Based on his issues page and what I'm seeing on facebook, Bernie Sanders would be great as the Unicorn King of the Big Rock Candy Mountain or some other part of Fantasy Land. I don't know that I've seen him suggest anything that would ever even make it to the floor in congress, let alone pass a vote. He seems to have sponsored a lot of fluffy bills that look great as stupid clickbait headlines -- "Bernie Sanders just proposed a bill to make college free!" or something similarly empty and vapid. Proposing is easy, all the more so when you're trying to convince young morons that you can solve all their problems by making other people pay for them.

And that is the sole note of his campaign. He meets every issue with "We should tax the rich and corporations more!" My favorite is from his issues page on veterans:

"Instead of cutting benefits for the men and women who have served our country, we should ask the most profitable corporations and the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share."

Never mind that none of the other candidates have recommended cutting benefits, we must be made aware of the stark choice we are facing: either force all our vets to be homeless, or increase taxes on the wealthy!

I think that we could probably fix certain problems facing us by raising certain taxes that, yes, would mostly affect the wealthy. But I don't think it's a cure-all that needs to be pursued with single-minded zeal, and that is exactly how Bernie appears to view it.

9/22/2015 12:32:04 PM

but he doesn't even need congress for a lot of what he will do when elected

9/22/2015 12:42:29 PM

Quote :

"Never mind that none of the other candidates have recommended cutting benefits"

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-paul-ryan-is-dead-wrong-to-propose-cuts-in-social-security-and-disabled-veterans-benefits
http://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/19356/how-1-4-billion-in-budget-cuts-will-impact-veterans/
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/benefits/veterans/2015/04/22/texas-senate-panel-oks-education-benefit-cuts-for-vets-children/26195967/

9/22/2015 1:06:24 PM

Quote :

"So @ 200K you take home $5K every two weeks. Neglecting bonuses that someone at that income level probably gets. A home in Santa Monica costs $800K for a condo, $1.2 million for a small house. "

Because everyone who works in LA has to live in Santa Monica? Again, that's a lifestyle choice. If I was going to buy a house, it certainly would not be in Santa Barbara where I work but next door in much more affordable Goleta or possibly just down the road in Carpenteria. Because non-profit/teacher salary and lifestyle choices.

9/22/2015 3:07:13 PM

Santa Monica or anywhere inside a 30 min commute.

9/22/2015 3:32:31 PM

Such is life in LA. If you have a 200k income, regardless of where you live in America, I don't think you have a right to complain about traffic.

9/22/2015 3:41:02 PM

Quote :

"And that is the sole note of his campaign. He meets every issue with "We should tax the rich and corporations more!" "

I actually greatly prefer this math, its almost refreshing, over the more typical: "We should cut taxes (on the order of $400 Billion a year, of which 50% of the gains will accrue to the top 1%) and it'll be revenue neutral because . . . . . . . .THE ECONOMY WILL START GROWING AT 4%/year. Trust me guyz, this is bound to work.

At the very least, Bernie is honest that his ideas are going to cost money, which is more than we can say for nearly everyone else running right now (I'm actually not sure how Hillary is doing on this).

9/22/2015 5:05:20 PM

It's not relevant to me if Bernie can pass his agenda necessarily, we just need to get people talking about it and seriously investigating it. You don't meet a revolution by merely revising the status quo, which is what conservatism inherently clings to.

Can we supplant the broader welfare state with UBI? Possibly, but we need more studies to know.

Can we provide free higher ed like Georgia and some other states do, but on a national level? Maybe, but we need clearer measurements. There's precedence for both of these, but they would be changes as big or bigger than ACA.

I'd rather Bernie push an infeasible, but ambitious agenda for 4yrs than see Fiorina or Trump or Jeb push more corporatist nonsense or xenophobia for 4 or 8 years.

9/22/2015 11:33:20 PM

i want them to do absolutely fucking nothing, because then at least they won't fuck anything up worse.

I don't really like any of the GOP contenders; there are a few I'd tolerate enough to vote for, although they don't have any chance, I don't think...but I'd be fine with Kasich or someone maintaining the status quo and having a useless, vanilla, but not destructive Presidency for a term or two. There's no hope for anything better in the foreseeable future, so that's the "win" I hope for.

Of the Dems, Clinton, whom I loathe, would be my pick...She'd probably bomb the shit out of some places and have some domestic politics I wouldn't like, but I don't think she'd do any irreversible harm.

[Edited on September 22, 2015 at 11:47 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on September 22, 2015 at 11:47 PM. Reason : ]

9/22/2015 11:45:26 PM

^ So who that's not running would you actually like, or even love, for the job?

9/23/2015 12:35:56 AM

Quote :

"someone maintaining the status quo and having a useless, vanilla, but not destructive Presidency for a term or two"

Name 1 president that this could possibly describe. The were definitely some do-nothing administrations, but they were all arguably worse (like the few that came just before Lincoln).

Quote :

"She'd probably bomb the shit out of some places and have some domestic politics I wouldn't like, but I don't think she'd do any irreversible harm."

How does bombing other places NOT do harm? Sounds like the domestic policy of both Bush Sr and Jr.

9/23/2015 12:43:21 AM

synapse --

What's the point of those links?

Paul Ryan isn't running for President. He also doesn't appear to have been "cutting" veteran benefits so much as trying to make them increase less in the future. This kind of twisting of budgetary language is annoying and dangerous. "Cutting" should not be synonymous with "not growing as fast as they were but still actually growing pretty good."

The second link wasn't about actual cuts to benefits, it was cuts to the President's budget proposal.

The third link was about Texas, which is admittedly shitty, but the state of Texas is not a presidential candidate.

Quote :

"It's not relevant to me if Bernie can pass his agenda necessarily, we just need to get people talking about it and seriously investigating it."

Which is why it's good that Bernie is running for president. I'm glad of that, because it is making people think about things. I just desperately do not want him to win.

[Edited on September 23, 2015 at 10:32 AM. Reason : ]

9/23/2015 10:29:39 AM

Quote :

"What's the point of those links?"

Unless I missed something, Bernie wasn't claiming other candidates were proposing cutting benefits.

[Edited on September 23, 2015 at 10:41 AM. Reason : More of a statement in general]

9/23/2015 10:37:36 AM

It would be funny if he ran as a third party candidate against Hillary

9/23/2015 1:22:30 PM

Unless I missed something, Bernie never actually referred to anybody cutting them, which begs the question, "why day - indeed why highlight - the idea that cutting them would be bad?" The answer to which is "pandering and straw man argument," at which he excels.

9/23/2015 5:52:44 PM

Chomsky weighs in on Bernie

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/history-doesnt-go-in-a-straight-line/

9/23/2015 6:06:47 PM

^^I would be fine if it was a 4 candidate race...Trump, Sanders, Hillary, and a real Republican. Would likely result in a runoff which could lead to preferential balloting in the future, which would lead to a wider spread of political views being represented in general elections.

9/23/2015 6:07:30 PM

Quote :

"^ So who that's not running would you actually like, or even love, for the job?"

Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson would have been great from last time. They're the 2 who immediately come to mind.

Quote :

"How does bombing other places NOT do harm? Sounds like the domestic policy of both Bush Sr and Jr."

Umm, I wasn't presenting it as a good thing. I basically said "She'd do Bad Thing A and Bad Things X, Y, and Z, but probably nothing that would screw us for decades to come." How did you possibly take my statement to mean the opposite?

9/23/2015 6:23:04 PM

^^^

Quote :

"Suppose that Sanders won, which is pretty unlikely in a system of bought elections. He would be alone: he doesn’t have congressional representatives, he doesn’t have governors, he doesn’t have support in the bureaucracy, he doesn’t have state legislators; and standing alone in this system, he couldn’t do very much. A real political alternative would be across the board, not just a figure in the White House. It would have to be a broad political movement. In fact, the Sanders campaign I think is valuable — it’s opening up issues, it’s maybe pressing the mainstream Democrats a little bit in a progressive direction, and it is mobilizing a lot of popular forces, and the most positive outcome would be if they remain after the election. It’s a serious mistake to just to be geared to the quadrennial electoral extravaganza and then go home. That’s not the way changes take place. The mobilization could lead to a continuing popular organization which could maybe have an effect in the long run."

[Edited on September 23, 2015 at 9:56 PM. Reason : ]

9/23/2015 9:56:38 PM

^^ "She will do ____, but probably nothing that would screw us for decades to come."

If your _____ is "bomb the shit out of some places," I'm pretty sure we'd be screwed for decades to come (as we are now for the bombing the shit out of places we have done over the last couple of decades)

9/24/2015 3:10:04 AM

Yeah, from recent history, "bombing the shit out of some places" results in more than a short term shitstorm

9/24/2015 3:55:52 AM

Quote :

"If your _____ is "bomb the shit out of some places," I'm pretty sure we'd be screwed for decades to come (as we are now for the bombing the shit out of places we have done over the last couple of decades)"

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

One, how does it follow bombing == 10 years of bombing. Also, if we are bombing now and she bombs how does that make things worse rather than the same?

9/24/2015 9:22:30 AM

uh, have you heard of ISIS?

[Edited on September 24, 2015 at 9:37 AM. Reason : also he said screwed, not bombing]

9/24/2015 9:30:28 AM

So it follows that any bombing we do results in ISIS?

9/24/2015 11:28:32 AM

^ has this ever not been the cause? There was a study of counterterrorism techniques recently, and it showed that bombings tend to make things worse (which should be obvious-- when you kill even a single innocent person, or blow up a school or water reservoir or power plant, you make the civilian lives that much worse for decades).

If there were some magical way that we only could bomb facilities that served no other purpose but to house terrorists, and that 100% of the people were vile scum, and all the local population knew it, then we should bomb these people to our heart's content.

The adage of "you catch more flies with honey" does seem to be reinforced by the studies on the issue.

[Edited on September 24, 2015 at 12:19 PM. Reason : ]

9/24/2015 12:15:42 PM

Quote :

"Are you being purposefully obtuse?"

Either I am completely misunderstanding theDuke866's point, or you are confusing yourself through your own thought process.


The original statements were A) she'll probably bomb the shit out of some places and B) she wouldn't do anything that would cause irreversible harm. I'm saying that those two statements cannot both be true.

9/24/2015 12:28:09 PM

^ I more took it to mean domestically, and that since we already do it it won't make things worse. Same is not worse.

^^ I agree bombing makes terrorists "Antifragile" but its incremental. Saying any bombing a single term president will do is worse than what we have is misleading to the point I took away.

9/24/2015 12:38:56 PM

c'mon man, it's pretty obvious from the context that they are not making that claim. go read the discussion again, you've gotten yourself completely confused.

9/24/2015 2:07:50 PM

Each subsequent mistake is worse than the previous one because you shpuld learn from your mistakes. A new president coming in doing the same stupid shit WOULD do irreversible harm. It would solidify the idea that america is evil matter thw circumatances or who is in charge.

Quote :

"theres an old saying in tennesee i know its in texas its prolly in tennesee. Fool me once shame on me but when you fool me cant get fooled again"

9/24/2015 9:33:46 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, from recent history, "bombing the shit out of some places" results in more than a short term shitstorm"

Does it?

Not that long ago Hillary's husband bombed Serbia, Iraq, and Sudan with no massive long-term negative effects. And not too much longer before that we were militarily very active in Grenada, Panama, etc. There isn't a Grenadan al Qaeda or a Serbian ISIS.

Which is not to say I'm pro-bombing things willy-nilly, but it does not follow that bombing a place leads to decades of our having to eat shit about it.

9/25/2015 4:49:38 AM

I feel like the people who were bombed would probably disagree with you.

9/25/2015 8:11:22 AM

No, they wouldn't. Nothing I said there is false or subjective. Bombing Serbia did not create an ISIS-like organization, and the repercussions for the US have been negligible. These aren't facts that a Serbian person could disagree with, no matter how much the bombings impacted or continue to impact his life.

9/25/2015 8:17:04 AM

I was thinking that "no massive long-term negative effects" in your statement also applied to those bombed.

9/25/2015 8:27:20 AM

Quote :

"likely from people that make $200K in California but still can't afford a home""

Why did you make up this number? 200k is nowhere near the "1%" many dream of "taxing the shit out of".

Also, the less you make, the more you will benefit from social programs like health and education. Saving doesn't become as much of a burden when you don't have to factor in your child's tuition.

9/26/2015 8:21:30 PM

Umm, kinda. 1% is more like $400k, but $400k still isn't crazy money.

Not that there's anything wrong with crazy money to begin with. The problem isn't that anyone makes too much money, or that even those in the 0.1% aren't taxed at a high enough marginal rate. The problem is that at a certain point (generally beyond the 1% level), the bulk of income stops being in the form of a paycheck.

the seven-figure crowd doesn't need to be hammered at a drastic tax rate...they just need to actually pay their marginal rate. In any case, it's not a 1% problem and it's not a marginal tax rate problem.

9/27/2015 1:11:14 PM

Quote :

"why did you make up this number? 200k is nowhere near the "1%" many dream of "taxing the shit out of". Also, the less you make, the more you will benefit from social programs like health and education. Saving doesn't become as much of a burden when you don't have to factor in your child's tuition."

Wasn't it the 2008 election where they kept going on about $250K and taxing them in the same breath? That's about the line where people start getting huffy and jealous--even if its not a lot in places its " easy " to make that.

9/27/2015 3:27:03 PM

Quote :

"$400k still isn't crazy money"

What the hell fantasy world are you people living in? My town has a cost-of-living rate 146% higher than the US average (http://www.bestplaces.net/cost_of_living/city/california/santa_barbara), yet I do just fine making less than 50k per year...because I have made the appropriate decisions on how to live.

What kind of self-indulging lifestyle can you possibly be living that 400k isn't crazy good money?

9/27/2015 9:19:10 PM

Who cares what you make, how happy with it you are, or how well you live off of it? Who cares if someone else wants to make and spend a shitload and be "self-indulgent?" The latter isn't your business, and neither has nothing to do with anything.

$400k is a lot of income; I'd sure as hell like to make that. Hell, I wish I made half of that. $400k isn't crazy money, though. It's very upper-middle class, or maybe "working rich". You still are very much constrained by money: maybe you can have a beach house and a BMW or Porsche, but you aren't in the Ferrari or Bentley and mansion set, or anywhere near the luxury yacht set, and you're damn near impoverished relative to the donor class, the power brokers, the billionaires, etc.

More to the point, what's important isn't any of that anyway, unless you're a jealous little bitch. What's important is that, at $400k/year, you still work for a paycheck just like everyone else, and pay taxes like everyone else. In fact, you pay your ass off in taxes; you're in the hardest hit group by taxes, because you make enough to get the worst hammering from the IRS, but not enough (or more accurately, not in the right ways) to avoid taxes.

We shouldn't be worried about the $400k crowd. We should be worried about, I don't know, maybe the $750k or $1M crowd. The real answer is that it's not really tied to any certain level of income, but to income derived from capital gains/dividends. I think that ought to be protected at a lower rate up to a certain point, but higher past a certain point. Maybe tax it at 20% (or even lower it back down to 15%?) up to, I don't know, $413,200 where the top income bracket begins, and then tax it at 39.6% like the top bracket for ordinary income.

(although I'd really like to eliminate a couple of brackets and simplify things, but yeah...that's the idea)

[Edited on September 27, 2015 at 11:02 PM. Reason : ]

9/27/2015 11:02:06 PM

Quote :

"Who cares what you make, how happy with it you are, or how well you live off of it? Who cares if someone else wants to make and spend a shitload and be "self-indulgent?" The latter isn't your business, and neither has nothing to do with anything."

Exactly. It's like my man Jay-Z says, "What you eat don't make me shit - where's the love?"

People have this attitude that someone you don't know and will probably never meet somehow owe you something because they make "a lot" of money. It's just odd to me and doesn't make any kind of moral sense.

9/27/2015 11:39:59 PM

Quote :

"People have this attitude that someone you don't know and will probably never meet somehow owe you something because they make "a lot" of money. It's just odd to me and doesn't make any kind of moral sense."

It actually makes perfect sense. I think the lapse you're having is imagining a typical American feeling this way. In reality, theres barely enough resources to go around for everyone on this earth. As long as there is scarcity induced hunger, thirst and other resource-oriented suffering, it can partially be blamed on those who have more than they need.

Those who have much more than they need should definitely feel moral guilt for all of the homeless and hungry right in their own city.

You are working under the notion that everyone could live that lifestyle when in reality it would take 5 Earths just to live the typical American lifestyle.

Quote :

" but you aren't in the Ferrari or Bentley and mansion set, or anywhere near the luxury yacht set, "

those aren't constraints.

Quote :

"maybe you can have a beach house"

if you have two houses, you are causing someone to be homeless and its not really your fault. Its simply because you have too much money and someone else doesn't have enough. Its society's fault for allowing these circumstances to occur.

This is the basic concept of opportunity cost applied at the societal level. The resources society spent on your beach house could have provided homes to a few homeless families.

[Edited on September 28, 2015 at 12:23 AM. Reason : we all carry the burden of guilt]

9/28/2015 12:21:58 AM

Quote :

" In reality, theres barely enough resources to go around for everyone on this earth. As long as there is scarcity induced hunger, thirst and other resource-oriented suffering, it can partially be blamed on those who have more than they need."

That's not true though, we don't have a scarcity issue at the moment, we have a distribution/location issue. It's not that American's have too much food, it's that Somalians don't have enough, and further they don't have the means or the opportunity to get more for reasons completely unrelated to American's having a bunch. If we only consumed what we needed the Somalians would still be starving.

At this point, it's not a zero sum game. Eventually we'll get to he point that scarcity is truly the issue, but we're a long way off from that point. Fortunately technology is making things like farming every more efficient and manufacturing ever cheaper, so we'll still be able to stave population related scarcity for a long, long time. We'll probably even solve some of the distribution issues in the the very near term once things like 3d printing and matter compilation technology experience breakthroughs.

[Edited on September 28, 2015 at 12:44 AM. Reason : sfsd]

9/28/2015 12:42:53 AM

Quote :

"maybe you can have a beach house and a BMW or Porsche, but you aren't in the Ferrari or Bentley and mansion set"

This is just a poor attempt at trolling, right?

Quote :

"Who cares what you make, how happy with it you are, or how well you live off of it? Who cares if someone else wants to make and spend a shitload and be "self-indulgent?" The latter isn't your business, and neither has nothing to do with anything."

You're right, it is none of my business. So when people who make 950% more than me find something to complain about, I shouldn't have to hear it.

Quote :

"It's not that American's have too much food, it's that Somalians don't have enough, and further they don't have the means or the opportunity to get more for reasons completely unrelated to American's having a bunch. If we only consumed what we needed the Somalians would still be starving."

And what about the people starving in Los Angeles?

Quote :

"People have this attitude that someone you don't know and will probably never meet somehow owe you something because they make "a lot" of money. It's just odd to me and doesn't make any kind of moral sense."

I don't think rich folks owe me anything. I'm questioning the notion that rich people are "struggling." You can't afford to own a beach house in Santa Monica? Then don't buy one. There are people less than 10 miles away who don't know how to pay for their next meal.

9/28/2015 3:26:31 AM

Quote :

"if you have two houses, you are causing someone to be homeless"

Absolutely and demonstrably false. Homelessness is not caused by a lack of homes, nor even of reasonably priced homes.

There are whole neighborhoods in Detroit and elsewhere filled with empty houses that could be given away to the homeless, but it turns out that in most cases it won't make a difference because a roof won't make them any less crazy or addicted to drugs -- and for many of the homeless and most of the long-term homeless, these are the root problems.

Quote :

"And what about the people starving in Los Angeles?"

The problem with any hunger issue in the US isn't lack of food, or rich people having more/better food. We throw out more than enough food in America to keep everybody's belly full. The problem is people who are unwilling or mentally unable to take advantage of the numerous means by which they can be fed.

9/28/2015 6:36:16 AM

Quote :

"I don't think rich folks owe me anything. I'm questioning the notion that rich people are "struggling." You can't afford to own a beach house in Santa Monica? Then don't buy one. There are people less than 10 miles away who don't know how to pay for their next meal. "

$200K isn't rich, but as you point out it isn't struggling. All I was saying to start this whole conversation off, is that in Santa Monica and other expensive areas there are tons of people that own homes who could not afford them if Bernie comes in and says we need to tax families making $200K a year. That just seems easy to someone making $50K a year. Why not start at the very top and move downwards until we get enough revenue? $10 million a year taxes at 40%-50%. Not enough? $5 million a year. etc.

In most cases $200K allows you to have contingency plans if you're smart, but most people buy BMW's and houses that are on the line of what they can afford. This is America, a nation run on credit at all income levels.

9/28/2015 10:58:27 AM

Quote :

"That's not true though, we don't have a scarcity issue at the moment, we have a distribution/location issue."

This is still a scarcity issue. Transportation requires resources. Resources many people don't have. Unless you're saying delivering food to everyone is impossible, its a scarcity issue. I just ate fresh, wild-caught salmon from Norway for dinner last night. Distribution is clearly not an issue.

Quote :

"If we only consumed what we needed the Somalians would still be starving."

Are you talking about food in isolation or consumption in general? We could easily eliminate hunger on a global level for about .02% of our GDP or 30 billion dollars. Saying its completely unrelated is the only way for the rich to feel good about themselves while letting others suffer.

Quote :

"Homelessness is not caused by a lack of homes, nor even of reasonably priced homes. "

Drug abuse is more often a result of homelessness than a cause of homelessness. Drug abuse can lead to loss of job, which means the person can no longer afford a home but affordability again is a matter of scarcity. If there was a home for everyone, then affording a home wouldn't matter, everyone would just have one. You can't just go live in a home in detroit because someone owns it. That owner likely owns dozens of homes and is waiting for someone to buy him a rolex before they can live in one.

Quote :

"Absolutely and demonstrably false."

Don't argue FACTS unless you're going to reference actual data.
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf
http://www.nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/hh-1003.pdf

Substance abuse is also an issue of healthcare scarcity which is another argument for higher taxes and better public healthcare. In the end, every social problem comes back to providing better social services. Services that are essentially being hoarded by the rich.

Giving someone a home first is the best way begin solving other problems in their life.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/give-homeless-houses-its-working-in-utah/

9/28/2015 11:56:49 AM

9/28/2015 12:35:21 PM

Quote :

"In the end, every social problem comes back to providing better social services. Services that are essentially being hoarded by the rich. "

I don't agree that the rich are hoarding those services (or I assume you mean they are holding on to their money and as a result the services don't happen). I know several very wealthy people who take care of the poor, homeless, and hungry. There are plenty of millionaires who do their part for society.

I think the biggest issue is allocation of the funding already available. The amount of money being spent on drug enforcement and the imprisonment of low-level crimes (that in some cases shouldn't even be considered crimes), or how much more we put into our military and defense spending than we actually need to...this could all be going to helping people who really need it.

9/28/2015 1:56:09 PM

Quote :

"Don't argue FACTS unless you're going to reference actual data"

Funny, I've posted the first two links in other threads because they support my point. You claim, "Drug abuse is more often a result of homeless than a cause of homelessness." Which seems to be at odds with the third paragraph from your first link:

Quote :

"Substance abuse is often a cause of homelessness. Addictive disorders disrupt relationships with family and friends and often cause people to lose their jobs. For people who are already struggling to pay their bills, the onset or exacerbation of an addiction may cause them to lose their housing. A 2008 survey by the United States Conference of Mayors asked 25 cities for their top three causes of homelessness. Substance abuse was the single largest cause of homelessness for single adults (reported by 68% of cities)"

The second link is a little more conservative, but it still doesn't provide much support for your claims, though it lends plenty to mine:

Quote :

"Researchers estimate that as many as half of all people who are homeless have diagnosable substance use disorders at some point in their lives. Alcohol abuse is more common, occurring in almost half of all omeless, single adults; drug abuse occurs in approximately one-third of this group. "

Neither link deals much with mental health issues. These certainly overlap with drug abuse to some extent, but not 100%. Likewise drug and alcohol abuse no doubt overlap some, but not entirely. In either case, using either set of statistics, we can safely estimate that a majority of the long term homeless are drunk, high, or crazy.

Note that being drunk, high, or crazy doesn't mean that we should respond to the homeless with "Fuck 'em, let 'em freeze." But it does explain why simply giving homeless people houses doesn't fix their problem: their issues go deeper than "There aren't enough free houses lying around."

Your third link is a little bit more compelling, though the Housing First strategy isn't the cure-all the article makes it out to be. Utah is not exactly a teeming hotbed of homelessness, crime, or substance abuse in any case, and it also has a very robust religious/charitable society aside from anything the government does.

At best, it can be said that giving all the homeless people free houses will have positive impacts on some homeless people. Which is very different from, "If you have two houses, you are causing somebody to be homeless," a statement which really is demonstrably false. There is not a housing shortage in the United States. Nor, of course, is the amount of housing fixed.

You keep throwing around the word "scarcity." I'm not sure you know what it means. Even if everybody in the world was a good little commie who shared everything, there would still be scarcity. All resources are finite, and human desires are infinite.

9/30/2015 1:46:01 PM

Quote :

"I don't agree that the rich are hoarding those services (or I assume you mean they are holding on to their money and as a result the services don't happen). I know several very wealthy people who take care of the poor, homeless, and hungry. There are plenty of millionaires who do their part for society. I think the biggest issue is allocation of the funding already available. The amount of money being spent on drug enforcement and the imprisonment of low-level crimes (that in some cases shouldn't even be considered crimes), or how much more we put into our military and defense spending than we actually need to."

So wait, pick a side. All of the above is straight out of the libertarian and libertarian-Republican playbook...

which is violently at odds with Bernie Sanders.

Quote :

"We could easily eliminate hunger on a global level for about .02% of our GDP or 30 billion dollars."

I find that hard to believe. If a measly $30B would end world hunger, then Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Zuckerberg, George Soros, Bloomberg, the Walton and Hilton families, and the Koch brothers would have already done it.

Hell, for that matter, if you just waved the magic checkbook and fixed it, the U.S. would have probably long since tackled the majority of it in order to grow, solidify, and stabilize our strategic interests and sphere of influence.

9/30/2015 7:40:55 PM

^30 billion is only $10 per person in poverty. hah

9/30/2015 9:08:27 PM