It isn’t just the stigma of calling yourself a socialist; it’s the socialism itself.
So the government takes a good chunk of my money off the top, and spends it how it likes. I spend what the government doesn’t take how I like. And if we still have poverty, Sanders assumes the problem lies, not with how the government spent what it took, but how I spent what it didn’t. That’s the basis underlying the stupid shit about deodorants.
Sanders thinks the fact that consumers have choices means that consumers have too much money. He doesn’t like the priorities that people have for their money, and therefore the government should take away enough money that they no longer can afford so many choices. Then he will spend the money alleviating poverty, and everyone will have only one brand of deodorant and nobody will be poor.
The trouble being, of course, that taking choices away from consumers does not alleviate poverty, because poverty is not caused by or connected to the fact that there are consumer choices. The one has almost nothing to do with the other. And his assumption that they do means that if (God forbid) he and his ilk are ever in a position to revamp the economy so that consumers don’t have so many choices, he is going to proceed on assumptions that are so false as to be imbecilic.
And that’s why Bernie Sanders isn’t electable. Not because he calls himself a socialist - because he is a socialist. And socialists of his kind are fucking stupid.
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
No calls for a cutback on deodorants. No claims about a pro-deodorant conspiracy.
Basically we have conservatives attacking imaginary positions by imaginary Bernie Sanders
[/QUOTE]
It’s funny…you attempt to call what Shodan said there a strawman by using a strawman of what he said.
The thing is, what Bernie said there only makes sense if you think that the government should be allocating resources directly, IOW that instead of giving people ‘23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers’ we could presumably give the public 10 underarm spray deodorant types and 5 different pairs of sneakers and, um, reasons! More food for kids!
That’s not a strawman of his position by nasty conservative Republicans, it’s what the man actually thinks! And he thinks that way because he really IS a socialist who thinks the the government should be directly allocating resources and deciding things like ‘how many brands of deodorant does the public REALLY need? How many pairs of shoes should they actually have? Why can’t we simply divert the unnecessary resources to feeding kinds instead of all this waste on letting folks decide for themselves?’ You can agree with him or not, but it’s clear that’s what he actually thinks, and trying to handwave that aside does him a disservice in what he’s advocating.
Personally, I haven’t got an issue with socialism the fact that he’s a self proclaimed socialist. The US has many socialist practices after all, just like nearly all modern western nations. I do have an issue with someone who thinks, even in the abstract that the government should make fundamental decisions about what types or how many of a given product they should have available to them, and not just from the Freedom! perspective but from a practical and economic perspective wrt the real world impact of such a train (wreck) of thought would have on feeding more kids.
Let’s just stop here and talk to a wall. Wall, we ask, isn’t this a description of every modern government of every type? And if hell froze over and a Libertarian government were to be put into place, wouldn’t this be true for that government as well?
Isn’t the entire point of political beliefs to be able to control the meaning of “how it likes”? Isn’t there currently an endless battle in Congress and in every state legislature between Republicans and Democrats tussling over the issue of how they like to spend? Isn’t it true that even those politicians who most loudly decry spending by government have multitudes of pet projects that they insist that the government fund? Is there any possible description of what Sanders would do not totally analogous to what Tea Party types already do, except across a different set of projects? Isn’t criticizing him for wanting to spend government money literally the most specious argument that can be made?
Wall? What is that you say? Sorry. I didn’t hear anything. Wall?
Bernie was answering a hypothetical that assumed his positions were correct. Here’s Harwood’s question again:
HARWOOD: If the changes that you envision in tax policy, in finance, breaking up the banks, were to result in a more equitable distribution of income, but less economic growth, is that trade-off worth making?
So in this hypothetical, Bernie’s positions have succeeded in increasing middle class and lower class incomes, leading to greater prosperity for our society as a whole.
In saying that, yes, Bernie would trade stratospheric income growth by one percent of the population for merely great income growth by the vast majority of the population, Bernie was taking it for granted that his position was right because, in this hypothetical, his positions had worked.
Your objection, that the government shouldn’t do what Bernie wants it to do, is, in this hypothetical, saying that the government shouldn’t take steps that will ensure prosperity for the middle and lower classes.
Now you would argue that Bernie’s steps are bad (even if they work to bring prosperity to the middle classes and lower classes) because captialism is based on the idea of unfettered economic growth for individuals. Bernie is saying, (and I agree), that we’re measuring economic growth all wrong. Economic growth, he would argue, should be measured by the economic growth of our slowest ships, not by the people who started out in front with billion dollar catamarans. Bernie wants to measure our economic growth by the speed of the whole fleet, not just an individual rocket ship.
Of course she apologized - it was a blatant anti-Semitic attack, based on a “comment on Facebook” that she read. Extremely unprofessional and put her career in jeopardy.
The apology is not what matters. The fact that it was brought up, by a leftist moonbat (if you prefer), is what matters. The meme is out there. Rehm is not the only one.
[QUOTE=Merneith]
Bernie was answering a hypothetical that assumed his positions were correct. Here’s Harwood’s question again:
HARWOOD: If the changes that you envision in tax policy, in finance, breaking up the banks, were to result in a more equitable distribution of income, but less economic growth, is that trade-off worth making?
[/QUOTE]
It’s probably been linked already, but here is the entire interview:
He’s answering a hypothetical but he’s doing so with his recurring theme that we need to break up the banks, need to break up the 1%ers and that resources need to be allocated by the government for the good of the people with an emphasis on the ‘middle classes’.
And we don’t need all of those product choices when we are destroying the environment and such. Yeah, I got that. But my point was that Shodan wasn’t making a strawman argument there…this is how Bernie boy thinks. I’m sure that it resonates with a lot of 'dopers since it’s exactly what they want to hear. I don’t believe it will resonate with many US VOTERS, however, but who knows…we elected Carter after all, so I suppose it’s possible. But if you look at the democrats that have been elected post Carter they are all moderates, and the front runner currently is a moderate as well, so I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that if Sanders gets the nomination he’s going to lose to any even quasi-moderate the Republicans run. Of course, if THEY pick a right wing kook then all bets are off.
I’m sure HE thinks so, yet. But to me his underlying assumptions are wrong. YMMV
Well, leaving aside your assumptions, obviously I disagree that how we measure economic growth is ‘all wrong’. A case could be made that we could do more for people who aren’t benefiting as much from our dynamic economy, but in the end it’s that dynamic economy that pays for all of this stuff, and if the economy sucks then all the ships are slowed. At any rate, I think that yet another discussion about the pros and cons of capitalism (that uses socialist policies to soften it) verse socialism (that uses capitalism as it’s economic engine) is beyond the subject of this discussion. I don’t think Bernie has much of a chance, but it should be interesting to watch how this all plays out.
I’m sure you have a good idea at this point why I think he’s wrong. But, essentially, I don’t believe that the government is the best allocator of all of production, which is what socialists believe and what Sanders believes. I think that way leads to economic stagnation in some cases (the Nordic countries being an obvious exception) and I think that in the case of the US it would lead to that. YMMV but to me it’s kind of a silly question that you are asking merely to start yet another argument about socialism verse capitalism and conservatism verse liberalism (verse communism verse libertarianism verse anarchy verse gods know what else).
If you think that he’s right, well, more power to you brother…PREACH IT!! But if you think he’s got a real shot at being elected, the feel free to expand on that theme, since it’s what this thread is about.
It might be, which is why it is fortunate I did not make such an argument.
The point of his deodorant argument is that not that he wants to spend government money. It is a criticism of how non-government money is being spent - namely my money, the money I have left after the government takes its cut. Bernie doesn’t believe I should be spending the money the government leaves me the way I want to.
I am not criticizing him for spending government money. I am criticizing him to wanting to spend my money for me.
And spare us all your “wall” bullshit, m’kay? It’s a little passive-aggressive for my taste, outside the Pit.
If you are basing the question off of a random comment on Facebook and acting like it is true, that by the most charitable interpretation, you are an enabler for anti-Semitic/“Zionist” rumours much as birtherism with regards to Obama enables racism.
There is nothing that is uniquely “socialist” as opposed to standard populist or social democratic rhetoric there.
Carter was undoubtedly far more of a moderate than any other Democrat since the 1930s, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton. And no, Sanders is not a socialist, at least until he begins to openly advocate for the nationalization of major industries. Till then, he is a left social democrat-remember that even the Labour government of 1945 in Britain was willing to nationalize steel, coal etc.
The debate is essentially one of degree, not of kind-how high a tax rate or how extensive a welfare state is possible to ensue at least a minimum standard of living for all without unduly hampering economic growth and dynamism? Sanders of course falls strongly on one side, but at the end of the day he expects to operate within the capitalist system.
Sanders’s praise of Nordic countries as his ideal proves that he is not a socialist, considering that (again) the Nordic model is one of social democracy not of socialism. Certainly, Sanders has never said “government is the best allocator of all of production”.
Is Birtherism “in no sense” a racist attack? On other forums, quite a few liberal/left-leaning people was far more insistent than me in arguing the question was anti-Semitic.
Dude you are really trying to claim Diane Rehm is an anti-semite!? :eek::eek:
You might as well claim that Mr. Rogers was a member of the KKK.
I heard it live. While it was bizarre, it certainly wasn’t meant as an attack. It really came across more as a bit of trivia or a softball question that would allow Sanders to put peoples concerns to rest. She clearly got her facts very wrong (exceedingly unusual for her) and got flustered when Sanders failed to confirm them, but once she was corrected by Sanders she immediately apologized for having been misinformed.
The link to the full interview has already been posted. It is not long, so it can easily be read.
At no point does Sanders make such an argument. Do you understand the irony of this? I do.
You appear to taking a side comment not related to direct policy and deliberately ascribing the most nonsensical possible interpretation. I can provide one that I would bet more accurately reflects its true intent.
To m knowledge, Schwartz has not called for government policies to correct this. Certainly, nothing in Sanders’ words implies any sanctions on individuals for the way they spend their money. He appears solely to be using this paradox as one of many inherent in the current economic climate of inequality, one that appears to imply prosperity but in fact does not provide the happiness thereby implied in prosperity.
This argument is separate from whether Schwartz is correct in his analysis. He has been criticized and studies are inconclusive. His is a critique of modern capitalism, which is a sin in and of itself to many people, but a critique is not economic policy, not is making a reference to it economic policy.
You don’t have to know Schwartz to parse Sanders’ words. I can’t prove that he was even referencing him specifically or the argument more generally, although I think it’s likely. I am quite positive, however, that your interpretation is not merely ludicrous but ignorant in an ideological fashion.
It is of course an absolute commonplace to abstract words out of a politician’s context and use them falsely as the basis for ridicule. All sides do so with occasional permanent damage. Calling out your ridiculous ridicule with ridicule of my own is one way of exposing the nonsense. Calling it ridiculous, ludicrous, and nonsensical is another way. I’m sure I can find yet more ways if you try to continue repeating this laughable argument.
Here’s the exchange:
Diane Rehm: Senator, you have dual citizenship with Israel.
Bernie Sanders: Well, no I do not have dual citizenship with Israel. I am an American. I don’t know where that question came from. I am an American citizen, and I have visited Israel on a couple of occasions. No, I’m an American citizen, period.
Rehm: I understand from a list we have gotten that you were on that list.
Sanders: No.
Rehm: Forgive me if that is –
Sanders: That’s some of the nonsense that goes on in the internet. But that is absolutely not true.
Rehm: Interesting. Are there members of Congress who do have dual citizenship or is that part of the fable?
Sanders: I honestly don’t know but I have read that on the internet. You know, my dad came to this country from Poland at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket. He loved this country. I am, you know, I got offended a little bit by that comment, and I know it’s been on the internet. I am obviously an American citizen and I do not have any dual citizenship.
Which part of the exchange is Rehm’s “immediate apology”? “Forgive me if…”? Really?
:eek: