• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

Started by Jackstar, January 02, 2016, 02:04:57 AM

albrecht

Quote from: 136 or 142 on April 15, 2016, 09:18:14 PM
National Canadian columnist Andrew Coyne can be annoying, and at times a right wing leaning ideologue but he's also by far the most interesting and he seems to have an extremely high level of understanding of economics for some one who I don't believe has ever formally studied the subject.  This column of his fits into the interesting, insightful and economically accurate category in my opinion:

Mincome (GAIN) not a minimum wage.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-guarantee-a-minimum-income-not-a-minimum-wage
I think ive heard this being bandied about in Switzerland or Finland?  (I'm not at computer) or somewhere? Im against though for nationalism and think, of we had a nation, that people would, contrary to polls, would accept higher prices for better services or goods. But, in a system with govt give-aways and open-borders of course the logical economic answer is 'whatevers cheapest' and take advantage. But if secured and see the society would be more stable, homogeneous, polite, safe, and clean they would accept higher costs. (And lower taxes even since less social costs for the education, healthcare, crime, wars, etc.)

WOTR

Quote from: albrecht on April 15, 2016, 10:04:16 PM
I think ive heard this being bandied about in Switzerland or Finland?  (I'm not at computer) or somewhere? Im against though for nationalism and think, of we had a nation, that people would, contrary to polls, would accept higher prices for better services or goods. But, in a system with govt give-aways and open-borders of course the logical economic answer is 'whatevers cheapest' and take advantage. But if secured and see the society would be more stable, homogeneous, polite, safe, and clean they would accept higher costs. (And lower taxes even since less social costs for the education, healthcare, crime, wars, etc.)
It is an interesting idea.  Provided that the guaranteed minimum is not a huge amount higher than welfare (it would probably have to be higher in order to considered a living wage), I do not see a huge problem. If we are saying that everybody is guaranteed $50 000 a year, it is quite another thing...  It would also have to be reduced when you qualify for other government programs (You should not be collecting unemployment in addition to this, unless your UI cheque is very small.)

That said, I have no doubt that the government would find a way to screw it up by offering a very high guaranteed wage (the higher the number, the more people benefit from it, the more votes) or mismanage the fund (like every pension fund that there is...)

136 or 142

Quote from: WOTR on April 16, 2016, 02:53:49 AM
It is an interesting idea.  Provided that the guaranteed minimum is not a huge amount higher than welfare (it would probably have to be higher in order to considered a living wage), I do not see a huge problem. If we are saying that everybody is guaranteed $50 000 a year, it is quite another thing...  It would also have to be reduced when you qualify for other government programs (You should not be collecting unemployment in addition to this, unless your UI cheque is very small.)

That said, I have no doubt that the government would find a way to screw it up by offering a very high guaranteed wage (the higher the number, the more people benefit from it, the more votes) or mismanage the fund (like every pension fund that there is...)

There wouldn't be any unemployment insurance, Mincome would replace all these income supports.  If a person lost their job, the amount of mincome they receive would increase.  I agree that the amount of 'free money' given may be very important in whether the program would deter people from working.  The evidence suggests that if it's set at an amount where it enables people to complete an education, or look after their parents, that it actually improves aggregate economic outcomes because in these examples it enables people to increase their productive capacity (completing education) or it reduces the burden on other government programs (adult children looking after their own parents rather than them getting sicker and ending up in long term hospital care, or being placed in public seniors' homes.)  Of course, in the first example, the evidence is based on studies that took place before the fairly recent large increases in university tuition fees. So, nobody is suggesting that Mincome would enable an adult student to get a $25,000 yearly tuition paid for.

It was relatively short term, but there was one attempt to study Mincome (GAIN) in Dauphin Manitoba from 1974-1979, this was a joint experiment by both the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian Federal government. But, in 1977 a Progressive Conservative government in Manitoba led by a hard right conservative named Sterling Lyon came to power and then in 1979 the Progressive Conservatives briefly came to power nationally. Although that government was led by the Red Tory Joe Clark, neither government had any interest in the study so, all of the interim results of the study were shelved for several decades and were almost entirely forgotten.  This is a detailed article on it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-manitoba_n_6335682.html

It should be pointed out that the genesis for Mincome came from a paper written by Milton Friedman, and the only President who ever seriously considered implementing it or setting up a pilot project with it was Richard Nixon.

I read about this when it was first published on the Huffington Post, but what got me to take a more detailed look was that a person who works where I volunteer also volunteers for a group that advocates it, and I'm presumptious enough to believe that my slight education in economics might be of use to her.

Also, the current Canadian Minister who would be in charge of working with the provinces to implement a program like this is a former economics professor and Laval University department head named John Yves Duclos, who as an economics professor also wrote an academic paper outlining the potential pros and cons of Mincome for the Quebec government.

WOTR

Quote from: 136 or 142 on April 16, 2016, 01:42:22 PM
There wouldn't be any unemployment insurance, Mincome would replace all these income supports.
Interesting idea.  I suppose I like the idea because I have seen it work (bear with me...)

AISH (assured income for the severely handicapped) is somewhat similar.  It pays a small amount (honestly, too little) and gives medical and other benefits.  As the person works, it continues.  For the first few thousand they do not cut AISH at all.  In order to provide an incentive to try to make more, they start cutting it (not dollar for dollar), but they do cut the amount paid until at a predetermined level, they remove AISH (very scary for those who make it here, as it is VERY hard to get it back if you have "proven" you can work... Sometimes the person is only suited to one job, sometimes in three months they have a breakdown...)  If AISH (or in this case, the guaranteed income) were left in place and available I think it would encourage people to try.

Now, that is the disabled, but I can see it working as an incentive to gain employment to "normal" folks as well...

pate

Anyone that thinks Ms. Kensington(sp) is as hawt as Desmond Serv's her guests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBHKVAs85Ko

-or-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boS4e-VKslQ

...

Well, isn't that speshul? Mr. Me?  anyone?

ediot: neheww

TigerLily

Starting my chant/mantra: Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!!! C'mon New York. Join in!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfRQ_CY9Wdk

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: TigerLily on April 18, 2016, 08:33:02 PM
Starting my chant/mantra: Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!!!

He's got the birds vote! It's just too bad none of them are registered voters.  ;) :P

TigerLily

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on April 18, 2016, 08:38:08 PM
He's got the birds vote! It's just too bad none of them are registered voters.  ;) :P
Damnable voter i.d. laws  ;)

the_peeve

Winning New York was very important. It didn't happen.

VtaGeezer

Quote from: TigerLily on April 18, 2016, 08:39:54 PM
Damnable voter i.d. laws  ;)
Just shows what sheep many voters were back in the day.  They voted as they were told by the union or the local machine; with whom almost everyone had a friend or relative that relied on it for their job.  I had an uncle who was an undertaker on the S Side of Chicago.  He was also a ward heeler for Mayor Richard Daley Sr..  He got a monthly check for being a city street car inspector 20 years after Chicago retired the last street car.

Watching Bernie collapse has been the best political thing I've witnessed since all the hope and change in '08. I am so loving watching him and supporters go down in flames.

His base is nothing but a cult of idiots who he's sucking every dollar he can out of and the marks have no clue. Watching him crash and burn in New York has slowly made me feel a little better about the American populace.

Dank is what he was born to do.

Juan

Dammit, I was looking forward to a bunch of free stuff.

VtaGeezer

Quote from: VoteQuimby on April 20, 2016, 01:46:02 PM
Watching Bernie collapse has been the best political thing I've witnessed since all the hope and change in '08. I am so loving watching him and supporters go down in flames.

His base is nothing but a cult of idiots who he's sucking every dollar he can out of and the marks have no clue. Watching him crash and burn in New York has slowly made me feel a little better about the American populace.
Sanders didn't collapse.  He ran into the Clinton Machine in NY.  Closed primary; indies couldn't vote. No party change withing six month of the election. NYC voter rolls coincidentally "purged".   They didn't choose to live NY because they liked the climate. The Clintons are grifters who've made mockery of American electoral process, but we've accepted this f'ing 18th Century shit electoral process for so long that we think its honest and honorable.  It's like a religion cult. David Dinkens was right next to HMH last night when she was giving her speech; David fucking Dinkens.  Case closed. This election is going to be an inflection point for America.  The millenials may be pussies, but they know they're being had.  They're going to vote for Trump just to bring the system down.

henge0stone

Quote from: VtaGeezer on April 20, 2016, 05:28:13 PM
Sanders didn't collapse.  He ran into the Clinton Machine in NY.  Closed primary; indies couldn't vote. No party change withing six month of the election. NYC voter rolls coincidentally "purged".

yeah the closed primaries is what got him really. People who want change in the political system the most are usually independents because they don't like or follow the normal party lines. Denying these people the right to vote is another thing that hurts grass roots candidates. The last chance to change your party was oct 2015 way before Bernie was taking off. There is no reason why one can not change party affiliation within a week of the vote or some sensible time. Primaries are becoming more and more important now that the party elites have so much power.

My county was one of the many Bernie counties so at least I have that to feel good about. 

TigerLily

Quote from: henge0stone on April 20, 2016, 09:01:25 PM
yeah the closed primaries is what got him really. People who want change in the political system the most are usually independents because they don't like or follow the normal party lines. Denying these people the right to vote is another thing that hurts grass roots candidates. The last chance to change your party was oct 2015 way before Bernie was taking off. There is no reason why one can not change party affiliation within a week of the vote or some sensible time. Primaries are becoming more and more important now that the party elites have so much power.

My county was one of the many Bernie counties so at least I have that to feel good about.
No matter where his campaign stands, I will vote for him in June.  If nothing else he will be a great political gadfly to the Corporate Democrats and should have enough power to influence Hillary and the Democratic platform

( Amy )

Quote from: TigerLily on April 23, 2016, 05:15:39 PM
No matter where his campaign stands, I will vote for him in June.  If nothing else he will be a great political gadfly to the Corporate Democrats and should have enough power to influence Hillary and the Democratic platform


He's already massively changed the political dialogue surrounding this election, but I've pretty much decided that I'm not voting for Hillz if she gets the nom. I just can't bring myself to vote for her. Just feels like a violation of personal ethics. I think I'll vote Jill Stein before I'll vote for HRC.

I see Bernie caught right now between his public commitment to the Dem party just as a candidate in this primary and the option of running independent with Jill come November.
I don't think she'd be opposed. Bernie could take the general that way. Wish we had some polling around this model, though.

Amy, it's a weak-sauce argument, but a non-vote for HRC is a vote for whatever excrement the RNC puts forth.  Are you willing to risk four years of Trump or Cruz policy?

VtaGeezer

Quote from: TigerLily on April 23, 2016, 05:15:39 PM
No matter where his campaign stands, I will vote for him in June.  If nothing else he will be a great political gadfly to the Corporate Democrats and should have enough power to influence Hillary and the Democratic platform
I think Sanders will be marooned in Democratic Socialist obscurity by Dem establishment for daring to distress HMH and will fade away. Too bad he was 20 years ahead of his time.

( Amy )

Quote from: West of the Rockies on April 23, 2016, 06:21:12 PM
Amy, it's a weak-sauce argument, but a non-vote for HRC is a vote for whatever excrement the RNC puts forth.  Are you willing to risk four years of Trump or Cruz policy?

It is a scary thought.

Like I said, wish we had more polling surrounding that model so we'd know if a third candidate like Bernie on the Jill Stein ticket could even work. I think it's too late, as they say on TYT, to ~whisper of a dream~ now for the dem nomination. It would take a goddamn miracle and I don't think Bernie is seriously going to get the superdelegates. He'd probably have to win every primary from here on out by a landslide. Pennsylvania will probably be split, as well as California so I don't see that happening either.


This is something that bothers me. I don't want to wake up to a president who is going to limit women's reproductive rights, turn back LGBT or workers rights, and a thousand other arguments including crucial SCOTUS appointments. Life isn't perfect and it isn't fair sometimes. I like Bernie,  but even with all his promises, without a congress working with him, it's all meaningless.If he doesn't get the nomination, I won't take my toys and go home and leave my future to a dimwit. I'll vote for the person whom I can trust to best represent my interests and protect my rights. This is too important an election to sit home, and it won't go unnoticed by the Democratic party how much Sanders has changed the political landscape. The infighting between the Sanders and Clinton camps is depressing as hell.

( Amy )

Quote from: Unscreened Caller on April 23, 2016, 06:42:11 PM
This is something that bothers me. I don't want to wake up to a president who is going to limit women's reproductive rights, turn back LGBT or workers rights, and a thousand other arguments including crucial SCOTUS appointments. Life isn't perfect and it isn't fair sometimes. I like Bernie,  but even with all his promises, without a congress working with him, it's all meaningless.If he doesn't get the nomination, I won't take my toys and go home and leave my future to a dimwit. I'll vote for the person whom I can trust to best represent my interests and protect my rights. This is too important an election to sit home, and it won't go unnoticed by the Democratic party how much Sanders has changed the political landscape. The infighting between the Sanders and Clinton camps is depressing as hell.

There's that too.

But exactly how different would it be under Clinton?

Quote from: ( Amy ) on April 23, 2016, 06:44:15 PM
There's that too.

But exactly how different would it be under Clinton?

I don't know Amy, but I'd rather her than Trump or Cruz. I think the party has gotten the Sanders message.

( Amy )

Quote from: Unscreened Caller on April 23, 2016, 06:47:16 PM
I don't know Amy, but I'd rather her than Trump or Cruz. I think the party has gotten the Sanders message.

But will that message fade come January?

Will people still be excited enough to participate so vigorously in political discourse and hold her accountable, or will it die with the Sanders campaign if he doesn't get the nom?

I see the same thing happening with Trump if the RNC establishment somehow keeps him out of the nom, or he doesn't win the general.

And I doubt people will really be rioting. It overestimates the attention span of the voters. I think if Clinton gets the nom and gets elected, we'll all be back to business as usual, with the occasional social justice movement here and there not getting enough media coverage to matter much on the national scale. People are angry now but I don't see people having the energy to stay angry when there's no campaign to cover.

( Amy )

Quote from: Unscreened Caller on April 23, 2016, 06:47:16 PM
I don't know Amy, but I'd rather her than Trump or Cruz. I think the party has gotten the Sanders message.

Another thing is, we now have enough data from social media analytics to know just exactly how much non-MSM really affects the electorate.

Lastly, this election has revealed major exploits in social media platforms utilized by political campaigns.
It's absolutely possible to manipulate the dialogue and twist groupthink.


TigerLily

Quote from: ( Amy ) on April 23, 2016, 05:56:08 PM

He's already massively changed the political dialogue surrounding this election, but I've pretty much decided that I'm not voting for Hillz if she gets the nom. I just can't bring myself to vote for her. Just feels like a violation of personal ethics. I think I'll vote Jill Stein before I'll vote for HRC.

I see Bernie caught right now between his public commitment to the Dem party just as a candidate in this primary and the option of running independent with Jill come November.
I don't think she'd be opposed. Bernie could take the general that way. Wish we had some polling around this model, though.
I was on the Bernie or Bust train. Then read Trump's website. *shudder* . I will vote for Hillary as a vote against the RNC candidate whoever it is.
Per the Green Party candidate. Much closer to my liking than Hillary. However, remember the Nader fiasco. He took enough votes away from Gore to guarantee Bush II won.
I wish we had viable multiple political parties but that needs to start at the local and regional level not with the President, imo.

VtaGeezer

(Amy) must be a Trump mole to push such a screwball notion.  Maybe Nader could run again too, and be a 2nd drain on HMH's chances.

Quote from: ( Amy ) on April 23, 2016, 06:57:38 PM
But will that message fade come January?

Will people still be excited enough to participate so vigorously in political discourse and hold her accountable, or will it die with the Sanders campaign if he doesn't get the nom?

I see the same thing happening with Trump if the RNC establishment somehow keeps him out of the nom, or he doesn't win the general.

And I doubt people will really be rioting. It overestimates the attention span of the voters. I think if Clinton gets the nom and gets elected, we'll all be back to business as usual, with the occasional social justice movement here and there not getting enough media coverage to matter much on the national scale. People are angry now but I don't see people having the energy to stay angry when there's no campaign to cover.

Amy, I think what's happening is great. It's really up to Bernie's supporters and everyone else interested in progressive ideals, if he isn't nominated and if Hillary is and she wins, to hold her feet to the fire after the election. The one thing that excites me about this election is how energized people are. When I voted Tuesday in our general elections there were long lines, something I haven't seen in quite a while. It's up to  us to keep the momentum going after election day, no matter who wins. And I fervently hope whoever doesn't get the nomination reflects seriously on Ralph Nader and the outcome of that election in terms of invasions, war and financial collapse.

TigerLily

Quote from: ( Amy ) on April 23, 2016, 06:35:52 PM
It is a scary thought.

Like I said,wish we had more polling surrounding that model so we'd know if a third candidate like Bernie on the Jill Stein ticket could even work.  I think it's too late, as they say on TYT, to ~whisper of a dream~ now for the dem nomination. It would take a goddamn miracle and I don't think Bernie is seriously going to get the superdelegates. He'd probably have to win every primary from here on out by a landslide. Pennsylvania will probably be split, as well as California so I don't see that happening either.
As I posted above we may not have polls but we have the Nader Experience.  Imagine if Gore had won. We would have had the first Green president, no Iraq invasion and probably no ISIS

Quote from: VtaGeezer on April 24, 2016, 12:59:42 PM
(Amy) must be a Trump mole to push such a screwball notion.  Maybe Nader could run again too, and be a 2nd drain on HMH's chances.

I don't think she's a mole, VtaGeezer. I'm reading this all over the internet and I've heard it firsthand from some of Sanders' supporters. Maybe it's just emotional reaction, but the consequences of not voting are scary.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod