together to negotiate for wages and benefits with employers.

The government uses the money generated by this capitalist setup to run big social programs ti benefit and grow the middle classes. UHC, free college, subsidized daycare, year-long parental leaves. Now here is the thing: The middle class is by far the best source of tax money. Poor people don't have much money and rich people have lawyers and offshore bank accounts. The middle class is where the revenue is.

So that means free college because now all the poor peoples kinds can get an education and join the middle classes. And parental leave, subsidized healthcare and suddenly everyone is a two-income family and you've doubled revenues without increasing taxes. It means UHC because sick people consume benefits and healthy ones generate taxes. And make no mistake, that is how these things are set up. To maximize revenue.

Which is fantastic for the middle class of course. It is a symbiosis, not a parasitical relationship. Thats the Nordic Model.
I see what you're getting at. Except Bernie calls it the former and you'd prefer he got the naming convention of his 'revolution' more in line with the latter. Me too.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #26  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:09 PM
tullsterx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 974
I think he's honest. . . . he's just wrong.
  #27  
Old 03-02-2020, 04:18 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,457
I don’t think he’s been honest. I think he does honestly believe that ‘only Bernie can fix it.’

He’s probably honest as to what he wants, but so is a six year old when they make out their Christmas list.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #28  
Old 03-02-2020, 05:02 PM
krondys's Avatar
krondys is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gillette, Wyoming
Posts: 1,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
I donít think heís been honest. I think he does honestly believe that Ďonly Bernie can fix it.í

Heís probably honest as to what he wants, but so is a six year old when they make out their Christmas list.
Sooo... You DO think he's been honest, but you answered in the negative because BERNIE BAD!
  #29  
Old 03-02-2020, 06:02 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
If he has, he should know that we are Social Democrats, not democratic socialists.

Democratic Socialism is a form of socialism, Social Democracy is capitalism for the middle classes. The terms only look alike.
This. I keep pointing it out, and I appear to be invisible. Democratic socialism is socialism -- that is, public (government) control of most means of production. Social democracy is a capitalist economic system with strong social programs such as universal health care. If Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist he's wrong, and it's particularly misleading if his models are countries like Canada and Sweden, which are social democracies. If Republicans attack him on the basis that socialist countries have typically been economic failures -- whether democratic socialist or otherwise -- they will be right.

Understanding the difference between the two similar-sounding terms is vitally important, and I'm pretty sure for just that reason Republicans will do their best to obfuscate the difference. Bernie's job is to be crystal-clear that he's a social democrat.
  #30  
Old 03-02-2020, 06:09 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
This. I keep pointing it out, and I appear to be invisible. Democratic socialism is socialism -- that is, public (government) control of most means of production. Social democracy is a capitalist economic system with strong social programs such as universal health care. If Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist he's wrong, and it's particularly misleading if his models are countries like Canada and Sweden, which are social democracies. If Republicans attack him on the basis that socialist countries have typically been economic failures -- whether democratic socialist or otherwise -- they will be right.

Understanding the difference between the two similar-sounding terms is vitally important, and I'm pretty sure for just that reason Republicans will do their best to obfuscate the difference. Bernie's job is to be crystal-clear that he's a social democrat.
Do you really think the average voter understands or cares about the difference between communism, socialism, democratic socialism and social democracy? The average GOP voter will label all of it communism, and I don't know if the average swing voter will want to learn enough about poly sci to distinguish them.

Wouldn't a better marketing term be something like 'capitalism without the harsh edges'? I've heard social democracy described this way. It is capitalism with wealth redistribution, a social safety net and regulations to protect labor and the environment.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 03-02-2020 at 06:10 PM.
  #31  
Old 03-02-2020, 06:23 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by krondys View Post
Sooo... You DO think he's been honest, but you answered in the negative because BERNIE BAD!
Heís been honest about what he wants. He hasnít been honest about how he achieves it so that why I donít consider Bernie honest.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #32  
Old 03-02-2020, 06:48 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
This. I keep pointing it out, and I appear to be invisible. Democratic socialism is socialism -- that is, public (government) control of most means of production. Social democracy is a capitalist economic system with strong social programs such as universal health care. If Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist he's wrong, and it's particularly misleading if his models are countries like Canada and Sweden, which are social democracies. If Republicans attack him on the basis that socialist countries have typically been economic failures -- whether democratic socialist or otherwise -- they will be right.

Understanding the difference between the two similar-sounding terms is vitally important, and I'm pretty sure for just that reason Republicans will do their best to obfuscate the difference. Bernie's job is to be crystal-clear that he's a social democrat.
I do think that Bernie knows the difference, and calls himself a democratic socialist as opposed to a socdem or a progressive for a reason. I think if it were more palatable to the public, he would be pushing for more radical changes such as nationalization of a large portion of the American economy. I think most Democratic Socialists see changes like universal healthcare and welfare programs as win-wins that simultaneously alleviate some of the worst abuses that a capitalist society enacts on poor people, act as gateways into opening the public up to socialism and a way to get capitalists to squirm trying to defend the way the system currently works. There have been a lot of countries (including the US) where it sometimes takes a real socialist who wants to tear capitalism down to get the establishment to wake up and give workers and poor people some rights, so while I wouldn't go nearly as far left as Bernie, I think it can end up being the kick in the ass that our country needs - obviously time will tell.
  #33  
Old 03-02-2020, 09:11 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
This. I keep pointing it out, and I appear to be invisible. Democratic socialism is socialism -- that is, public (government) control of most means of production. Social democracy is a capitalist economic system with strong social programs such as universal health care. If Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist he's wrong, and it's particularly misleading if his models are countries like Canada and Sweden, which are social democracies. If Republicans attack him on the basis that socialist countries have typically been economic failures -- whether democratic socialist or otherwise -- they will be right.

Understanding the difference between the two similar-sounding terms is vitally important, and I'm pretty sure for just that reason Republicans will do their best to obfuscate the difference. Bernie's job is to be crystal-clear that he's a social democrat.
I think he knows the difference. I think he is a democratic socialist. He is being dishonest in saying he only wants it to be a social democratic society because he knows he canít achieve what he wants.
  #34  
Old 03-02-2020, 09:22 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Bernie's job is to be crystal-clear that he's a social democrat.
And yet he calls himself a Democratic Socialist. I don't for a second believe that he's just confused the two terms after all these years or that he considers them interchangeable. I think to those who absolutely oppose him, it's a distinction without a difference and changing it won't win anybody over.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #35  
Old 03-03-2020, 07:34 AM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I see what you're getting at. Except Bernie calls it the former and you'd prefer he got the naming convention of his 'revolution' more in line with the latter. Me too.
Pretty much. I mean, for us small nations at the edge of the world, it is pretty flattering when Presidental candidates in the most powerful nation in the world goes "Look at those guys, we can really learn something from them"

But then...he proceeds to totally misrepresent what we are and do. Its like "Noooooo!" We have our own political debates. Because we do not have a first past the post system, we have more parties represented in parliament, and occasionally real socialist parties manage to get some delegates in. So we know what socialism is, and how different it is from what we do.
  #36  
Old 03-05-2020, 08:16 AM
Shodan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,870
People can talk themselves into believing anything, if they want to badly enough. If that's honest, then Bernie is honest.

If everything goes the way he wants, everything will work out the way he wants. Everything is not going to go the way he wants. He's been in Congress for decades, and not done anything to bring about what he wants to bring about as President. So he has no experience in actually seeing legislation thru and dealing with the consequences.

The idea of taxing somebody else and using the money to fund everything under the sun is appealing. So is free money - tax cuts pay for themselves, M4A means you will pay less in taxes than you do in insurance premiums, raising the minimum wage means everyone has more money to spend, free college means tax revenues will go up because any major is as good as any other in getting a job.

People tend to forget that TANSTAAFL.

Regards,
Shodan
  #37  
Old 03-05-2020, 08:44 AM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,245
Trump is in the white house. Clearly P.J. Barnum (or whoever) was right.

My OP is not whether Bernie's policies can succeed or are in the public interest, but whether he was honest about how much they would cost and (more importantly) who would actually be paying for it.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #38  
Old 03-05-2020, 09:11 AM
Shodan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I really appreciated that about Obama. I think he meant it when he said, "You could keep your doctor". When it turned out not to necessarily be true, he should have come out and explained why it didn't work out the way he hoped and why. That is what backfired. The lack of honesty about why things played out they way they did.
Obamacare is a good example.
Obama swore up and down that the penalties weren't a tax, until the case was argued in court.

Is that a case of Obama knew, or a case of Obama should have known? Is that being honest?

"If I tell the truth, my bill will fail" is a pretty good reason to talk yourself into thinking you are telling the truth.

The difference with Sanders is that he doesn't realize his plans will fail. Because he has talked himself into believing it already.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017