A Bernie presidency and veto-proof majorities in Congress would turn America into a liberal utopia like Norway or Finland. Everyone’s standard of living will go up, free health care for all, social welfare programs to help the poor, science is taught in schools, and consumer confidence soars. So of course the Republicans will fight this like their lives depend on it. One taste of liberal utopia and no one’s ever going back to oligarchal plutocracy.
Nope. Sweden has a small population, lots of natural resources and very little debt, like 35% GDP.
The U.S. has lots of debt, 104.5% GDP, and Sanders, if he got what he wanted, would drive it higher.
At least understand some of the numbers before posting the ‘Just like Sweden’ bullshit.
Slee
Thanks, Slee. I’ll try to remember next time not to choose a country with a lot of natural resources, like Sweden, since that’s nothing like the United States. I’ll also make sure not to choose a country with a small population, and choose a country like Greece instead.
Nope. Sweden has a small population, lots of natural resources and very little debt, like 35% GDP.
The U.S. has lots of debt, 104.5% GDP, and Sanders, if he got what he wanted, would drive it higher.
At least understand some of the numbers before posting the ‘Just like Sweden’ bullshit.
Slee
The extremely curious subject of how Sanders would allegedly drive national debt higher has already been discussed in other threads, I would note most recently in my several posts here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19020407&postcount=67
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19020527&postcount=69
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19020675&postcount=72
It seems that administrations similar in political philosophy to what Sanders advocates have been remarkably successful at running balanced budgets and responsible debt management (Clinton handing over a strong economy that Bush subsequently destroyed with reckless contempt, Canadian fiscal policy under Liberal governments, and Sweden being just a few examples).
Bernie isn’t a Democrat, he’s an Independent - a Socialist who caucuses with the Democrats. He won’t get party loyalty. Much more moderate Democratic Presidents haven’t gotten their initiatives enacted. Bernie is sunk no matter who controls the House and Senate.
Yeah, Bernie has to do something rather difficult, and it’s sort of the opposite of how Clinton and Obama ran their presidential campaigns. He has to recruit and get elected into Congress an entire party caucus, not just run for an office himself.
Of course, so would any candidate for US President. The usual problem is, the Democrats don’t really do that.
And I still say it’s an unfair argument, since Sanders’ proposed policies don’t balance, and he’s certainly nowhere near Bill Clinton ideologically.
Now perhaps Sanders, like most liberals will actually be more responsible, but is he going to do it by raising middle class taxes enough to pay for his programs, or just not do the majority of the programs?
Consider me schooled. Next time I won’t choose compare the United States to a country with a lot of resources, because that’s just ridiculous. And I won’t choose a country with a small population, because that’s a bad comparison too; instead I’ll compare the US to a country with a similar population, like Greece. Thanks for correcting my analogy, Slee!
Full disclosure: I left out the third point of your criticism of my analogy, the debt-as-percentage-of-GDP part, because I wasn’t as familiar with these stats. As you suggested, I familiarized myself with them. Turns out Greece’s ratio is 162%, far, far above the US’s 107%. We’re much closer to Iceland and the United Kingdom in this respect.
But, of course, those countries are completely unlike the US in other respects. It’s almost like your idea that we can do a straight-up comparison of one country to another is bullshit. Kapow! That was the sound of my mind being blown.
What a ridiculous question. Obviously FDR would trounce Zombie Reagan with custom-made wheelchair blades.
Consider yourself duly chastised. You also failed to note the uncanny similarity that Greece’s problems started when they elected a politician who, just like Sanders, ran on a platform of increasing taxes. That these facts are hard to come by in the libtard versions of Wikipedia is no excuse.
Really, it shouldn’t be so hard to just make a list of “bad” countries – North Korea, Greece, Somalia, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Zimbabwe, France – and blurt one of them out whenever a Democrat is mentioned.
If Pavlov’s dogs can do it, why can’t you?
You should expect him to promote those things, but whether Congress would go along is another matter. And the details matter too - some of those ideas sound like pretty little innocent matters until you find out exactly what Sanders means and how he would do it.
Absolutely correct.
Democrats speak hopefully of taking back the Senate. I’ve heard absolutely no one suggest that a veto-proof majority is on the horizon.
That’s a non-question. For the most part, the Democrats in office a year from now will be the Democrats in office today. Few if any will wake up after the election and find themselves to a born-again Social Democrats.
Conspiracy theories and hate speech.
======================================
Bernie’s right. It will take a revolution and, sadly, youthful enthusiasm does not a revolution make. What may be possible is significant progress on some core issues such as health care and the minimum wage. But this will depend largely on the answer to the one important question that you overlooked: What is the quality of his advisors?
Again, though, I consider this scenario extraordinarily unlikely, to the extent that it’s veering into a fantasy scenario. As such, I’m just asking what the rules of the fantasy world are :).
Here’s CNN on what to look for in the Iowa town hall tomorrow: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/24/politics/democratic-town-hall-what-to-watch/index.html