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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Fair enough. I withdraw the “game play” insinuation.
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.
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.
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.
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.