Sanders transforms into contender, still pitches revolution

[lannarebirth]

The super delegate system was implemented in 1968 by the Democratic Party. The Republican Party also uses it, but to the same extent. Each of these super delegates is chosen and elected. For example in WA state, with the governor and both senators being democrat, they are super delegates. It is interesting that those who take little interest in the political process except periodically, are now offended by those who work their lives for that party, and have, through that hard work, gained positions of responsibility and authority. To those who disagree with the super delegate process, I say get involved, run for a position within your party and, if you don't like the party process work to change it. Complaining from the outside looking in does nothing.

There's nothing in the Constitution about superdelegates. In fact is was crafted such that no one in either branch of Congress could be an "elector". Now I know electors only apply to the actual nationwide vote, but if these people can winnow down the choice of who may be a candidate for president aren't they defacto electors to some extent?

How a political party picks its nominee is not a constitutional issue. It can pick its nominee, as evidenced in history, by any method it chooses. If one disagrees, one can form his/her own party and determine the process, or as Michael Bloomberg is considering doing, just throw your name out there and run on your own.

Can I count on your support Al?

[helpisgood]

The super delegate system was implemented in 1968 by the Democratic Party. The Republican Party also uses it, but to the same extent. Each of these super delegates is chosen and elected. For example in WA state, with the governor and both senators being democrat, they are super delegates. It is interesting that those who take little interest in the political process except periodically, are now offended by those who work their lives for that party, and have, through that hard work, gained positions of responsibility and authority. To those who disagree with the super delegate process, I say get involved, run for a position within your party and, if you don't like the party process work to change it. Complaining from the outside looking in does nothing.

There's nothing in the Constitution about superdelegates. In fact is was crafted such that no one in either branch of Congress could be an "elector". Now I know electors only apply to the actual nationwide vote, but if these people can winnow down the choice of who may be a candidate for president aren't they defacto electors to some extent?

How a political party picks its nominee is not a constitutional issue. It can pick its nominee, as evidenced in history, by any method it chooses. If one disagrees, one can form his/her own party and determine the process, or as Michael Bloomberg is considering doing, just throw your name out there and run on your own.

True, the Constitution does not specify how parties shall nominate their candidates. Nevertheless, the fact remains that, especially since the two major parties so dominate the presidential elections, the superdelegate system is not democratic. I think that superdelegates are de facto electors, assuming that the delegate count is close enough to actually affect a nomination, because we only get two viable choices. Both of whom are thus very likely favored by the party's establishment. Maybe some superdelegates are elected officials, but are they elected to nominate a party's candidate?

Sure, it is good to get involved in civic and political affairs. However, that does not justify having politicians, who make a living in politics, diminish the people's voice in who should be nominated. Many people have jobs outside of politics and many other responsibilities. Why should anyone unhappy with the system be required to join party politics and not be mostly an informed voter.

Oh sure, if you don't like how things are run, just throw your hat in the ring with a billionaire or those supported by billionaires (Sanders not included). It well known that politics is very expensive, even for lower level campaigns. Many people have other lives that they have rightly chosen. I have a better idea. Maybe the party establishment and many other politicians should do their jobs and bring us a government of the people, and not of the billionaires and their paid party leaders.

[chuckd]

@ helpisgood:

You are aware that labor unions in the US are historically some of the largest institutional donors to the political elite?

Nearly all of it to Democrats or liberal causes.

The largest single individual donor is one Tom Steyer who donates exclusively to Democrats...some $75 million in 2014.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

[up2u2]

@ helpisgood:

You are aware that labor unions in the US are historically some of the largest institutional donors to the political elite?

Nearly all of it to Democrats or liberal causes.

The largest single individual donor is one Tom Steyer who donates exclusively to Democrats...some $75 million in 2014.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

I have no problem with Unions supporting Political Party's and also promoting politicians to their members. Unions represent workers and look to negotiate and protect workers pay and safety and uncover where employers are exploiting workers. The wealthy elite donate to political Party's for their own greed and self interest without a thought for others who may be crushed by their little deals. Just stupid Right Wing rhetoric from their big bad scary 'boogie man' list.

This is another key area that Bernie is looking to reform. More worker participation in workplace industrial relations. Workers better represented in wage and entitlement negotiations. In many industries I think Union membership should be compulsory and Union fees paid by the employer. Many employers are so miserable and greedy and run their businesses like prison camps you really need a 'big stick' to sort them out and organise their priorities for them.

[SpokaneAl]

@ helpisgood:

You are aware that labor unions in the US are historically some of the largest institutional donors to the political elite?

Nearly all of it to Democrats or liberal causes.

The largest single individual donor is one Tom Steyer who donates exclusively to Democrats...some $75 million in 2014.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

I have no problem with Unions supporting Political Party's and also promoting politicians to their members. Unions represent workers and look to negotiate and protect workers pay and safety and uncover where employers are exploiting workers. The wealthy elite donate to political Party's for their own greed and self interest without a thought for others who may be crushed by their little deals. Just stupid Right Wing rhetoric from their big bad scary 'boogie man' list.

This is another key area that Bernie is looking to reform. More worker participation in workplace industrial relations. Workers better represented in wage and entitlement negotiations. In many industries I think Union membership should be compulsory and Union fees paid by the employer. Many employers are so miserable and greedy and run their businesses like prison camps you really need a 'big stick' to sort them out and organise their priorities for them.

I am sorry, but all those negatives that you list for those evil corporations apply to unions as well. Unions were absolutely essential back in the day and we should all be very, very appreciative to what they accomplished. Unions truly changed the life of the workers and saved many lives as a result.

Now, however, they are hanging on by a thread and for many unions the only way they can continue to pilfer membership funds and use those millions to purchase their favorite candidates and platforms is via mandatory membership and dues. If unions are so wonderful and accomplish such great things, why aren't people knocking down the doors to join? Instead, mandatory membership via big government force is their only solution.

And, in my opinion, what is really offensive is the unionization of public employees. Unions collect mandatory membership dues, funnel that money to the election campaign of their favorite state or local candidate, and then after that candidate is elected, they and the now officeholder go behind closed doors and negotiate pay and benefits. Who represents the taxpayer in those situations? We know the answer - absolutely no one.

One last point concerning your belief that mandatory employment of union dues should be required. Once again, much like the idea that we just increase the taxes of corporations and all will be well - there is no free lunch. If employers are required to pay union dues, that expense is a cost of doing business and will be reflected in lower employer pay and benefits, unless those costs can be passed on in higher priced goods or services - the same applies when raising corporate taxes. Beware of the law of unexpected consequences.

[helpisgood]

@ helpisgood:

You are aware that labor unions in the US are historically some of the largest institutional donors to the political elite?

Nearly all of it to Democrats or liberal causes.

The largest single individual donor is one Tom Steyer who donates exclusively to Democrats...some $75 million in 2014.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Yeah, okay. I do not belong to the Democratic Party or a labor union. You may want to discuss this point with someone more interested in unions than me.

I may have used the word "billionaires," but I think that especially after Citizens United we all understand big money. Regardless of what labor unions are doing these days, that doesn't affect my point.

My topic was about superdelegates, not labor unions in politics.

Nevertheless, thanks for the interesting info.

[chuckd]

@ helpisgood:

You are aware that labor unions in the US are historically some of the largest institutional donors to the political elite?

Nearly all of it to Democrats or liberal causes.

The largest single individual donor is one Tom Steyer who donates exclusively to Democrats...some $75 million in 2014.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Yeah, okay. I do not belong to the Democratic Party or a labor union. You may want to discuss this point with someone more interested in unions than me.

I may have used the word "billionaires," but I think that especially after Citizens United we all understand big money. Regardless of what labor unions are doing these days, that doesn't affect my point.

My topic was about superdelegates, not labor unions in politics.

Nevertheless, thanks for the interesting info.

OK, talking about super delegates, you might want to check out Wikipedia.

If they are correct, Hillary already has 415 super delegates pledged to her nomination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

[sgtsabai]

I had a good intelligent discussion with a retired US Air Force Vet last night, along with a couple of other people not out on the fringe right wingnut area. Like me, the thought of voting for Hillary makes him want to throw up and he even went so far as to say he would vote for Kasich before Hillary. I won't vote for Hillary, but I absolutely refuse to vote for Republican. Except for the far right wingnut fringe that slimes out of their troglodyte hole on TV sometimes, most American expats have more than one working brain cell. Super-delegates came up and we both agreed, Bernie has a very good chance of winning the peoples nomination, the super-delegates that have already pledged to neocon/neoliberal tool of Wall Street criminals and banksters Hillary, can/will change the outcome. They are not obliged to maintain their "loyalty" (bought and paid for) but can change their minds at will. If they throw the nomination to Hillary look for a real uprising in the Democrat Party and a possible loss in the general election. Bernie can and will beat any of the buffoon, dangerous batshit crazy clown car hands down. As bad as Hillary would be, it would be nothing compared to the demagogue idiot Trump or the dominionists Cruz and Rubio, both of whom are more dangerous in many ways than the duck, oops the Donald.

[thaibeachlovers]

It would be a blessing for America, and indeed the world in general, if Sanders won the presidency. Unfortunately, that is

never going to happen in a country full of people who already call Obama a socialist/communist.

I do not remember the stats, but socialism is better understood and accepted by many more Americans now than it was just a few years ago.

Most Americans still believe the cold war propaganda about socialism and have no idea of what it is or how much it is a part of their daily lives already.

If nothing else, Bernie Sanders has convinced a lot of Americans to at least look at socialism and learn what it is really all about.

Maybe people who like what Obama has done hearing him being called a socialist has had some influence as well?

P.S. The cold war has been over for a while now and we don't need that propaganda in the 21st century !

Socialism promotes laziness and discourages hard work. If you are giving things away, you are just taking from those who work. I suspect a large percentage of the Sander supporters on this forum were less than successful in their careers, and tend to fall into the 47% who pay little to no taxes. There is no logical reason for tax payers to want higher taxes so the slugs of society can continue to receive government handouts.

If Sanders were ever elected, he would do more damage to America than Obama has done. As far as Hillary, she will be lucky if she doesn't end up being a recipient of correctional services.

I disagree with your definition of socialism. I believe socialism is ownership of assets by the state and guaranteed assistance for the disadvantaged, plus things like free basic healthcare ( NOT free GP visits for a cold ). It is NOT a system where lazy yobs get paid to do nothing. Don't work- don't get paid.

IMO the loonie lefties have made socialism into a reeking monstrocity that does seek to give everyone free stuff, but it's not real socialism.

[Jingthing]

Sanders is not a classical socialist as in government ownership of all industries. Some needs are special like health care and he does rightly so want to bring the US into the company of most civilized modern nations offering universal health care. Yes that would be a big deal compared to Obamacare which is welfare for big medical industries. Could he pass that? No way unless there really is a major change in the house and senate. Oh well. Bummer.

[sgtsabai]

I'm a bit confused by your post, or at least your understanding of what Bernie is proposing. He does NOT propose ownership of assets by the state, not in the least. He is NOT a socialist, he is a democratic socialist. He does want guaranteed assistance for the disadvantaged, wants free health care, health care is a right not a privilege for the rich. You are exactly right about getting paid, don't work, except for no jobs to be had, disability etc. you don't get paid. He, I and many, many others want controlled capitalism, where the system isn't rigged for the 1% and the worker continues to get screwed. You really lost me and the plot with the loonie lefties. You vacillate back and forth and seem to confuse socialism with communism, not at all the same. One thing is clear, Bernie must define clearly and without ambiguity exactly what his democratic socialism is. For some it won't matter, they are so indoctrinated in right wing lies and propaganda they will not hear the truth.

[sgtsabai]

RE: Superdelagates..... http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/print/democratic_partys_superdelegate_system_threatens_bernie_20160211

[Jingthing]

Basically he needs to sell the U.S. on being more like Europe. Mazel tov with that. Most Americans like our flavor of "exceptionalism" even when the details of that are exceptionally bad.

The worse parts are --

Over dependence on cars

Health care too expensive and not full access

Too many people incarcerated

Income inequality

Higher education cost and access

Gun culture

Race divisions

Wars being fought mostly by the underclass

Obesity

[sgtsabai]

Well Jingthing, pretty hard to disagree. I'm a little leery of the gun culture part but I think I understand what you are getting at. I was a gun owner, professional hunter and frankly I could have never owned enough of all kinds. America does have a big problem with nut cases running around with weapons and shooting up schools. Oops almost forgot, idiots walking around showing off their semi-auto rifle. I blame most of that on lack of psychiatric care and/or facilities. Thank you saint Ronnie. Actually it isn't the selling, it is the explaining, ok maybe the same. Yea, America is exceptional, our government has managed to piss off half the world in the quest for empire. Tick tock, tick tock.

[Publicus]

Socialism is government ownership of the means of transportation, communication, production. Socialism can be governed by means that are democratic or authoritarian. Typically, the closer one gets to 100 percent government ownership the more dictatorial the government becomes or is.

Bernie Sanders is not a socialist in the classic application of the system. Neither are the vast majority of people who support him.

Bernie is a democratic socialist in the United States. Look to Western Europe to get some rational sense of where Bernie wants the USA to go. That is, easy on the government ownership part but pedal to the metal on economic equity. For instance, no one working full time can be poor.

Right wingers and other Republicans around here need to get this straight. Others who are legitimate opinion leaders need to comprehend who and what Bernie Sanders is as they seek to present him to others.

[Jingthing]

Well Jingthing, pretty hard to disagree. I'm a little leery of the gun culture part but I think I understand what you are getting at. I was a gun owner, professional hunter and frankly I could have never owned enough of all kinds. America does have a big problem with nut cases running around with weapons and shooting up schools. Oops almost forgot, idiots walking around showing off their semi-auto rifle. I blame most of that on lack of psychiatric care and/or facilities. Thank you saint Ronnie. Actually it isn't the selling, it is the explaining, ok maybe the same. Yea, America is exceptional, our government has managed to piss off half the world in the quest for empire. Tick tock, tick tock.

Yeah gun culture in the USA goes way back:

[lannarebirth]

Basically he needs to sell the U.S. on being more like Europe. Mazel tov with that. Most Americans like our flavor of "exceptionalism" even when the details of that are exceptionally bad.

The worse parts are --

Over dependence on cars

Health care too expensive and not full access

Too many people incarcerated

Income inequality

Higher education cost and access

Gun culture

Race divisions

Wars being fought mostly by the underclass

Obesity

C'mon Jing, get on the bus!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-ferguson/the-tragedy-of-hillary-cl_b_9218908.html?

[thaibeachlovers]

I'm a bit confused by your post, or at least your understanding of what Bernie is proposing. He does NOT propose ownership of assets by the state, not in the least. He is NOT a socialist, he is a democratic socialist. He does want guaranteed assistance for the disadvantaged, wants free health care, health care is a right not a privilege for the rich. You are exactly right about getting paid, don't work, except for no jobs to be had, disability etc. you don't get paid. He, I and many, many others want controlled capitalism, where the system isn't rigged for the 1% and the worker continues to get screwed. You really lost me and the plot with the loonie lefties. You vacillate back and forth and seem to confuse socialism with communism, not at all the same. One thing is clear, Bernie must define clearly and without ambiguity exactly what his democratic socialism is. For some it won't matter, they are so indoctrinated in right wing lies and propaganda they will not hear the truth.

except for no jobs to be had,

Singapore had the right idea- no work in the private sector so cut grass for the government till you can find a proper job, but no dole for the lazy.

You vacillate back and forth and seem to confuse socialism with communism

Not at all. Communism is ownership of everything by the government and a controlled economy ( a simplistic version anyway ), while socialism ( small s ) is ownership of NATIONAL assets ( not everything ) and help for the disadvantaged, but not control of private enterprise, nor a controlled economy ( though that is apparently what we have now with central bank interference in the economies of the west ). The loonie lefties have ruined socialism with their desire to steal from the rich to give it to the lazy and stupid, which gives the right wing the excuse to promote unfettered capitalism.

[thaibeachlovers]

Basically he needs to sell the U.S. on being more like Europe. Mazel tov with that. Most Americans like our flavor of "exceptionalism" even when the details of that are exceptionally bad.

The worse parts are --

Over dependence on cars

Health care too expensive and not full access

Too many people incarcerated

Income inequality

Higher education cost and access

Gun culture

Race divisions

Wars being fought mostly by the underclass

Obesity

He wants WHAT?????? Read about the seven sisters and what France did and does to Africa, never mind BP, Shell and Belgium in the Congo. Europe has nothing to be proud of. Anyway, it is about to implode with an insane economic farce and an unwillingness to face reality about the "refugee" crisis.

[Jingthing]

In terms of the domestic social programs, dude. Like free college in Germany, the national health in the U.K., the better public transport many places, etc. Not suggesting Europe is perfect or that that the USA doesn't have it's special strengths.

[thaibeachlovers]

In terms of the domestic social programs, dude. Like free college in Germany, the national health in the U.K., the better public transport many places, etc. Not suggesting Europe is perfect or that that the USA doesn't have it's special strengths.

You need to wise up about the British health system. It is unaffordable and will no doubt be changed sometime in the future to become, probably, more like the US system. As for free universities, I'm opposed to giving free higher education to a bunch of spoiled losers that want to qualify in media studies while spending 3 or 4 years in a drunken stupor. Free for those that want to do a real job like nurses or scientists perhaps.

[Jingthing]

In terms of the domestic social programs, dude. Like free college in Germany, the national health in the U.K., the better public transport many places, etc. Not suggesting Europe is perfect or that that the USA doesn't have it's special strengths.

You need to wise up about the British health system. It is unaffordable and will no doubt be changed sometime in the future to become, probably, more like the US system. As for free universities, I'm opposed to giving free higher education to a bunch of spoiled losers that want to qualify in media studies while spending 3 or 4 years in a drunken stupor. Free for those that want to do a real job like nurses or scientists perhaps.

That's daft. No nation in their right mind would want to copy the U.S. system.

[thaibeachlovers]

In terms of the domestic social programs, dude. Like free college in Germany, the national health in the U.K., the better public transport many places, etc. Not suggesting Europe is perfect or that that the USA doesn't have it's special strengths.

You need to wise up about the British health system. It is unaffordable and will no doubt be changed sometime in the future to become, probably, more like the US system. As for free universities, I'm opposed to giving free higher education to a bunch of spoiled losers that want to qualify in media studies while spending 3 or 4 years in a drunken stupor. Free for those that want to do a real job like nurses or scientists perhaps.

That's daft. No nation in their right mind would want to copy the U.S. system.

You don't know British politicians then. They went along with Tony's desire to be GW's poodle without much dissent. Daft they are.

[up2u2]

In terms of the domestic social programs, dude. Like free college in Germany, the national health in the U.K., the better public transport many places, etc. Not suggesting Europe is perfect or that that the USA doesn't have it's special strengths.

You need to wise up about the British health system. It is unaffordable and will no doubt be changed sometime in the future to become, probably, more like the US system. As for free universities, I'm opposed to giving free higher education to a bunch of spoiled losers that want to qualify in media studies while spending 3 or 4 years in a drunken stupor. Free for those that want to do a real job like nurses or scientists perhaps.

If it is unaffordable now, wait till you adopt a US style unaffordable health care system. The US has the most expensive health care system in the developed world with the worst patient outcomes in the developed world. You need to 'wise up' and stop listening to Corporate UK balderdash.

Publicly funded tuition fees are not free. They are an investment made by taxpayers in the best and brightest youth and it is not open to all takers. Students must show an ability in higher learning and no you cannot do a tuition free course in macramé. It is reserved for the sciences, medicine, engineering, legal etc. Investment is made in the trade based sector as well like plumbers, electricians, welders, builders, farmers, butchers, bakers and candle stick makers. Only your tuition is paid. Your lifestyle is funded by the student.

If you want to see students signing up to University Party Central taking out 'loans' for worthless Degrees that is actually the American system not a publicly funded education investment system.

[SpokaneAl]

In terms of the domestic social programs, dude. Like free college in Germany, the national health in the U.K., the better public transport many places, etc. Not suggesting Europe is perfect or that that the USA doesn't have it's special strengths.

You need to wise up about the British health system. It is unaffordable and will no doubt be changed sometime in the future to become, probably, more like the US system. As for free universities, I'm opposed to giving free higher education to a bunch of spoiled losers that want to qualify in media studies while spending 3 or 4 years in a drunken stupor. Free for those that want to do a real job like nurses or scientists perhaps.

If it is unaffordable now, wait till you adopt a US style unaffordable health care system. The US has the most expensive health care system in the developed world with the worst patient outcomes in the developed world. You need to 'wise up' and stop listening to Corporate UK balderdash.

Publicly funded tuition fees are not free. They are an investment made by taxpayers in the best and brightest youth and it is not open to all takers. Students must show an ability in higher learning and no you cannot do a tuition free course in macramé. It is reserved for the sciences, medicine, engineering, legal etc. Investment is made in the trade based sector as well like plumbers, electricians, welders, builders, farmers, butchers, bakers and candle stick makers. Only your tuition is paid. Your lifestyle is funded by the student.

If you want to see students signing up to University Party Central taking out 'loans' for worthless Degrees that is actually the American system not a publicly funded education investment system.

I do respect and admire your enthusiasm but find all your answers so simplistic and created through rose colored glasses. The truth is that the UK is having great difficulty in continuing to fund its free medical care, and that has nothing to do with "corporate UK balderdash."

And concerning your point on what students will study if offered free tuition, those countries - Denmark is an example - are experiencing exactly that - people are going to school on the taxpayers dime with no plans other than to enjoy the free ride, and these countries are now experiencing a shortage of engineering, math degree etc because the majority of students go for the softer degrees.

I am sure you will find fault with the analysis in the links below, but I believe they are worth considering.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/20/should-college-be-free/the-problem-is-that-free-college-isnt-free

http://www.businessinsider.com/free-universities-and-no-student-loan-debt-is-hurting-denmarks-economy-2014-6

[helpisgood]

RE: Superdelagates..... http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/print/democratic_partys_superdelegate_system_threatens_bernie_20160211

Thanks! It was informative. Its link to Paste Magazine's article went in more detail, and here is that link:

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/after-sanders-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html

[up2u2]

In terms of the domestic social programs, dude. Like free college in Germany, the national health in the U.K., the better public transport many places, etc. Not suggesting Europe is perfect or that that the USA doesn't have it's special strengths.

You need to wise up about the British health system. It is unaffordable and will no doubt be changed sometime in the future to become, probably, more like the US system. As for free universities, I'm opposed to giving free higher education to a bunch of spoiled losers that want to qualify in media studies while spending 3 or 4 years in a drunken stupor. Free for those that want to do a real job like nurses or scientists perhaps.

If it is unaffordable now, wait till you adopt a US style unaffordable health care system. The US has the most expensive health care system in the developed world with the worst patient outcomes in the developed world. You need to 'wise up' and stop listening to Corporate UK balderdash.

Publicly funded tuition fees are not free. They are an investment made by taxpayers in the best and brightest youth and it is not open to all takers. Students must show an ability in higher learning and no you cannot do a tuition free course in macramé. It is reserved for the sciences, medicine, engineering, legal etc. Investment is made in the trade based sector as well like plumbers, electricians, welders, builders, farmers, butchers, bakers and candle stick makers. Only your tuition is paid. Your lifestyle is funded by the student.

If you want to see students signing up to University Party Central taking out 'loans' for worthless Degrees that is actually the American system not a publicly funded education investment system.

I do respect and admire your enthusiasm but find all your answers so simplistic and created through rose colored glasses. The truth is that the UK is having great difficulty in continuing to fund its free medical care, and that has nothing to do with "corporate UK balderdash."

And concerning your point on what students will study if offered free tuition, those countries - Denmark is an example - are experiencing exactly that - people are going to school on the taxpayers dime with no plans other than to enjoy the free ride, and these countries are now experiencing a shortage of engineering, math degree etc because the majority of students go for the softer degrees.

I am sure you will find fault with the analysis in the links below, but I believe they are worth considering.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/20/should-college-be-free/the-problem-is-that-free-college-isnt-free

http://www.businessinsider.com/free-universities-and-no-student-loan-debt-is-hurting-denmarks-economy-2014-6

Publicly funded education and health care system is very simple and straight forward nor are they free. Can Right Wing Conservative media shills spread misinformation? They sure can. Never ending mountains of it. If Corporate UK can get their greedy little hands on health and education they stand to make billions of dollars in profits. The one thing that always stops them is UK people look at the US system and shout a resounding 'Have you lost your mind a US health and education system, no way in this world'.

The UK could look at not getting involved in wars, Corporations actually paying their share of tax, less corporate welfare, higher taxes on the wealthy, reducing intergenerational wealth transfer, better trade deals that just don't benefit multi national corporations. Of course you wont read any of those suggestions in the New York Times or Business Insider will you.

Will the wealthy elite and Corporate America put up a fight. You better believe they will. Read all about it in the New York Times and Business Insider.

[NeverSure]

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

[up2u2]

fo

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

post-176603-14552412504822_thumb.jpg

They don't actually. It is a society investing in their values and principles. It is a society working together to create a better society and a more fair and equitable society where all can share in the benefits and wealth of a society rather than just a few who have 'gamed the system' for their own benefit and don't contribute back to the society that have enabled their success.

I find your MEMES childish.

[Johpa]

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

Sanders is not a socialist anymore than Obama was a socialist back in the early days of his presidency when "socialist" became one of the many code words for the "n-word". It is thrown at Sanders in a similar ad hominen fashion. And Sanders is not quite arguing, he remains a bit muddled, for taking money away from people who earned it but from people who are paying themselves far more than they are worth to society and whose income, for the most part, is technically "unearned" income as that is the majority of the income of the 1%. And that is the income that the classical economists like Adam Smith wished the economy to be free of and is largely what they meant by a free market, free of unearned income accumulating to the rentiers. Sanders needs to bring on board some of the better known heterodox economists who can argue more eloquently and more precisely than he why there needs to be an economic revolution against the orthodoxy, not to mention the falsehoods, of neo-liberal economics. Simply arguing for more progressive taxation is not enough.