It’s not that good guys don’t have a place in the white house. It’s that in order to get elected and re-elected, you have to play the game. You can play the game and still be a good guy, but you’re going to disappoint ordinary people who don’t understand what’s going on behind the scenes. People don’t realize that a Senator from North Dakota doesn’t get money for his bridge and highway project, a jobs bill or a tax cut gets shut down. Or that a representative from Alabama adds a ‘rider’ to a budget bill and another rep from Massachusetts adds another rider that bans 9mm pistols. You either make deals with people, or get nothing done. You get some of what you want, or nothing at all. That’s how it works.
Taxing the wealthy heavily may not “raise ‘enough’ revenue” (what ever that means), but raising revenue is only a small part of the calculus. History has shown that a large class disparity leads to social instability. History has shown cutting taxes on the wealthy ultimately does not lead to economic improvement, because the wealthy only contribute to a tiny portion of the economy. Taxing the rich is about more than just taking money from the leeches.
So, some random internet guy’s flip comments on an anonymous message board is “insight” into what’s driving millions of people to support Mr. Sanders’ run? Pretty sure the reason for his popularity runs a bit deeper than that. For better insight I would direct you to watch reruns of the GOP debate. Most folks with two brain cells to rub together would sooner vote for a dog than the brigade of simians cobbled together to oppose even the flakiest contenders from the Democratic Party. The Republican Party deserves president Sanders. They’re not even trying.
What also doesn’t lead to a good economy is taxing the wealthy for the sole purpose of taking their money away. Europe gave up on that idea long ago, why are we starting to think of doing it?
Taxes are for raising revenue. Period.
Furthermore, economic disparities only matter when there is widespread poverty. A comfortable middle class does not take to the streets unless you raise their taxes or try to take away their private health insurance.
Sanders, unlike Carter, has* been a member of* Congress.
And Sander will have Carter’s prior example to draw on.
Sanders is a member of Congress, but he’s an independent and has never worked well with others. He’s always been a lone wolf.
BTW, he’s still not a Democrat. And unless that changes, which if it does will only be a formality, will long-serving Democrats consider him to be the leader of the party? I doubt it. I’d expect Pelosi and Schumer to expect that Sanders follow their lead rather than vice versa.
I know Hilaire Belloc pointed out a century ago that once sufficiently few people own property, the right to that property becomes merely a privilege of the elite in their eyes, and they don’t respect it. And I suppose he wasn’t the first. Did he get that from Marx, maybe?
Marx, of course, saw capitalism as something that would evolve out of itself into something else. It wasn’t quite sustainable in its 19th-Century form.
Or, you know, tax the rich highly, the middle class moderately, the lower middle class lightly, and redistribute funds to the poor.
Don’t exclude the middle.
Thanks,
Taxing the middle class is the third rail of politics. Even Sanders won’t touch it.
Considering the heartwarming support Mr. Obama consistently received from his own party, I really don’t see how it would make much difference what Mr. Sanders does. This is part of what’s troubling me about him. I dig his ideas, but I know nothing of his ability to negotiate or build consensus. And unless the peeps elect a few dozen Mini-Sanders into congress he may have a very hard time due to sheer cussedness of his congress.
Yes, I think it is an example.
I doubt that it does. Sanders’ ideas are going to over like gangbusters with progressives and most of the SDMB - they are already hard-wired to go with the most left-wing candidate available. The election is going to be decided by who it always is - the moderate middle. And if Sanders and his campaign gets asked any but the most superficial question about his economic policies, and can’t come up with a better answer than “I don’t know, and it won’t hurt me so I don’t care” , then he isn’t going to get traction with anyone who thinks beyond slogans.
That might not bother Sanders - it is possible that he knows he has no chance at the nomination or the Oval Office, but just wants to publicize his ideas. Which is fine - asking hard questions about his ideas will be as illuminative as anything else.
Echoes of the Kerry campaign. If all you can say in response to “how is your policy going to work out in the real world” is “the GOP sux”, that is not much of a campaign.
About 47% of the electorate is going to vote for the Democrat. About 47% is going to vote for the Republican. Back in 2004, the SDMB was entirely convinced that obviously none of the remaining 6% could possibly vote for Bush.
How did that work out for you?
Regards,
Shodan
How many republicans thought the Black guy would win?
Twice?
Seriously, the electorate is so utterly pissed about the poor performance the Parties have shown, that both Sanders and Trump have a good shot.
Sanders has a much better shot. He stays within the bounds of normal political discourse. He doesn’t say anything too outrageous. Sanders can be President. Trump will never be.
Obama’s color has nothing to do with it. Bernie is a socialist running on class envy and wishful economic thinking. Yes, he is going to be popular on a left-wing site like the SDMB. In the real world - not so much.
No, Sanders does not have a shot. (Nor does Trump, except among people who think TV is real.)
You are confusing “neither of the parties is far left enough for me” with mainstream thinking. “Soak the rich, spend money like a drunken sailor, and change the subject when the deficit gets mentioned” is not the kind of message that differentiates Sanders from any other Democrat of recent years.
Sanders has now shown that he can be bullied into being drawn off message (by the BLM clowns). Extremists eat their young - Sanders has just suffered the first bite.
Maybe he will do a third party run, with the Socialist Worker’s Party or the Greens or something. Then he and Trump can both “rather be right than President”.
Regards,
Shodan
… TV is real. I mean, I own a TV, and there are pictures and sounds coming from it. I’m not imagining those, right?
Yeah, but the stuff on it is fake. Like that program they ran in the late '60s/early '70s called “Apollo”.
The real world includes the SDMB, you know.
Cite?
Regards,
Shodan
You mean a great insight into the source and nature of the support for just about ANY candidate’s platform these days, left or right. Soak the rich, wall the border (and make the other side pay), bomb that other country, raise A’s wages, cut B’s taxes, save the jobs, save the planet, deregulate Industry X, REregulate Industry Y; it’s always “do it somehow and make the people who are NOT ME take the pain”.
I don’t disagree with you - Wizard’s First Rule, after all. But I would hope it would be the job of the media to ask questions about proposals, and all they want to talk about is polls and scandal.
It is the job of the opposition to ask things like “how are we going to pay for that” and “how does that work, exactly” and so on. It is just a little disconcerting to ask those questions and get back “I don’t know and I don’t care” or “Hope and Change!” Or even “I will save you from the terrorists”, IYSWIM.
Regards,
Shodan