DSH Sanders evades questions about failures of socialism...

[Spartanmack]

When pressed by Univision, home of leftist journo-activists like Jorge Ramos, to explain the abject failure of socialism in multiple Latin American countries, Sanders dodges the question, twice...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/26/u...rs-for-asking-about-socialist-failures-video/

First, he defends things like bread lines, rationing food as a general good for a society in the 70s. Now he's turning tail and running from the facts about his beloved economic system - one that Thomas Sowell says has a record of failure so complete only an academic could evade of ignore it. Of course, fools will say Univision is carrying water for Hillary Clinton, which they are and they don't really bother to hide that fact - just a another case of the left eating their own. But, if he can't make the case for socialism to a bunch of lefties, how can so many Americans be so dumb and buy into his crap?

 

[zoombabyzoom]

"His beloved economic system" is currently Capitalism mixed with Socialism aspects when it comes to common good of the people (i.e. College Tuition, Retirement, Health Care, etc) not full boar Socialism. Which can work, but I don't see the point in comparing smaller countries in Latin America to the United States when its rather different.

Just more hate poured through the Media to distract the sheep.

 

[tinselwolverine]

"His beloved economic system" is currently Capitalism mixed with Socialism aspects when it comes to common good of the people (i.e. College Tuition, Retirement, Health Care, etc) not full boar Socialism.

Often when I heard him addressed as being "socialist" he responds that in reality he is a "social Democrat."

I guess that means he wants to expand the social programs we already have and tax "Woo-all Street, da big banks, millionayuhs and billionayuhs" to pay for it.

I just don't know if there are enough millionaires and billionaires to increase taxes on to make that much of a difference.

 

[zoombabyzoom]

Often when I heard him addressed as being "socialist" he responds that in reality he is a "social Democrat."

I guess that means he wants to expand the social programs we already have and tax "Woo-all Street, da big banks, millionayuhs and billionayuhs" to pay for it.

I just don't know if there are enough millionaires and billionaires to increase taxes on to make that much of a difference.

Actually if taxes were increased by a few % points on the top 1% of the population almost all health care and all college tuition would be free. Then take into account actually enforcing the big corporations to finally start paying their taxes rather than hold their money overseas illegally and there is so much money left over to fund an immense amount of things.

For example if taxes on the .1% of the nation or the top 100,000 households were increased by 5% that would add $100,000,000,000 to the tax pool. In contrast to eliminate undergraduate tuition at all the country?s four-year public colleges and universities it would cost 47,000,000,000.

 

[tinselwolverine]

For example if taxes on the .1% of the nation or the top 100,000 households were increased by 5% that would add $100,000,000,000 to the tax pool. In contrast to eliminate undergraduate tuition at all the country?s four-year public colleges and universities it would cost 47,000,000,000.

Can you provide evidence to substantiate this claim?

 

[zoombabyzoom]

Can you provide evidence to substantiate this claim?

Claim? It's from the NYTimes

 

[tinselwolverine]

Claim? It's from the NYTimes

Well then, there's gotta be a link...

 

[Spartanmack]

"His beloved economic system" is currently Capitalism mixed with Socialism aspects when it comes to common good of the people (i.e. College Tuition, Retirement, Health Care, etc) not full boar Socialism. Which can work, but I don't see the point in comparing smaller countries in Latin America to the United States when its rather different.

Just more hate poured through the Media to distract the sheep.

Yeah because with a larger, more diverse population and vastly mor complex economy, funding social programs let alone administering them becomes so much easier. Do you mean it can work here like it does in Europe where it has failed miserably there too (although maybe not as miserably as in Latin America)? And Sanders' beloved economic system is not Capitalism. He thinks the government should have a hand in on everything an would like to see them get half or more of every dollar of corporate profit to feed the leviathan. Anyone who thinks that can work doesn't understand how things work.

 

[Spartanmack]

Actually if taxes were increased by a few % points on the top 1% of the population almost all health care and all college tuition would be free. Then take into account actually enforcing the big corporations to finally start paying their taxes rather than hold their money overseas illegally and there is so much money left over to fund an immense amount of things.

For example if taxes on the .1% of the nation or the top 100,000 households were increased by 5% that would add $100,000,000,000 to the tax pool. In contrast to eliminate undergraduate tuition at all the country’s four-year public colleges and universities it would cost 47,000,000,000.

This is simply false - Medicare and Medicaid alone are already $830B per year of a total $3T the US spends on health care. The total income of the top 1% is $1.7T so you'd have to raise their taxes to 100%, forgive their state tax bills then raise taxes on everyone else to raise another $.5T. So you can't even come close to funding "free" healthcare for everyone let alone "free" health care, "free" college tuition and an immense amount of "things" by raising taxes on the 1% to 100%, let alone "a few % points". So let's pretend for a second you didn't make that ridiculous statement and take a closer look at your almost equally ridiculous statement about college tuition. First, the cost of the plan is over closer to $150B, not $47B when you include the $100B federal loan program because neither the principal or any interest is going to be collected when it becomes the $100B taxpayer funded gift to public universities program. Secondly, raising taxes on the top .1% by 5% wouldn't even come close raising $100B. Raising taxes by 5% on the top 1% (not .1%) only raises revenue by $87B - barely half the amount needed to fund the increased cost of funding public colleges and universities.

Also, it's not illegal for corporations to hold their cash overseas.

 

[Michchamp]

"His beloved economic system" is currently Capitalism mixed with Socialism aspects when it comes to common good of the people (i.e. College Tuition, Retirement, Health Care, etc) not full boar Socialism. Which can work, but I don't see the point in comparing smaller countries in Latin America to the United States when its rather different.

Just more hate poured through the Media to distract the sheep.

that's pretty much it.

we need to stop forcing labels on everything. there are definitely some areas where the private sector can deliver better results than the public sector, some where the opposite is true, and some where it needs to be a mixture of both.

what needs to happen, in America at least where the discourse is heavily skewed toward right-wing, pro-business subsidy, is to stop blaming socialism in general for some narrow, cherry-picked failures, and stop giving capitalism so much credit for "successes" like Donald Trump, the Waltons, the Kochs, etc.

also, how can any reasonable person talk about the "failures" of socialism in Latin America out of context like that? when was it allowed to succeed? are they forgetting the CIA-backed coups to topple democratically elected leftist regimes in Guatemala '54, Chile in the 70's, and a decades long embargo and other hostile actions against Cuba (also Nicaragua in the 80's, and/or there are probably more i cant remember or that have not been publicly acknowledged). I mean, it seems illogical to blame something for not succeeding when the intelligence agency of the most powerful country in the world is doing everything it can to ensure that thing does not succeed, right?

 

[biggunsbob]

that's pretty much it.

we need to stop forcing labels on everything. there are definitely some areas where the private sector can deliver better results than the public sector, some where the opposite is true, and some where it needs to be a mixture of both.

what needs to happen, in America at least where the discourse is heavily skewed toward right-wing, pro-business subsidy, is to stop blaming socialism in general for some narrow, cherry-picked failures, and stop giving capitalism so much credit for "successes" like Donald Trump, the Waltons, the Kochs, etc.

also, how can any reasonable person talk about the "failures" of socialism in Latin America out of context like that? when was it allowed to succeed? are they forgetting the CIA-backed coups to topple democratically elected leftist regimes in Guatemala '54, Chile in the 70's, and a decades long embargo and other hostile actions against Cuba (also Nicaragua in the 80's, and/or there are probably more i cant remember or that have not been publicly acknowledged). I mean, it seems illogical to blame something for not succeeding when the intelligence agency of the most powerful country in the world is doing everything it can to ensure that thing does not succeed, right?

Yup. Amazing how Some only see it one way . I am trying to see the point of view of the right but in my opinion they have no clue what's good for American. Those Chicago boys school of economics are working real great in South America. I am sure both parties have a hand in it. I am postive a truly free social democracy can work. Just my opinion. . A novel concept in which people come first over greed.

 

[Spartanmack]

that's pretty much it.

we need to stop forcing labels on everything. there are definitely some areas where the private sector can deliver better results than the public sector, some where the opposite is true, and some where it needs to be a mixture of both.

what needs to happen, in America at least where the discourse is heavily skewed toward right-wing, pro-business subsidy, is to stop blaming socialism in general for some narrow, cherry-picked failures, and stop giving capitalism so much credit for "successes" like Donald Trump, the Waltons, the Kochs, etc.

also, how can any reasonable person talk about the "failures" of socialism in Latin America out of context like that? when was it allowed to succeed? are they forgetting the CIA-backed coups to topple democratically elected leftist regimes in Guatemala '54, Chile in the 70's, and a decades long embargo and other hostile actions against Cuba (also Nicaragua in the 80's, and/or there are probably more i cant remember or that have not been publicly acknowledged). I mean, it seems illogical to blame something for not succeeding when the intelligence agency of the most powerful country in the world is doing everything it can to ensure that thing does not succeed, right?

What about all the failures of leftist regimes since Guatemala and Chile? How about Venezuela today? Brazil today? Argentina - what are they on their 3rd round now? All democratically elected leftist regimes in "free and fair" (LOL) elections. It took less than 8 years for Argentina to go from boom to bust with one election. We didn't overthrow any of those regimes - maybe the CIA intervened in a more subversive way to ensure socialism would look bad. And communist Cuba could trade freely with most of the world, they had the backing of the most powerful communist country and a world super power. So communist Cuba failed because we wouldn't trade with them? They had open doors for their products to Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, Europe, Asia, ME, Africa - virtually the entire world ex-USA. They were open for foreign direct investment from most of the rest of the world. But as it turns out, when the first thing you do when you murder people to take power is to seize the assets of foreign private interests without compensation, people tend to be leery of investing in your country. But that's got nothing to do with it - they failed because we shut our doors to an openly hostile anti-American regime and their economy failed, miserably - it's our fault! That is beyond stupid.

So, who is to blame for the PIIGS, Russia, Eastern Europe, Cambodia, Vietnam? Did we cause those socialist/communist regimes to fail too? How do you explain the near zero growth in Australia for decades and then the explosive growth after they liberalized their economy?

 

[Spartanmack]

Yup. Amazing how Some only see it one way . I am trying to see the point of view of the right but in my opinion they have no clue what's good for American. Those Chicago boys school of economics are working real great in South America. I am sure both parties have a hand in it. I am postive a truly free social democracy can work. Just my opinion. . A novel concept in which people come first over greed.

which south American countries instituted economics policies of those "Chicago boys"? Before you answer Chile, go back and take a look at what Pinochet actually did and read what Milton Friedman had to say about him. Only an idiot would look at Chile and use it as an example to discredit Friedman and free market economics.

The record of failure of socialism is effectively 100% while there hasn't been an economic system that even comes close to capitalism in it's record of lifting people out of poverty. Yet leftist rubes look at what our system has become - corrupt crony corporatism, driven by government intervention, not failures of capitalism, and your solution is more government intervention, rather than reform. It's amazing that people can be so blind.

 

[biggunsbob]

which south American countries instituted economics policies of those "Chicago boys"? Before you answer Chile, go back and take a look at what Pinochet actually did and read what Milton Friedman had to say about him. Only an idiot would look at Chile and use it as an example to discredit Friedman and free market economics.

The record of failure of socialism is effectively 100% while there hasn't been an economic system that even comes close to capitalism in it's record of lifting people out of poverty. Yet leftist rubes look at what our system has become - corrupt crony corporatism, driven by government intervention, not failures of capitalism, and your solution is more government intervention, rather than reform. It's amazing that people can be so blind.

I have never once said capitism is bad . Not once. But you must agree the even in its Purest form there needs to be checks to it. You would probably say it does not not need much but we can't just deregulate everything. Governent is not all bad as you say, and neither is capitalism and or social safety nets. You blame everything on the left which is just flat out wrong in my opinion. I never once said I do not want reform but you can't get everything you want.

 

[Michchamp]

I don't know that some countries running up debts is necessarily a problem of socialism. who are those debts owed to? for what? have only socialist countries gone bankrupt or defaulted on loans or do other ones do as well? is this a failure of socialism?

are right wing governments we prop up with billions in "loans" or gifts successes?

you're painting with a pretty broad brush here.

 

[Michchamp]

in other capitalism/socialism news:

Jane Sanders' tenure at Burlington College - which was AT WORST - a risky real estate purchase that didnt pay off when college enrollment didnt increase as expected = SEE? SOCIALISM BAD!! (even though it had nothing to do with socialism.)

but "Trump University" an overpriced scam school that former employees have testified was nothing more than a fraud to separate the gullible from their cash? Trump hotels and casinos filing bankruptcy several times (4? 5?) and the man only earning his living as a reality TV show host and by licensing his stupid name to actual developers and others to make gaudy clothes and fragrances? = DUUUUH Trump is good at business. he does real real good managing billions durrrr. he'll get us jorbs.

 

[Spartanmack]

I have never once said capitism is bad . Not once. But you must agree the even in its Purest form there needs to be checks to it. You would probably say it does not not need much but we can't just deregulate everything. Governent is not all bad as you say, and neither is capitalism and or social safety nets. You blame everything on the left which is just flat out wrong in my opinion. I never once said I do not want reform but you can't get everything you want.

I haven't blamed everything on the left, not even close. I've voiced my disapproval of crony capitalists in the Republican party for years.

Nice job changing the subject. I'll ask again, please tell me which south American countries failed because of unrestrained capitalism as proposed by "those Chicago boys"?

 

[Spartanmack]

in other capitalism/socialism news:

Jane Sanders' tenure at Burlington College - which was AT WORST - a risky real estate purchase that didnt pay off when college enrollment didnt increase as expected = SEE? SOCIALISM BAD!! (even though it had nothing to do with socialism.)

but "Trump University" an overpriced scam school that former employees have testified was nothing more than a fraud to separate the gullible from their cash? Trump hotels and casinos filing bankruptcy several times (4? 5?) and the man only earning his living as a reality TV show host and by licensing his stupid name to actual developers and others to make gaudy clothes and fragrances? = DUUUUH Trump is good at business. he does real real good managing billions durrrr. he'll get us jorbs.

It seems pretty clear that "at worst" Burlington College was victim of more than just an enrollment shortfall. There's evidence that suggests Jane Sanders made fraudulent representations about fund raising commitments in order to secure the loan..."the college almost immediately fell short on its financial obligations as fundraising pledges and commitments Ms. Sanders cited in the loan agreements never materialized." But it was probably Goldman Sachs or some other big bank that made her do it.

As for Trump, I'm not supporting him or defending his record but I'd be willing to bet you're wrong about most of that too. Either way, I don't really care. As unqualified as he is to be POTUS, he's infinitely more qualified than a dirty, smelly hippie that wants to grow the leviathan by adding trillions to the federal budget necessarily increasing waste and fraud by leaps and bounds.

 

[Spartanmack]

Yup. Amazing how Some only see it one way . I am trying to see the point of view of the right but in my opinion they have no clue what's good for American. Those Chicago boys school of economics are working real great in South America. I am sure both parties have a hand in it. I am postive a truly free social democracy can work. Just my opinion. . A novel concept in which people come first over greed.

maybe the best part of this post is how you say it's amazing that some (capital "S") only see it one way then in the very next sentence you say the right has no clue what's good for "American".

then in your next post you contradict yourself some more saying you're for reform but you oppose every single effort to reform any wasteful social program.

 

[biggunsbob]

maybe the best part of this post is how you say it's amazing that some (capital "S") only see it one way then in the very next sentence you say the right has no clue what's good for "American".

then in your next post you contradict yourself some more saying you're for reform but you oppose every single effort to reform any wasteful social program.

Dude you read way to much into things. The tablet did that S lol.... Holy crap what goes on in that head of yours where your questioning a stupid Letter S. I correct alot of spellings mistakes but don't have time for everyone. Your not telling the truth. I have never been againist reform ever. Just not the way you want to. I have always felt that the right which you represent is not the better way. You need a darn chill pill before this shit gives you a heart attack. Anyway maybe Trump will win and he will be what the right wants even if you do really dislike him. I don't like either candidate but it's time for the supreme court to lean left. It's been way to right in my opinion for years. Time for a change of pace. But I am sure you will disagree.