Well, he is a raving socialist. Not much more really needs to be said.
Because, yanno, attempting to emulate some of the most successful countries in the world is such a stupid idea.
Go on, bring up Russia, show us all your intellectual muscles.
I know… who wants to live in some shithole like Canada, Denmark, or Finland? With their awful free health care and top-notch education systems…
Dude, he was asking for a stupid idea from Bernie Sanders, not a stupid comment from a Doper.
I am intrigued- please, go into great detail. If you can.
He can’t. His entire worldview is “Conservative good! Anything else bad! Especially if it helps someone else.”
Maybe his gun control stance – but even if you disagree, calling it “stupid” would be a stretch.
The only unfortunate thing about Sanders is that he either
a) Doesn’t realize you can’t pay for a Nordic Model welfare state taxing only the 1%
b) ignores it for political expediency
As for the OP, I’m assuming it’s satire, because oh no, Sanders doesn’t support nanny state ideology that protects us from… ourselves??? THE HORROR!!! :eek::smack:
(here comes the sneering that Nordic social democracy is the definition of a nanny state. yes of course, dear. whatever you say.)
I think you are missing the point being made by the very presence of the thread. The medium is the message. The subtlety, you missed it.
He’s said outright that he’s had to take that stance to get elected to Congress in a rural state (and will again ;), so he can’t change it now), but he has stopped *just *short of saying he was merely pandering and didn’t mean it. He doesn’t dare say that either, or that puts some tarnish on the image of him that his acolytes have cultivated for themselves. The stupidity is more on them than him, of course, but he really does need a less weaselly answer prepared.
I don’t recall him ever promising to tax only the 1%.
In fact, I recall him (on Bill Maher’s show, I think) saying that he’d have to go lower than that to pay for everything he wants to do, but he doesn’t think it would be much lower.
I wonder how the math works out – if the top 1% were to go to ~50%, how high would the rate for the 2-9% (for example – or the 2-5%, or some other combo) need to go in order to pay for everything Bernie advocates for?
Well, lest we forget, those aren’t his only problems.
While I agree that his ideas are way too ambitious, the problem with the analysis in your link is that it completely ignores the cost savings from his proposals and the new economic activity it would bring that would create new revenue.
For instance, free college would mean many more people in college, which would mean they would be paid more later and pay more in taxes, while also fewer would be on welfare or go to prison, costing the taxpayers less in welfare and prison costs. You get the drift. Similar analysis must be done for roads and healthcare. His ideas might actually save money in the long run.
Which does nothing at all for those with the urgent need to know, “What’s in it for me now?! This immediate second!!”
“And if nothing’s in it for me, there damn well better not be anything for anyone else!”
Granted, I exaggerated when I said only the one percent. My point being, I’m skeptical that one can have a Scandinavian safety net while only taxing the rich. I realize that raise taxes on the rich isn’t his only source of raising funds, but I expect that one would need to increase taxes on the middle class as well.
Yeah, I saw that show too. That “Not much more” wasn’t very convincing. I realize putting an actual number to it would mean he’d be held to it and regret saying it almost immediately. But I can understand why opponents would be rolling their eyes at it and imagining numbers approaching top 100%.
Yeah, 'eff those takers!
See post #34, there would be taxes and there would be savings.
You didn’t build that.