• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Sanders Debunked

M

Manshoon11

Hi,

I created this youtube video to debunk Sanders' false message. I feel he is the most dangerous candidate, as he wants to dramatically increase spending and taxes. His policy recommendations are NOT based on facts, and I feel it is important to at least inform people with the truth.

Please give me a chance and share it.



Succinctly...... The poor are NOT getting poorer. Measurements that Sanders and others use just falsely indicate this. The Census Bureau measurement of poverty DID indicate an accurate measurement of a poor quality of life in 1970; that is no longer the case. Employers to a large degree gave cash-only benefits. The same is true for the government. The census bureau measurement of poverty and traditional measurements of income only focus on taxable income. Unfortunately, they never updated these measurements as employers and the government gave increasingly more benefits that were non-taxable.

Ask yourself three questions to prove or disprove my assertion. Sanders claims that the poor are getting poorer, so from 1970 until today:

1. Shouldn't fewer of the poor have vehicles today?
2. Shouldn't the poor be hungrier today?
3. Shouldn't the poor have less things, in general?

The "poor" have far more vehicles, calories in their stomachs, and stuff in general than they did 40 years ago.

Tim Worstall agrees with my premise

in the old days what the poverty line was really measuring is the number of people who were poor after the things we did to reduce poverty. Today that same poverty line is measuring the number of people who are poor before all the things we do to reduce poverty.

and

It’s worth noting that the four major poverty reduction programs are Medicaid, SNAP, EITC and Section 8 vouchers. And we include none of them, not one single groat of that money spent, in our current estimates of poverty.


Thanks
 
You mischaracterize Mr. Sanders when you focus on the poor. Sanders is saying that the middle class is economically stagnant while the rich are taking an ever increasing slice of national income. That's all true and undeniable.
 
Bernie Sanders is dangerous to the status quo where the top 10% own as much as the bottom 84%. That is true. Your "facts" however are wrong.

1. The poor are getting poorer, count inflation and the cost of living.
2. The poor are hungrier today as food stamp programs are being slashed across the board.
3. The poor have much less than the average citizen, this is undeniable.

I will throw in two more actual facts.... Poverty was measured by the ability to afford 2 meals for a family of 4. These calculations were based on the price of food. The measurement of poverty today? The cost of housing, which has dramatically risen.

51% of ALL working people in the United States made $33k or less.

Bernie is dangerous to the status quo, and so are the majority of working people.
 
I suspect this was a drive by slam. The guy made the one post, and didn't come back.
 
If it comes down to Sanders or Trump I'm going to have to think real hard about who I'm going to vote for.

I recommend the Democrats settle on Mrs. Clinton as their only hope.

How many must feel the same way about her!
 
Bernie Sanders is dangerous to the status quo where the top 10% own as much as the bottom 84%. That is true. Your "facts" however are wrong.

1. The poor are getting poorer, count inflation and the cost of living.
2. The poor are hungrier today as food stamp programs are being slashed across the board.
3. The poor have much less than the average citizen, this is undeniable.

I will throw in two more actual facts.... Poverty was measured by the ability to afford 2 meals for a family of 4. These calculations were based on the price of food. The measurement of poverty today? The cost of housing, which has dramatically risen.

51% of ALL working people in the United States made $33k or less.

Bernie is dangerous to the status quo, and so are the majority of working people.

If it comes down to Sanders or Trump I'm going to have to think real hard about who I'm going to vote for.

I recommend the Democrats settle on Mrs. Clinton as their only hope.

How many must feel the same way about her!


The problem with Clinton is that she is already pre-purposed to serve the interests of big banks and other special interests, it's the only way she has gotten to where she is. Sanders gives the public a glimpse of hope for a change with regards to the current cannibalization we have seen of the middle class, and his ideals (although a bit too altruistic at times) are the opposite of the extreme demagoguery that is seething from Trump. Honestly I don't see how you brought the two into the same comparison other than their obvious common endgame. Sanders is a plausible candidate, and his fervor has revealed the sentiments of many Americans (as has Trump sadly), whether or not he is probable I feel is due to the way that money runs the show, it will be unlikely for him to get the party backing and popular support that the Hillary train already has going. If she could start reigning in the unbridled corporate influences in D.C. and abroad, then she would most definitely have my vote.
 
I think you wanted to be 'concise' as opposed to 'succinct'. Also Tim Worstall establishes his argument which you have used as a premis your argument, he does not agree with your 'premise' nor does he know of your existence.

Both you and Mr. Worstall obviously have not seen the actual poverty that is in our country. The logic presented by both of you is greatly flawed, not only due to the fact that there are many important factors (e.g inflation, cost of living, wage stagnation, etc.) left out of both arguments, but you also fail to acknowledge the fact that the programs you listed are not panaceas to poverty. Medicaid really only works in the states that allow individuals to use it, many states have Medicaid programs that are severely limited in who they help, especially with conservative states holding back on expansion. Section 8 vouchers are not easy to get either, in fact, everyone of these programs are impacted by the real facts that poverty and income inequality are rampant in our country despite what you and Mr. Worstall believe. Also, never place all of your faith in one article written by a single "contributor" to a conservative financial media outlet like Forbes, especially when discussing income disparities. Food for thought.
 
If it comes down to Sanders or Trump I'm going to have to think real hard about who I'm going to vote for.

I recommend the Democrats settle on Mrs. Clinton as their only hope.

How many must feel the same way about her!

If Sanders somehow manages to snag his party's nomination, the Republicans are royally f***ed come the general election. You don't beat Santa Claus! At least if the GOP goes with Trump, Cruz, or Pau it will be interesting.

Hillary is a total disaster, and even Pataki could beat her!
 
You mischaracterize Mr. Sanders when you focus on the poor. Sanders is saying that the middle class is economically stagnant while the rich are taking an ever increasing slice of national income. That's all true and undeniable.

It's always true in bull markets as the wealthy have a ton more in equities and the extremely wealthy are often compensated in equity. So obviously in bear markets the rich get poorer a lot faster than the poor.

Partisans will obviously give credit to their party for the strong stock market while simultaneously decrying how much wealthier the wealthy are getting. Total irony considering the two are inextricable.
 
It's always true in bull markets as the wealthy have a ton more in equities and the extremely wealthy are often compensated in equity. So obviously in bear markets the rich get poorer a lot faster than the poor.

Partisans will obviously give credit to their party for the strong stock market while simultaneously decrying how much wealthier the wealthy are getting. Total irony considering the two are inextricable.
The nation has had bull markets before. The period after World War II through the 1960s was a huge bull market, yet income inequality was controlled through government policies that taxed wealth and supported high wage middle class jobs, as illustrated by the Piketty and Saez graph.

pe-range.jpg
.....
4345662201_2d3f6b3795.jpg
 
The nation has had bull markets before. The period after World War II through the 1960s was a huge bull market, yet income inequality was controlled through government policies that taxed wealth and supported high wage middle class jobs, as illustrated by the Piketty and Saez graph.

pe-range.jpg
.....
4345662201_2d3f6b3795.jpg

It would be very inconvenient for your partisanship to acknowledge any other anomalous aspects of the postwar expansion, so I suspect you won't.
 
It would be very inconvenient for your partisanship to acknowledge any other anomalous aspects of the postwar expansion, so I suspect you won't.

Perhaps you can elaborate on what you are talking about -- because I have no idea what you are driving at.

As Paul Krugman said:
The Great Compression: The middle-class society I grew up in didn’t evolve gradually or automatically. It was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. As the chart shows, income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich losing ground while working Americans saw unprecedented gains. Economic historians call what happened the Great Compression, and it’s a seminal episode in American history.

Middle class America: That’s the country I grew up in. It was a society without extremes of wealth or poverty, a society of broadly shared prosperity, partly because strong unions, a high minimum wage, and a progressive tax system helped limit inequality.
 
Perhaps you can elaborate on what you are talking about -- because I have no idea what you are driving at.

Obviously.

Even if I was so silly as to grant you and Paul Krugman the notion that liberal Democrat policies single-handedly created the postwar expansion in the US, the fact is the options available to firms in 2020 are not at all similar to those that were available in 1946. The global economy is extremely different.
 
Obviously.

Even if I was so silly as to grant you and Paul Krugman the notion that liberal Democrat policies single-handedly created the postwar expansion in the US, the fact is the options available to firms in 2020 are not at all similar to those that were available in 1946. The global economy is extremely different.
In the 1940s and 1950s, it wasn't only liberal Democrats that believed in these policies. These policies were universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans, as evident in the 1956 Republican Platform.

To say that options available to firms in 2020 are less than in the 1940s, I could not disagree more. There are innovations daily. The advent of GPS and smartphones are a testament of what the future holds.
 
In the 1940s and 1950s, it wasn't only liberal Democrats that believed in these policies. These policies were universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans, as evident in the 1956 Republican Platform.

Not relevant to my point.

To say that options available to firms in 2020 are less than in the 1940s, I could not disagree more.

Well then you're agreeing with me, because I didn't say that. The ability and readiness to dodge labor cost-inflating and other anti-business regulations is enormously greater today than in the late forties. Technology and the global economic landscape today compared to then render the comparison invalid. Yet the left wing keeps bringing it up because it's the only time in history we could have experienced that sort of explosive growth regardless of the business-friendliness of our policies.
 
In new shock poll, Sanders has landslides over both Trump and Bush
In new shock poll, Sanders has landslides over both Trump and Bush | TheHill

“In a new McClatchy-Marist poll, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leads Republican candidate Donald Trump by a landslide margin of 12 percentage points, 53 to 41. In the McClatchy poll, Sanders also leads former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) by a landslide margin of 10 points, 51 to 41…….”

If socialist Sanders can swamp Trump and/or Bush does not bode well for the GOP come 2016.
Don’t you think?
 
Socialist is an old RW charge which carried the meaning a person was either a person supporting the state taking your hard earned money to redistribute to others.....and/or money make your taxes increased ......or a suspect communist out to destroy the US government......... and not to be listened to

However today that argument holds little water because over time and better education todays folks have no idea of what socialism is...........and why it is to be considered BAD......

Just look at the large number of youth that comprise Sanders supporters.............seems they find not trouble with Sanders' ideas and/or socialism
 
You mischaracterize Mr. Sanders when you focus on the poor. Sanders is saying that the middle class is economically stagnant while the rich are taking an ever increasing slice of national income. That's all true and undeniable.



but he would tax those not really rich, call them rich, and I bet he wont end corporate welfare...
 
Socialist is an old RW charge which carried the meaning a person was either a person supporting the state taking your hard earned money to redistribute to others.....and/or money make your taxes increased ......or a suspect communist out to destroy the US government......... and not to be listened to

However today that argument holds little water because over time and better education todays folks have no idea of what socialism is...........and why it is to be considered BAD......

Just look at the large number of youth that comprise Sanders supporters.............seems they find not trouble with Sanders' ideas and/or socialism




bernie calls himself a socialist, so theres that...
 
I think you wanted to be 'concise' as opposed to 'succinct'. Also Tim Worstall establishes his argument which you have used as a premis your argument, he does not agree with your 'premise' nor does he know of your existence.

Both you and Mr. Worstall obviously have not seen the actual poverty that is in our country. The logic presented by both of you is greatly flawed, not only due to the fact that there are many important factors (e.g inflation, cost of living, wage stagnation, etc.) left out of both arguments, but you also fail to acknowledge the fact that the programs you listed are not panaceas to poverty. Medicaid really only works in the states that allow individuals to use it, many states have Medicaid programs that are severely limited in who they help, especially with conservative states holding back on expansion. Section 8 vouchers are not easy to get either, in fact, everyone of these programs are impacted by the real facts that poverty and income inequality are rampant in our country despite what you and Mr. Worstall believe. Also, never place all of your faith in one article written by a single "contributor" to a conservative financial media outlet like Forbes, especially when discussing income disparities. Food for thought.

The numbers say otherwise.

Forbes Welcome
 
Sanders thinks global warming is our biggest threat and that it causes terrorism. There is noting more to discuss. The guy is off the rails and his supports are delusional. After the e!section they should be rounded up and deported.
 
Sanders thinks global warming is our biggest threat and that it causes terrorism. There is noting more to discuss. The guy is off the rails and his supports are delusional. After the e!section they should be rounded up and deported.

I should be deported?

Sanders is right about Climate change and terrorism. Terrorism's ideally fosters itself where there is strife and it taps into their anger. Syria is a good example. Syria had a civil revolt break out that started all of this. They had good farming that dried up in a drought and because there was a shortage the prices went up. Assad decided to take advantage of these higher prices by exporting food as his people were starving. Sander's position that climate change effects resources and puts people in this scramble for resources... which can and is at the root of building many terrorist movements.
 
Last edited:
bernie calls himself a socialist, so theres that...

I don't think that moniker will mean much, if anything when it's time for people to actually vote. I will say that, without a doubt, Hillary will get the nomination, although a Sanders general election matchup would be much more entertaining. And scary, if he has 1 thing, it's tremendous grassroots support. Him and Trump attract the largest crowds, and you can't deny that.

Now I watched a few youtube videos of his interviews and rallies. It's nearly impossible to come away from them NOT liking the guy's character; he has a top notch personality and is really passionate about the issues he champions. He really has all of his ducks in a row.

Now to the abhorrent things I noticed. He constantly scapegoats the "1%" and boogeyman's them. And these young, idealistic kids cheer when he says that the "billionaire class" are going to pay for all his proposals. I am curious, either Bernie is straight up bearing false witness here or he just doesn't understand economics. It's the working people of this country who are going to have to foot the hefty bill for Bernie's colossal government. Even the poverty-stricken, impoverished here are considered "wealthy" when compared to the rest of the world. This is Bernie's escape hatch. Look for what he doesn't tell you, not what he is ready to say to your face.
 
Back
Top Bottom