This is from the current Economist. Given that their facts are correct I'd have to agree that The Bern isn't the guy I'd want in the oval office. Who can correct the facts or offer a different opinion derived from them?
Feb 29th 2020 Economist writes:
America’s nightmare Bernie Sanders, nominee
The senator from Vermont would present America with a terrible choice
SOMETIMES PEOPLE wake from a bad dream only to discover that they are still asleep and that the nightmare goes on. This is the prospect facing America if, as seems increasingly likely, the Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders as the person to rouse America from President Donald Trump’s first term. Mr Sanders won the primary in New Hampshire, almost won in Iowa, trounced his rivals in Nevada and is polling well in South Carolina. Come Super Tuesday next week, in which 14 states including California and Texas allot delegates, he could amass a large enough lead to make himself almost impossible to catch.
Moderate Democrats worry that nominating Mr Sanders would cost them the election. This newspaper worries that forcing Americans to decide between him and Mr Trump would result in an appalling choice with no good outcome. It will surprise nobody that we disagree with a self-described democratic socialist over economics, but that is just the start. Because Mr Sanders is so convinced that he is morally right, he has a dangerous tendency to put ends before means. And, in a country where Mr Trump has whipped up politics into a frenzy of loathing, Mr Sanders’s election would feed the hatred.
On economics Mr Sanders is misunderstood. He is not a cuddly Scandinavian social democrat who would let companies do their thing and then tax them to build a better world. Instead, he believes American capitalism is rapacious and needs to be radically weakened. He puts Jeremy Corbyn to shame, proposing to take 20% of the equity of companies and hand it over to workers, to introduce a federal jobs-guarantee and to require companies to qualify for a federal charter obliging them to act for all stakeholders in ways that he could define. On trade, Mr Sanders is at least as hostile to open markets as Mr Trump is. He seeks to double government spending, without being able to show how he would pay for it. When unemployment is at a record low and nominal wages in the bottom quarter of the jobs market are growing by 4.6%, his call for a revolution in the economy is an epically poor prescription for what ails America.
In putting ends before means, Mr Sanders displays the intolerance of a Righteous Man. He embraces perfectly reasonable causes like reducing poverty, universal health care and decarbonising the economy, and then insists on the most unreasonable extremes in the policies he sets out to achieve them (see article). He would ban private health insurance (not even Britain, devoted to its National Health Service, goes that far). He wants to cut billionaires’ wealth in half over 15 years. A sensible ecologist would tax fracking for the greenhouse gases it produces. To Mr Sanders that smacks of a dirty compromise: he would ban it outright.
Sometimes even the ends are sacrificed to Mr Sanders’s need to be righteous. Making university cost-free for students is a self-defeating way to alleviate poverty, because most of the subsidy would go to people who are, or will be, relatively wealthy. Decriminalising border-crossing and breaking up Immigration and Customs Enforcement would abdicate one of the state’s first duties. Banning nuclear energy would stand in the way of his goal to create a zero-carbon economy.
So keenly does Mr Sanders fight his wicked rivals at home, that he often sympathises with their enemies abroad. He has shown a habit of indulging autocrats in Cuba and Nicaragua, so long as the regime in question claims to be pursuing socialism. He is sceptical about America wielding power overseas, partly from an honourable conviction that military adventures do more harm than good. But it also reflects his contempt for the power-wielders in the Washington establishment.
Last is the effect of a President Sanders on America’s political culture. The country’s political divisions helped make Mr Trump’s candidacy possible. They are now enabling Mr Sanders’s rise. The party’s leftist activists find his revolution thrilling. They have always believed that their man would triumph if only the neoliberal Democratic Party elite would stop keeping him down. His supporters seem to reserve almost as much hatred for his Democratic opponents as they do for Republicans.
This speaks to Mr Sanders’s political style. When faced with someone who disagrees with him, his instinct is to spot an establishment conspiracy, or to declare that his opponent is confused and will be put straight by one of his political sermons. When asked how he would persuade Congress to eliminate private health insurance (something which 60% of Americans oppose), Mr Sanders replies that he would hold rallies in the states of recalcitrant senators until they relented.
A presidency in which Mr Sanders travelled around the country holding rallies for a far-left programme that he could not get through Congress would widen America’s divisions. It would frustrate his supporters, because the president’s policies would be stymied by Congress or the courts. On the right, which has long been fed a diet of socialist bogeymen, the spectacle of an actual socialist in the White House would generate even greater fury. Mr Sanders would test the proposition that partisanship cannot get any more bitter.
The mainstream three-quarters of Democrats have begun to tell themselves that Mr Sanders would not be so bad. Some point out that he would not be able to do many of the things he promises. This excuse-making, with its implication that Mr Sanders should be taken seriously but not literally, sounds worryingly familiar. Mr Trump has shown that control of the regulatory state, plus presidential powers over trade and over foreign policy, give a president plenty of room for manoeuvre. His first term suggests that it is unwise to dismiss what a man seeking power says he wants to do with it. Enter Sandersman
If Mr Sanders becomes the Democratic nominee, America will have to choose in November between a corrupt, divisive, right-wing populist, who scorns the rule of law and the constitution, and a sanctimonious, divisive, left-wing populist, who blames a cabal of billionaires and businesses for everything that is wrong with the world. All this when the country is as peaceful and prosperous as at any time in its history. It is hard to think of a worse choice. Wake up, America!
Given that their facts are correct I'd have to agree that The Bern isn't the guy I'd want in the oval office.
I agree. I think Bernie has some good ideas, but he fails to see that voters aren't ready to do a 180 in a single year. These are goals that have to worked towards over decades, step by step. It took us a generation to get us into the health care mess we find ourselves in, and it will probably take a generation to get out.
Also, a lot of Bernie's claims are equivalent to Trump's boast that Mexico was going to pay for a border wall. We can appreciate the aspiration, but we all know it isn't going to happen. The Mexican economy had as much to worry about from Trump's boast as the US economy has to worry about Bernie's claims of nationalizing industry.
Seems Biden had a good showing on Super Tuesday. Although once the results of California come in, I think Sanders will still have the delegate lead.
Hillary was in better position than Biden is, and the gap kept closing after supertuesday.
And 93 delegates out of 415 pledge delegates in California leaves 322 to go ... and at the current proportion that means ~250 for Sanders and ~73 for Biden ...
Funny how little outcry that the results aren't known, when that was such a big issue for Iowa ...
... could it be that withholding final results makes Joe look better?
The Economist rejects the only candidate who meets climate science calls
Only Sanders tackles climate change and greenhouse gases. It takes money to transition in time FOR STARTERS.
The Economist did not put actual dollar numbers on the attacks on Sanders plan costs.
The Economist rattled off programs like the federal job guarantee and free tuition but failed to mention that each of these programs are fairly limited. Less than 100 billion dollars a year each. The University issue is limited to tuition at government schools and is nothing revolutionary as it used to be the norm in many places. Roughly the norm. The federal job guarantee is aimed at the poor and it might not cost anything, depending on how it is done.
Healthcare system reform is over 80 percent of the Sanders new government spending in his proposals. Employers already pay for healthcare so their payroll tax won't be anything painful. Obamacare has mandates that force premium taxes on lower income folks that will be replaced by smaller payroll taxes paid by workers.
There is a pleasant exemption for employers first million dollars in payroll before employers pay their payroll tax.
Nice if Biden actually has to talk issues in a 1 on 1 race. But The Economist just rattled off a detail free soundbite by British standards. No dollar numbers per program and no actual program details.
My preferences were "not an old white man" (and not an old white male billionare). And how healthy are Sanders and Bidden.?
1) Warren 2) Klobuchar 3) Sanders 4) Bidden
But I figured that it was going to come down to Sanders or Bidden, so I voted Sanders.
But what I really want is someone between Sanders and Bidden, which also gets back to Warren or Klobuchar.
To me it seems Sanders is promising way more than he can deliver, and Bidden, is he promising anything?
I think too many think that Sanders is some sort of messiah, who can do miracles. I just want a President who won't stand in the way of progressiveness.
quote:Senator Elizabeth Warren will end her presidential campaign after a poor showing on Super Tuesday.
A favourite of the liberal left, the Massachusetts senator had been a frontrunner in the Democratic field.
However, Ms Warren, 70, failed to convert early excitement into votes.
The Democratic contest to take on President Donald Trump is now seen as a two-horse race between former Vice-President Joe Biden, 77, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, 78.
Warren is still going to be a driving force in the Senate, and many of us are thankful for that.
However, I am a bit bummed that I won't get my dream team of a Warren-Frank ticket. The combined wit of Elizabeth and Barney would have been unstoppable.
It’s alright to detest any of the candidates Bloomberg was a rich goblin, go ahead and say so. I like Warren, but if you don’t, I’m not going to try and change your opinion. Fire away with your dissent.
All of the candidates, current and past, are deeply flawed. If you’re trying to argue that your favored candidate is a saint who will make every segment of the electorate happy and win in a landslide, you are delusional. Own their shortcomings, work to reduce them, preferably by getting the candidate himself to admit to them.
We’re not going to get a revolution in January, even if your preferred candidate gets into office. Face the facts: this is going to take a long struggle over decades. Longer with Biden than Sanders, I think, but Biden is the cautious choice that a surprising (to me) lot of people favor.
One of the reasons it’s going to take a long time is that changing figureheads doesn’t change the direction of the ship. We’ve got to work on informing the electorate. You’re going to have to win over 330 million people, not just the one at the top. The US has systemic issues that aren’t going to disappear in a single election.
To accomplish change, you’ll need to get along with the supporters of the other Democratic candidate, win or lose. There’s a lot of bridge-burning going on. Stop it.
That doesn’t mean you stop criticizing the other guy, or your guy. He’s your representative, not your boss. Let them know what needs to change in their approach.
Disappointingly, as the field has narrowed, it’s obvious that we’re not going to get a woman or person of color in the oval office. Don’t forget all the other elected positions that we need to fill! Fight to build a coalition that supports your goals, and that reflects the diversity we need.
The enemy is Donald Trump and the whole damned Republican party. Fight them with the army you’ve got, not the one you wish you had.
Moose
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable." - John Kenneth Galbraith
It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. - Paul Krugman (as stolen from Chiroptera's signature)
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes" - Ronald Reagan (1984)
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
Sanders never attacks over smaller issues but he should.
He wants a debate solely over healthcare FOR A FOCUS ON THE LARGER HUMAN RIGHT TO CARE but he should take on the smaller lies and claims on piecemeal issues.
There is a big lie that Hillary Clinton and now joe Biden like to spew. The lie is the claim that they are trying to strengthen the Affordable Care Act.
But look at the facts.
Look at the Medicaid expansion which gave everybody making under 4300 dollars a quarter get the right to free healthcare for the next three months.
As President of the Senate, from 2009 to 2017, Biden was supposed to be THERE in the Senate when the Supreme Court decided that the 90 federal government funding of the Medicaid expansion was 10 percent too little for the states to be required to expand. Biden made no attempt to legislate the 3 billion dollars per year needed to fund the expansion 100 percent.
But it gets worse.
The 500 billion dollars per year Bush tax cuts expired just after the Supreme Court threw out the requirement that states expand Medicaid with only 90 percent federal government funding. 2013 was the year both the big events happened. Mid 2013 was the big court decision. Terminal 2013 was the end of the Bush tax cuts. But Democrats voted to make the Bush cuts permanent for those making under 450 thousand bucks per year. Without any compromise from the Republicans, 85 percent of the Bush tax cuts were extended for ever and ever. Not a whisper from Democrats about the small but vital 3 billion dollars needed to give all super poor people the right to healthcare.
The only debate I saw was a few brave Senate Democrats objecting to extending the tax cuts to people making a half million dollars a year. About 6 Democrats opposed the absurd YEA vote to give the treasury to the high income earners for endless deficits and endless cuts to the few social programs as a result. Iowa Democratic Senator Tom Harkin said that there should be a debate over the absurdity that 450 thousand a year constutes a middle class income as fellow Democrats like California Senator Barbara Boxer claimed. Harkin felt that a yearly income of 60 to 70 thousand dollars made a person rich in his estimation but that a debate should be required before the permanent expansion.
Boxer is a massive supporter of Joe Biden today.
They both have a record of caring more about those making 450 thousand a year in 2013 dollars than strengthening the Affordable Care Act to this day.
Now the Bush tax cuts remnant are extended for those making 500 thousand a year in 2020 and the cost is over 500 billion dollars a year. Over 3 times larger than the Trump tax cuts.
Who thinks that Biden really cares about the Trump tax cuts when he blathers about them in soundbites.
Who thinks Biden really cares about healthcare when he invokes ObamaCare to attack Sanders. Remember Hillary Clinton and the bull ssss that Sanders broader health care system reform was somehow an attack on Barack Obama and his 2009 change. Biden is using the same old crap tactic.
Insincerity sets a person AND PARTY up for a deadly trap
Remember when Biden was dumb enough to say he would like to have the opportunity to punch Trump. This means that we might see Trump and Biden in a two or three hit fight if they face off in the debate . Picture the fall debate face off. Imagine Trump bringing up Biden's punch line. What could happen. A 3 hit fight if Biden accepts Trumps offer to hit him. Trump will hit back and that will be hit 2. Biden hitting the ground will be hit 3.
Or will Biden refuse to hit when Trump happily brings Biden's past boast up.
I don't know what will happen but Trump could run a campaign that portrays Biden as an insincere politician who is not likely to be talking to the public in a respectful fashion.
Trump might not go there but Biden would possibly look like the one at fault even if Trump initiates the reminder to Biden. I don't know if Trump would run a campaign which attacks Biden's insincerity but it would create an atmosphere and context to help tee up the reminder.
™ Version 4.2
