What are the other politicians' plan? I said it already; you can say the same thing. Trump wants to just build a wall. Where are those figures? Hillary.... I don't know what she wants to do about anything.
I think you're a bit misguided in your view of Bernie supporters. Most people WANT to work. Most people do NOT want debt. Especially when you've worked so hard to save a few bucks, then some illness or accident bankrupts you because the insurance you've paid into doesn't cover whatever you have. Or you're forced to start life with a huge debt, before you've even had a chance to start working. Its not like you can work part time to pay your way through college.. Unless you're a hot stripper LOL He actually wants to move manufacturing back over here by closing the disastrous trade deals that forced American workers to compete with workers making $.60 a day, in countries that pollute the earth. When is the last time you bought something that was actually made in America?? Unless you're riding a Harley (Which even imports some parts from china IIRC) just about everything is either made in, or made from, cheap chinese parts. Working Americans pay taxes, to pay for all the "free" stuff. In the end its cheaper for EVERYONE, and everyone benefits.
The free education part is at public colleges and would cost about 80-100 billion by most people's estimates. He's proposed paying for it with a Wall Street speculation tax. Can't remember the exact numbers but many people agree it would raise enough money to cover this.The problem is Wall Street speculation taxes aren't necessarily agreed upon as beneficial. Some believe that it's good because it discourages high frequency trading but some have argued that overall it can be detrimental to the economy. Also just to put this into context I believe last week congress passed an authorization for military spending that increased by about 40 billion to 680 billion if I'm remembering correctly. To me it seems that 80 billion isn't too unreasonable when you consider all the benefits of having a highly skilled educated labor force and all the stupid shir we currently spend money on. I believe there is a couple things Bernies plan is missing. First there needs to be some incentive to keep price increases of the school's down like price controls or some kind of incentives, secondly students should have to pay back a large percent of the money if they fail to graduate from school, third provide subsidies for technical/trade schools, and lastly schools should raise their standards a little so they aren't inundated with people. This incentivizes kids to actually finish their college education and forces kids who waste taxpayer money to pay the money back. I also think that paying for college in full may not be reasonable but getting tuition much closer to like 1000-5000 dollars per year which is much more reasonable for someone to take on as debt or pay themselves. Once again there are many benefits to a plan like this. The fact that students are so so saddled with debt means they are putting off making major purchases like cars, houses, and so on which is extremely detrimental to the overall economy. In addition we are moving towards a labor market where skills are a necessity, which means even low income people who can't necessarily afford college really need a degree to compete in many different fields. Lastly, this would probably also incentivize many private schools to lower prices or stop raising them as quickly since they would have to compete with public colleges which would be a much better bargain. Overall, there are definitely cons to gov funded education like 80 billion a year, could devalue a degree, and could lead to a cycle of public colleges spending money like crazy but that is why the plan should come with some kind of price control or incentive to keep prices down if they want to receive the m money. That's just my .02 on the topic and I could definitely be biased since I am a college student. That being said I don't have to pay for my college fortunately, but I see what student loans are doing to a lot of hardworking smart people. The part about healthcare isn't as reasonable without raising taxes on all people. That being said if we ever did institute single payer Medicare for all it would most likely cost less than what we currently pay for healthcare. When you have one entity pay for healthcare it allows them a lot of negotiating power so they can negotiate reasonable prices. In addition it allows people to get help before something becomes more serious which can lead to a lot of savings. People always say well there would be more bureaucracy which means more waste which could be a possibility. What people forget to mention is that in insurance companies I think something like 30-40 percent of what they spend is on administrative work and not even giving people money for health insurance. On top of that there are tons of people at hospitals whose sole job is to deal with the crazy insurance rules and companies, which also drives up prices. Now I'm not saying there wouldn't be bureaucracy with a gov run healthcare system but to pretend that the system would become infinitely more bloated with red tape is based on a false notion that the system isn't already completely bloated. Pretty much any major study I've ever read on the topic has shown that single payer leads to decreases in administrative costs and saves money in the long run. That being said America is so massive that it may not be easy to implement such a system, but it's not completely unreasonable either. The problem with the free market in healthcare is that consumers really have no idea what the value of medical care is which means they can't make an informed decision about how much something should cost which can often lead to price gouging especially if people don't have insurance. On top of that healthcare is an extremely inelastic good which means you'll pay just about anything if you need that service to live, which is why it's ripe for abuse in a purely free market system since there's no reasonable alternative. Take for example bread, if one day bread is outrageously priced, a consumer can get English muffins, bagels, or one of a bunch of similar options they have. This keeps prices down by driving competition. In healthcare there is not the same kind of competition. If you are experiencing a medical emergency you are not going to sit around and compare pricing options of different doctors/hospitals. You most likely will end up going to whatever is most convenient or near you. This means that the consumer has very little power in buying something like healthcare as opposed to buying something like food which is why it doesn't work well in a free market system. In addition there are many positive externalities to having a more healthy society who have decent access to healthcare. That being said I can't definitively say government run healthcare would be better than free market healthcare but there are many factors that indicate that it may be the case. Either way I'm not saying these plans aren't without their flaws, but they do have many strengths and each side has nuanced reasons to support or oppose their position. I agree Bernie is spewing rhetoric without the full details to back it up but I don't think he's completely unreasonable in believing we should have more gov funded healthcare/education. People love to say that democrats love to blindly hand out free stuff so people vote for them, but that's a complete straw man on the issue and doesn't actually attack the substance of the plan. There are many legitimate reasons why people believe the gov should provide access to healthcare and education which are legitimate such as the ones I outlined above. I'm not trying to say that one option is better just that both have valid pros and cons. Sorry for the wall of text.
All I hear anarchists say is I don't want government because all I care about is myself and everyone else can fuck off. See what happens when you strawman someone and don't actually attack the substance of what they are saying, it just leads to circular conversations where everyone pisses each other off cause they're not actually addressing each other's points. Pretending that all Bernie supporters are just money grubbing free loaders is the same as pretending that all anarchists are neck beard stoners who listen to Stephen molyneux and live in their moms basements. There's probably some truth to both those statements but it's unfair to paint an entire group of people with such broad strokes.
Trump isn't a serious candidate, and won't last the first primary. Hillary doesn't need to come up with plans because she will get the D nomination without them.. and she's not making outlandish and impossible promises like sanders is.
it doesn't explain how he will do things.. "end fossil fuel tax subsidies" that's great.. but how will he do it? anyone can say they will do something.. but where's the plan? it's going to be another 4-8 years of a president blaming congress for not agreeing with them...
Well that's inherently the problem. Everyone is so focused on what the president will do when people should focus on what their congressman are doing. People think the president has way more power than they actually do. I don't necessarily believe Bernie will pass any of this legislation but I do think he is least likely of any candidate to bring us to war or allow bills to pass that continue to fuck over consumers or trample on people's rights. He's the only candidate out there who voted against the Iraq war, against the patriot act, voted against the repeal of glass steagall, and voted against the recently passed god awful cisa bill (Rand Pauld didn't even show up). I also think Bernie could do a lot of good at the bully pulpit by talking about the massive issues that plague this country in a much more honest and less polished way than an Obama or Clinton. That being said he's still a politician and rhetoric is part of the job, but I think he would be a little more open than a lot of previous presidents.
By that thought, none of the politicians running have a leg to stand on since everyone's opponents have "debunked" their theory. If that's the beef we're having then we're not having it with Sanders, but with everyone running. What's the last time we had an economic plan outlined during a presidential campaign where everyone agreed that was the way to go? I don't agree with several things Obama has done but is anyone actually attempting to suggest that he did in fact have a collaborating congress?
Some of you (cough, cough) must be a real joy at parties. "Do you want a beer?" "No, with GMO's and the fact that I don't know where the hops come from -- along with who is paying for the bottling services and why our state isn't reimbursed with monetary refunds -- I will just stick with this highly-filtered water I brought from my home."
I go into completely different mode for parties. Like, omg did you know that such and such did such and such with such and such?? Like omg! Why yes Carol, I'd love to see your new porcelain set. I venture it's enchanting!
Actually I don't know what is more worrying - GMO's, or the giant beer monopolies..... That being said - I try to keep my politics light in social gatherings.... Unless it comes to.....
Maybe it should. Be a hell of a lot better option. Shit, a retarded orangutan drunk off a 12 pack would be a better president than any of the sad sacks they are parading around the idiot box this time (or any time for that matter).
"parading around the idiot box" Maybe its time to pay attention to the people they aren't parading around The ones that they say cant win. The ones funded by regular people, and refusing big money donations (AKA bribes). The one who ran as an independent, and won, 14 times. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.... THE GREAT AND POWERFUL MSM HAS SPOKEN!!!