• 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!

Economic Bill of Rights-from the Sander camp.

FinnFox said:
Video was about Bernie, so it's kinda relevant xD
Click to expand...

Its a debate forum, not youtube. Make an argument based on what you see in the video, with original thoughts. If whoever made that video wants to come here and do the same, they are free to do so.
 
jonny5 said:
Its a debate forum, not youtube. Make an argument based on what you see in the video, with original thoughts. If whoever made that video wants to come here and do the same, they are free to do so.
Click to expand...

Ok then. In that video Bernie is asking are you truly free when you go bankrupt by staying at hospital, etc. But somehow people see Bernie's policies as evil plans (like this "Venezuela" narrative). Bernie really care about US, that's the rare thing about him. But I don't think he's going to win 2020. In case he win, I'm just glad, because there isn't bad intentions / motives. This clown Trump is still going strong, no matter how stupid he is, base is like group of blind sheep's. I'm 100% sure that Bernie has more empathy and he is also competent leader. No childish rage tweets or other stupid stuff. But hey, people in US like foul mouths and those who are lying all the time - that's why Trump is perfect fit xD
 
FinnFox said:
Ok then. In that video Bernie is asking are you truly free when you go bankrupt by staying at hospital, etc. But somehow people see Bernie's policies as evil plans (like this "Venezuela" narrative). Bernie really care about US, that's the rare thing about him. But I don't think he's going to win 2020. In case he win, I'm just glad, because there isn't bad intentions / motives. This clown Trump is still going strong, no matter how stupid he is, base is like group of blind sheep's. I'm 100% sure that Bernie has more empathy and he is also competent leader. No childish rage tweets or other stupid stuff. But hey, people in US like foul mouths and those who are lying all the time - that's why Trump is perfect fit xD
Click to expand...

What Bernie fails to mention is that hospitals are not free. Someone has to build the building, buy the machines, pay the workers. If I am forced to pay for that so YOU can avoid going bankrupt, you may be free, but I am not.

So yeah, Bernie is wrong, and so is forced socialism. True freedom means everyone is free and equal, not just the majority.
 
TheEconomist said:
The problem is that (1) all of this requires some people to pay for others and (2) makes them absolute obligations that must be pursued irrespective of the costs. It doesn't mean you should make it so that no involvement at all is the rule, but rather that caution should be exercised. It is not inconsequential to extend credit indiscriminately or outright pay for someone else to get something. Everything comes at a cost.
Click to expand...

If everyone works, everyone pays taxes, and thus, no one is "paying for someone else."
 
jonny5 said:
What Bernie fails to mention is that hospitals are not free. Someone has to build the building, buy the machines, pay the workers. If I am forced to pay for that so YOU can avoid going bankrupt, you may be free, but I am not.

So yeah, Bernie is wrong, and so is forced socialism. True freedom means everyone is free and equal, not just the majority.
Click to expand...

And then when you get cancer and need those machines paid for by tax payer dollars, I'm sure you'd be so upset and refuse their service because gosh darnit, you earned it all yourself.
 
Obscurity said:
And then when you get cancer and need those machines paid for by tax payer dollars, I'm sure you'd be so upset and refuse their service because gosh darnit, you earned it all yourself.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt need them paid by tax dollars in this hypothetical. I work. I purchase insurance to cover low risk, high cost expenses.
 
jonny5 said:
I wouldnt need them paid by tax dollars in this hypothetical. I work. I purchase insurance to cover low risk, high cost expenses.
Click to expand...

No reason for you to have to pay for it, and pay more for it, and recieve worse care for it.
 
Obscurity said:
No reason for you to have to pay for it, and pay more for it, and recieve worse care for it.
Click to expand...

Someone has to pay for it, and when thats bureaucrats itll cost more AND be worse. Why do you think healthcare would be different than any other product and magically be more affordable and better quality when govt is running it?
 
Obscurity said:
If everyone works, everyone pays taxes, and thus, no one is "paying for someone else."
Click to expand...

You're neglecting a nontrivial detail: does everyone pay the same taxes and receive the same benefits? If the answer is no, there are resources taken from some to be given to others, even if everyone is working. It's the reason why they call such policies redistributive policies: the whole point is to take from some to give to others.
 
Obscurity said:
And then when you get cancer and need those machines paid for by tax payer dollars, I'm sure you'd be so upset and refuse their service because gosh darnit, you earned it all yourself.
Click to expand...

You hypothesize a scenario to try to pin down someone else for a presumed degree of dishonesty, but you picked the wrong scenario. A libertarian in the US today has no choice but to live under a welfare state. As a consequence, when things go well, he is very much forced to pay up. I don't see why he should have any qualm taking advantage of the benefits when the proverbial s*hit hits the fan.

The relevant question is not what he would do given existing social arrangements, but which society he would choose. If you catch a libertarian struck by cancer, without a fortune to his name and voting Sanders into office, then you have good reasons to claim he's a hypocrite. You know with near certainty how this man would choose behind Rawls' veil because he only votes to the right when the sky is blue. If he didn't know in advance he would be the poor man struck by cancer without a dime, he would prefer to live in a society where these people are given a chance to live through welfare programs. The point Rawls' made is that welfare programs are a mandatory society-wide insurance program against selected problems. The proper condition for choosing insurance is ex ante, hence the veil. You cannot get your money back if nothing bad happens and you can jump in when you're in trouble. It's easy to say "let everyone pay for their own things" when you're not at the bottom of this scheme. It's similar to canceling your insurance plan ex post facto. The only way you can tell if someone is committed to libertarian ideals is to see how they vote once they really need the help. Likewise for people on the left. If you turn into a billionaire and suddenly become inspired by libertarianism, that could warrant an accusation of hypocrisy.
 
jonny5 said:
Someone has to pay for it, and when thats bureaucrats itll cost more AND be worse. Why do you think healthcare would be different than any other product and magically be more affordable and better quality when govt is running it?
Click to expand...

Because it's more affordable and better quality basically everywhere in the modern western world, where we're the only idiots saying our system is better, but when ranked, no one follows our model, and we place 11th out of 11 in recent studies of 11 different health systems?

Or the older study where we are what, 37th?

Our system is a joke and a fraud.
 
Rickeroo said:
I agree with all of them, with one condition. All able bodied people must be forced to work from age 18 to 70.
Click to expand...

That would be the right to a good job.
You don't need to force most people, so unless you are arguing for 100% perfection, it can safely be understood that most people will TAKE those good jobs when they are available.

Are you actually saying that "you agree with all of them provided that everyone suddenly become perfect?"

And by the way, why are we suddenly advancing retirement to seventy? What's the extra five years supposed to accomplish?
And with regard to age eighteen does this mean all higher education is now abolished?
 
Waddy said:
Well, we sure ain't gonna get there with a 60% (working age) labor participation rate. But, man oh man, socialism sure sounds good if you think someone else is gonna pay for it. I stlill maintain that what it means to be an American is a willingness to game the system for all you can get. Sanders is just the poster child.
Click to expand...

Wait a second, Trump's been telling us we have three percent unemployment, the lowest in history.
So now you're saying that those unemployment numbers are fudged.

Sure, get more people BACK into the workforce. No one in their right mind would object to that, but that means that those historically low unemployment figures are fudgy cherry picked statistics with no real meaning.
 
Waddy said:
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Quite the academic response, too. But my post wasn't a complaint about socialism, it was a critique.
Click to expand...

Let it be said that we do well always and everywhere to CRITIQUE not only Bernie's version of what he calls "democratic socialism" but also all forms of capitalism, socialism and any other ideology or economic system.

And while we're critiquing all of that let us also bear in mind the reality that the USA will continue on its capitalist path for the next few centuries no matter who is in power, because the most that one old man can expect is that he might shift us a few steps in the other direction.
Thus our capitalism might once again get a couple of minor tweaks that evens the playing field for the working man.
But we're not going to turn socialist.
If that was ever going to happen, it would have happened in the 1930's.

And concepts like the "economic bill of rights" are largely ASPIRATIONAL.
And as something to aspire to, I think it sounds damn good.
It may take a while to get all the way there, but we can start with things like healthcare and education.
 
Waddy said:
Not even his fellow Democrats believe his rhetoric. Look at his poll numbers.
Click to expand...

Ehhh...a few of his fellow Democrats are lifting a little bit here and there, from his platform.
Surely you've noticed.
 
KLATTU said:
Josh Miller-Lewis
✔
@jmillerlewis
We need a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights:

- The right to health care
- The right to education
- The right to a good job
- The right to affordable housing
- The right to a secure retirement
- The right to a clean environment#DemocraticSocialism


comments?
Click to expand...
Most of those "rights" are already available to people willing to work for them. But honestly, these aren't rights, they're just excuses for the democratic socialists to seize more power an control over other people's lives.

Edited to add: these are far too nebulous to be taken seriously. For instance what comprises a "good job"? Is there a level where "the right to education" terminates? or are we all entitled to PhD's?
 
Last edited:
Waddy said:
Bernie used to have outstanding numbers anong Democrats. Now he is basically on a par with the rest. His message no longer resonates. He won't be president.
Click to expand...

Disagree. I'm noticing quite a few contenders appropriating some of what he wants.
So some of his message resonates very strongly.

An old man with sentimental attachments to a iconoclastic image of the romantic past might not resonate but that doesn't mean people aren't hearing the ideas and nodding amongst themselves.
Frankly, I just want a doddering 80-something again, but he does have some good ideas.
He probably won't be president but he's not going to be forgotten.
 
Obscurity said:
Because it's more affordable and better quality basically everywhere in the modern western world, where we're the only idiots saying our system is better, but when ranked, no one follows our model, and we place 11th out of 11 in recent studies of 11 different health systems?

Or the older study where we are what, 37th?

Our system is a joke and a fraud.
Click to expand...

Those studies are a fraud.
 
TheEconomist said:
The problem is that (1) all of this requires some people to pay for others and (2) makes them absolute obligations that must be pursued irrespective of the costs. It doesn't mean you should make it so that no involvement at all is the rule, but rather that caution should be exercised. It is not inconsequential to extend credit indiscriminately or outright pay for someone else to get something. Everything comes at a cost.
Click to expand...
Maybe, instead of terming these as "rights", it should be phrased as "the right to pursue . . ." each of these items.
 
jonny5 said:
Also, Sanders is making up words. Whats democratic socialism? Where the majority votes to redistribute wealth or control industries? We already have that. As opposed to socialism socialism where everyone agrees or authorities dont give you a choice?

He also said Trump supports corporate socialism which is another nonsense phrase. Socialism is redistributing wealth and controlling industry to achieve social equality. How would that even work on groups of people? Try to make all corporations equal? Clearly Trump isnt doing that.
Click to expand...

Corporate socialism and corporate welfare are not nonsense they are the reality. It means that Govt. privatizes profits while socializing losses. There are abundant examples of this behavior thru subsidies. tax breaks and tariffs. In sugar alone the Govt. price controls and tariffs cost consumers over 3 billion $ a year.


These market control methods work out very well for the approximately 4,700 United States sugar growers who benefit from them. For millions of US consumers, taxpayers, and workers however, the costs of these policies far outweigh any benefit. Analysts estimate that US consumers and businesses pay anywhere from $3.5 to $4.5 billion in higher costs due to the government’s inflation of sugar prices.
Click to expand...


US Sugar Policy: Not So Sweet for the Economy | Americans for Tax Reform

In summary: the US government policy of allowing falling wages and salaries to be compensated by rising social welfare, to maintain increases in personal income and consumption expenditure, is the back-door to corporate socialism – where corporate profits are boosted by lower wages as a hidden subsidy from government. This leads to a wealth transfer from taxpayers to the rich, who are the majority shareholders of large corporations. This source of wealth inequality is not due to capitalism originating from wealth creation processes of economic production, but from wealth transfer from taxpayers by government intervention. Corporate socialism is a source of the wealth inequality in America.
Click to expand...
Corporate Socialism and Hollowing of America | A Scientific Economic Paradigm ProjectA Scientific Economic Paradigm Project
 
Last edited:
" Ideas'.

More Free stuff. How deep!
 
KLATTU said:
Josh Miller-Lewis
✔
@jmillerlewis
We need a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights:

- The right to health care
- The right to education
- The right to a good job
- The right to affordable housing
- The right to a secure retirement
- The right to a clean environment#DemocraticSocialism


comments?
Click to expand...


Not sure if these are all "rights", but it's a good list of things to do to avoid your country turning into a ****hole... :shrug:
 
jonny5 said:
Those studies are a fraud.
Click to expand...

No, they clearly arent and only a partisan hack would say such utter bull****. The wait time argument is a failure the cost argument is a failure and now the our system is better arfoment is a failure.

You lot have nothing left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom