• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Vox: Bernie Sanders's tax hikes are bigger than Donald Trump's tax cuts

Status
Not open for further replies.
To go along with this, the estate tax has been described frequently to combat this accumulation of wealth (this was constantly brought up in reference to that Piketty book): http://www.cbpp.org/research/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

Interesting bit:

1-8-15tax_rev3-23-15-f3.png

I have no problem with estate taxes - the recipients have done nothing to earn the money - but IMO calling it "unrealised capital gains" but hand waving away the distinction as he appears to be doing is unreasonable - imo someone shouldn't be taxed if their appreciated asset hasn't been sold.
 
What's the cost of not paying that 4k? You get an uneducated general population who votes... for people like Trump, a man who believes it is righteous to murder the families of criminals as retaliation. The larger the intellectual gap between individuals of a society, the less desirable it is to live in such a society. I don't know about you, but I want to live in a world with smart people.

Imagine all the good some extra tax dollars could provide for everyone. A more educated populace means better engineers to create that new tech gadget that will improve everyone's quality of life. It will mean more doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to treat and cure the most stubborn diseases and illnesses. Imagine a world with more scientists to research new materials for better clothing, homes, and cars. You may not think you benefit, but you do. The tax increases that Bernie is proposing is such a small price to pay for the advancement of an entire human civilization

lol, you think just because college is free, everyone is suddenit going to take advantage of it and all get bachelor degrees and get educated? Right now high school is free and you still get a high rate of drop outs. It's gonna take more than free education to get people educated.
 

Condom

Member
I haven't seen you refute my post. Because while it's obvious to any intelligent individual that you and many of the other holier than thou condescending posters in this thread have no idea that all 300 million people in the US have wildly different financial situations and there is a non-trivial percentage of those who live paycheck to paycheck and have no spare money at all, it's clearly not obvious to some. So keep preaching to the choir, everyone else is too busy working for a living.

The increase in minimum wage to 15 bucks should fix that problem over time. I don't believe the taxes would increase immediately get raised without regard for non-adjusted incomes.

Ideally you need someone even more left wing than sanders, a full on socialist. Seize assets, increase spending etc. but that's not realistic in the current situation.

The policy of low taxation and no collective services because your working class is poor as dirt is just prolonging the unequal mess you're in. However, it also is a policy that fits in the comfort zone of many people, they are afraid to lose the little they have.

The classic socialistic slogan 'You have nothing to lose but your chains' is probably unheard of in the states, just like many other (1st world) countries that are adopting the neoliberal economic model.
 
Ideally you need someone even more left wing than sanders, a full on socialist. Seize assets, increase spending etc. but that's not realistic in the current situation.

Sieze what?!

The classic socialistic slogan 'You have nothing to lose but your chains' is probably unheard of in the states, just like many other (1st world) countries that are adopting the neoliberal economic model.

Yeah, because it's a load of old horse cock. Are you really going to tell a young family with 2 kids that the home they have a mortgage for but might potentially lose should their tax expectantly rise by a not-insignificant amount have "nothing but their chains" to lose? How about their home?
 

G.ZZZ

Member
I haven't seen you refute my post. Because while it's obvious to any intelligent individual that you and many of the other holier than thou condescending posters in this thread have no idea that all 300 million people in the US have wildly different financial situations and there is a non-trivial percentage of those who live paycheck to paycheck and have no spare money at all, it's clearly not obvious to some. So keep preaching to the choir, everyone else is too busy working for a living.

When the first statistical reason for economical bankrupcy is medical expenses, you know "non-trivial" percentages go out of the window right? Helping the most possible people economically even at expense of others is the exact reason those things are being proposed. Negative anecdotal experiences will always exist.
 

Condom

Member
Yeah, because it's a load of old horse cock. Are you really going to tell a young family with 2 kids that the home they have a mortgage for but might potentially lose should their tax expectantly rise by a not-insignificant amount have "nothing but their chains" to lose? How about their home?

They won't lose their home, that's what they want you to believe. 'You'll lose this and that, look at the tax increases!!'. As long as common sense is used when implementing the policies, people will be able to cope financially through the reforms.

What if instead of stupid fear mongering through biased infographics they used actual net-gains/loses calculations?

Sieze what?!
Seize the banks, the capital. Go after the bankers that escaped prosecution for 2008, jail them with 1000 year sentences.
 

Russ T

Banned
When the first statistical reason for economical bankrupcy is medical expenses, you know "non-trivial" percentages go out of the window right? Helping the most possible people economically even at expense of others is the exact reason those things are being proposed. Negative anecdotal experiences will always exist.

Nah it's fine 'cause those people who are spending so much money on health care are at fault for getting sick or injured. Maybe if they managed their money better, they could be happy and safe like me, and then they wouldn't need to steal my money to better their lives. /s

Some of the people in this thread sound like this libertarian who I work with. "I'm in the top 1%. OF THE WORLD. Stop stealing my money, government." Bleh.
 

Argyle

Member
But how much does an average self-employed person pay for health insurance? Is it more or less than 8.4% of their income?

I dunno, but I'm self employed and I get coverage from my spouse. It's a long story but I'm pretty sure I would do much worse under Bernie's plan, personally.
 
Nah it's fine 'cause those people who are spending so much money on health care are at fault for getting sick or injured. Maybe if they managed their money better, they could be happy and safe like me, and then they wouldn't need to steal my money to better their lives. /s

Some of the people in this thread sound like this libertarian who I work with. "I'm in the top 1%. OF THE WORLD. Stop stealing my money, government." Bleh.
Why does this have to be a binary extreme possible situation? Why is it so hard to understand or have empathy for a middle class family of four trying to get by and a significant increase of taxes can be detrimental to their lives? That's a situation where it definitely hurts them compared to a situation that may or may not ever hurt them at all.
 

Russ T

Banned
Why does this have to be a binary extreme possible situation? Why is it so hard to understand or have empathy for a middle class family of four trying to get by and a significant increase of taxes can be detrimental to their lives? That's a situation where it definitely hurts them compared to a situation that may or may not ever hurt them at all.

Counter-question: Why is it so hard to understand or have empathy for a poor family of four trying to get by but can't because the system is working against them and half of them turn to crime while the other half suffers for the rest of their lives because they can't climb out of the hellhole that is lower-class America?

I have empathy for everybody with money problems. I have money problems, and I'm just a single dude, so I can only imagine what it's like when you have other people depending on you. I don't even want to imagine!

But at some point we need to do what's good for the greater society. There might be some hiccups along the way, but once all the systems are in place and working together, it will benefit everybody.
 
Counter-question: Why is it so hard to understand or have empathy for a poor family of four trying to get by but can't because the system is working against them and half of them turn to crime while the other half suffers for the rest of their lives because they can't climb out of the hellhole that is lower-class America?

I have empathy for everybody with money problems. I have money problems, and I'm just a single dude, so I can only imagine what it's like when you have other people depending on you. I don't even want to imagine!

But at some point we need to do what's good for the greater society. There might be some hiccups along the way, but once all the systems are in place and working together, it will benefit everybody.

The thing is, I do have empathy for them too. In fact, I understand having programs like universal health care aren't cheap and it's going to cost in the form of raising taxes. I'm also fine with my taxes being raised to help get to that goal. But, at the same time, I also understand the impact the proposals here have on middle class families and understand why they feel the way they do.

The problem here is it's too much, too fast, and too reliant on factors that is out of the governments control. You need to raise taxes more gradually rather than such a huge hit suddenly. You also shouldn't try to bring up the lower class at the expense of dramatically bring down the middle class. They shouldn't be crippled or have to suffer to help improve lives of others because all you doing is helping one group of people at the expense of others.
 

Russ T

Banned
I mean as far as I know he's never said he would raise taxes all at once. It's not like we'd wake up the day after he got elected and whoops taxes are five thousand times what they used to be.

Just like he proposes minimum wage rising over time, wouldn't that also apply to raising taxes?
 

Zoe

Member
I dunno, but I'm self employed and I get coverage from my spouse. It's a long story but I'm pretty sure I would do much worse under Bernie's plan, personally.

Spousal coverage is usually expensive. Is the premium she's paying less than 2.2% of your taxable household income + 6.2% of your individual income?
 

Argyle

Member
Spousal coverage is usually expensive. Is the premium she's paying less than 2.2% of your taxable household income + 6.2% of your individual income?

Yes, I'm pretty sure that is the case, although I don't have the exact numbers handy.
 
I mean as far as I know he's never said he would raise taxes all at once. It's not like we'd wake up the day after he got elected and whoops taxes are five thousand times what they used to be.

Just like he proposes minimum wage rising over time, wouldn't that also apply to raising taxes?

Well single payer universal health care doesn't work unless it's funded; it's not funded unless the full brunt of the tax increase is being collected. So if you slowly increase taxes over time, you're just taking money from people that's not going towards universal health care during that time frame. They're paying more and not gaining anything from it. if you also make it over time, that means people won't be feeling the affects of change for some time. So you either do it fast and it hurts a lot, or you do it slow and you're not gaining anything under Bernie's plan. It's not the same thing as minimum wage rising which you can ease in over time because there's no minimum level that makes the program work. I fully believe we need universal health care but I don't think Bernie's plan is going to make it achievable.
 

Russ T

Banned
This tax plan isn't just for UHC. It's for everything he has planned. That includes free college, rebuilding crumbling infrastructure, etc. UHC itself wouldn't take all of this money.

Unless I'm wrong about this? If I am, please tell me.

It won't really convince me it's not worth the trouble, but it's always nice to be corrected when misinformed.
 

lednerg

Member
Bernie's campaigning on something that would have to be done gradually, not something that's going to be all ready to go this January or even this decade. Also, I hope people aren't taking the scare mongering seriously, as if he's set to go on a tax raising rampage. The President doesn't have the authority to raise taxes. That's up to Congress.
 

Matt

Member
Bernie's campaigning on something that would have to be done gradually, not something that's going to be all ready to go this January or even this decade. Also, I hope people aren't taking the scare mongering seriously, as if he's set to go on a tax raising rampage. The President doesn't have the authority to raise taxes. That's up to Congress.
The President doesn't have the authority to do pretty much anything Bernie proposes.
 

lednerg

Member
The President doesn't have the authority to do pretty much anything Bernie proposes.

Or that Hillary proposes. That's my point. It's silly, this whole thing between Democrats where "if you vote for him/her, then X automatically happens, so watch out!" This Vox article is sleazy fear mongering. It's disappointing.
 
They won't lose their home, that's what they want you to believe. 'You'll lose this and that, look at the tax increases!!'. As long as common sense is used when implementing the policies, people will be able to cope financially through the reforms.

What if instead of stupid fear mongering through biased infographics they used actual net-gains/loses calculations?

Well a) of course they *could* unless you're making the argument that everyone would be financially better off *and* have universal healthcare and b) "as long as it's implemented sensibly" is a bit is A row back from "you have nothing to lose but your chains". They have plenty to lose, even if you think they won't lose it.

Seize the banks, the capital. Go after the bankers that escaped prosecution for 2008, jail them with 1000 year sentences.

Prosecute them for what? What laws did they break? And how about all the other factors - some governmental, some private - that contributed to the financial crash? "The bankers!" Isn't just simplistic, it actively gets in the way of understanding what went wrong. Besides, the US government has its own printing press if what it wants is capital and doesn't have any issue with stealing (via inflation), it doesn't need to seize assets that it has no right to call its own.
 

Dicktatorship

Junior Member
Gosh, my mother makes $30,000 a year with and can hardly pay the house note even with a roommate. This is awful for the lower-middle class of low income states (Mom lives in Mississippi)
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Gosh, my mother makes $30,000 a year with and can hardly pay the house note even with a roommate. This is awful for the lower-middle class of low income states (Mom lives in Mississippi)

Nothing can be worse than living in Mississippi
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Why does this have to be a binary extreme possible situation? Why is it so hard to understand or have empathy for a middle class family of four trying to get by and a significant increase of taxes can be detrimental to their lives? That's a situation where it definitely hurts them compared to a situation that may or may not ever hurt them at all.
While I agree with your sentiment I think it's still off a little. Unless that family of four plans on dying soon we should assume a few things. One, that the parent's absolutely care about their children's future. Second, that they're going to be a family after the election as well. What I mean by that is some things are going to change in my lifetime. They're sure as fuck going to change during the lifetime of a person who's currently still a child being raised by their family. The United States a 4 year old today will inherit when they're 35 will be vastly different than the one I'm in now at 35. And what I feel families, voters and people need to do is start looking at things less in the time frame of now and more at least along their expected life expectancy. I'm not saying that voters and citizens need to worry about what the country will be like in 200 years, who here can fathom that. I'm saying they need to think about not just the United States that they're working in now in their 20s or 30s but the United States they're going to retire in in their sixties or later. When looking out for children people should of course worry about the present, but yes, I think an adult that may be 40 years old and who plans on dying in 60 years should still be thinking far enough ahead to think about their child in their twilight years and what kind of country they'll be trying to retire in.

And it's there that this "think of this family of four" kind of rubs me the wrong way. On the surface it's totally true. You're not going to win anyone over by blowing smoke up their ass. Some people will "lose" under Bernie's or any UHC plan from any current or future candidate in reality. There's always winners and losers. Always. So many things are posited as givens, like raising the minimum wage. I guarantee you that while raising the minimum wage would be best for the country as a whole and is probably a great idea some people will lose. Some businesses will fold. Some will move to automation faster. Some will just trim staff. And who can guess how fast or slow a restructuring would occur? Can a restructuring even occur with automation looming overhead?

So no, no candidate can guarantee that you'll make the same amount of money or more under their plan. That's bullshit. What they're really attempting to control is how far someone can fall. How low their standard of living can go. And they're putting an artificial bottom there with things like minimum wage, UHC and the like.

Now back to the kids. A good parent should encourage them to save for retirement, for sure. This is common knowledge why is retirement the only forward thinking thing people do? Why are people quick to sacrifice the environment, healthcare and everything else around them that they'd need except cash for retirement? the dirty truth I'd tell the parent of a family of four is that your child's not guaranteed to make it. The social nets you support now does have a chance at benefitting your children. If I'm talking to every parent in the country I can guarantee that a lot of their children will need it. That many of their children, even with relevant degrees will not be able to find good work in the future. That your babies will enter a job market shrinking and more crowded as more and more people are displaced by globalization and automation.

I'd even go so far as to say that, even if global warming wasn't happening and automation wasn't coming and globalization wasn't a thing, lets say none of these forces existed in the current world, even then just with the current stagnant wage growth, the ever increasing cost of higher education and the rising costs of health care your children have a bleaker future than you did. So it's great if you're on track or all but assured to get your kids through school, now lets see your kids do that for their children.

The generations that follow us are going to have it fucking rough if we don't start doing some soul searching now and start reprioritizing and making some things fundamental rights now.

So while, yes, I think the message people send to people barely making it now that everything will for sure work out better for them immediately is bullshit, a good amount of people will be set back, and people do need to be more diplomatic or have more empathy and tact when discussing stuff like this, however I think they also need to do a better job explaining that, yeah, this is still in your interests because in reality, even if UHC, public college education and the like don't get passed some of you who're barely making it will not be making it in the future even if the government does nothing. Whether the government does something or not, businesses will continue to move towards automation, they'll continue to outsource and move jobs overseas and neither your jobs or your kids' jobs are set in stone.

Lets say the worst comes to pass for some people and they lose their house under this plan, or another like it, but years later they find out their kid has an expensive illness or college tuition's ballooned so much they can't afford it, under these types of plans the kids would still be alright, as a parent would you give up the house? I fucking would.

And another important thing that I feel, I don't know but I feel, is that I'd like to change the soul of this country. A country that doesn't allow it's citizens to live in abject poverty, die from a lack of health care or have no prospect of moving out from their current rung because they can't afford higher education is going to have different priorities than the country we all live in today and I think those attributes will be important in the future. What's happening in Flint is disgusting. Katrina was disgusting. But the current US of A doesn't give a shit because we need there to be heavy losers so that some of us may hopefully win big. Those who don't make it big are undeserving. And that's why shit like Katrina and Flint can even happen. I'd like to see the moral compass of the country changed and I think making all of us responsible for each other as a society instead of us just looking out for ourselves is one step in that direction.
 

Dicktatorship

Junior Member
Nothing can be worse than living in Mississippi

It's not so bad. The people are are very friendly most of the time so long as political and religious matters don't come into the picture. Worst thing about it is the unholy amount of humidity and heat all year round.
 
Prosecute them for what? What laws did they break? And how about all the other factors - some governmental, some private - that contributed to the financial crash? "The bankers!" Isn't just simplistic, it actively gets in the way of understanding what went wrong.

These are decent resources.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-angelides/last-chance-for-justice_1_b_9135572.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/b...sk-but-little-reward-for-whistle-blowers.html

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=195105376&postcount=1

Also, settlements can be read at no additional charge here: https://www.justice.gov/
 

Fraud is one thing, but that's not what caused the crisis is it? By all means lock them up if they broke the law but the positioning of the argument (along with the prescription for 1,000 years in prison) made me think the person I was quoting thought that law breaking lead to the recession(s).
 

benjipwns

Banned
Fraud is one thing, but that's not what caused the crisis is it? By all means lock them up if they broke the law but the positioning of the argument (along with the prescription for 1,000 years in prison) made me think the person I was quoting thought that law breaking lead to the recession(s).
The misallocation of capital (except by state actors) should be illegal!

The classic socialistic slogan 'You have nothing to lose but your chains' is probably unheard of in the states, just like many other (1st world) countries that are adopting the neoliberal economic model.
I like these other socialist principles better:
The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat"
the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor"

As outlined in more detail:
Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it.
 

Zoe

Member
Gosh, my mother makes $30,000 a year with and can hardly pay the house note even with a roommate. This is awful for the lower-middle class of low income states (Mom lives in Mississippi)
Her tax would be 523 at most, not the $1000+ the OP claims. That's less than this year's ACA penalty.
 

damisa

Member
Or that Hillary proposes. That's my point. It's silly, this whole thing between Democrats where "if you vote for him/her, then X automatically happens, so watch out!" This Vox article is sleazy fear mongering. It's disappointing.

Bernie's policies are terrible, but don't worry they won't pass. Vote for Bernie!
 
Fraud is one thing, but that's not what caused the crisis is it? By all means lock them up if they broke the law but the positioning of the argument (along with the prescription for 1,000 years in prison) made me think the person I was quoting thought that law breaking lead to the recession(s).


Well, we live in a credit-based economy that requires indefinite support because multipliers eventually fade from deficits and bank lending. Fraud disrupts that support because it causes massives losses and the private sector cannot meet payments as they come due denominated in US $ on time and in full. So, that's the issue with fraud outside of the fact that it's a felony.

Edit: Also only 1 institution can operate with negative net worth in the US banking system so it doesn't matter that other banks create money when they make loans. That's another reason why fraud is a problem.
 

lednerg

Member
Bernie's policies are terrible, but don't worry they won't pass. Vote for Bernie!

It's already been pointed out that Vox is misrepresenting the 2.2% income tax increase by combining it with employer taxes. So it's a dishonest take on a hypothetical situation that won't happen. The vote comes down to trustworthiness and the long term agenda.

EDIT: Also isn't it funny that whenever Bernie's platform has been promoted, it's promptly pointed out how unlikely it is he'd get it through. But in this instance, people are freaking out about how they can't afford it, as if he somehow gained powers to only do things they don't want to happen.
 
Well, we live in a credit-based economy that requires indefinite support because multipliers eventually fade from deficits and bank lending. Fraud disrupts that support because it causes massives losses and the private sector cannot meet payments as they come due denominated in US $ on time and in full. So, that's the issue with fraud outside of the fact that it's a felony.

Edit: Also only 1 institution can operate with negative net worth in the US banking system so it doesn't matter that other banks create money when they make loans. That's another reason why fraud is a problem.

Yeah but that's not really what we were talking about. I don't think anyone is saying fraud is great or otherwise not harmful, but ultimately the things that *actually* caused the recession were all done legally. Or, to put it another way, do you think that if no one had broken a law the recession wouldn't have happened?
 

Russ T

Banned
It's already been pointed out that Vox is misrepresenting the 2.2% income tax increase by combining it with employer taxes. So it's a dishonest take on a hypothetical situation that won't happen. The vote comes down to trustworthiness and the long term agenda.

EDIT: Also isn't it funny that whenever Bernie's platform has been promoted, it's promptly pointed out how unlikely it is he'd get it through. But in this instance, people are freaking out about how they can't afford it, as if he somehow gained powers to only do things they don't want to happen.

I would definitely agree that it is funny. But not in the haha way, more in the "oh c'mon are you serious" way. Similar to "Bernie can't get anything done" with the implicit assertion that somehow Hillary will be able to under the same situations??

Political discourse in a nutshell, I suppose.
 
Yeah but that's not really what we were talking about. I don't think anyone is saying fraud is great or otherwise not harmful, but ultimately the things that *actually* caused the recession were all done legally. Or, to put it another way, do you think that if no one had broken a law the recession wouldn't have happened?

yes
 
Yeah but that's not really what we were talking about. I don't think anyone is saying fraud is great or otherwise not harmful, but ultimately the things that *actually* caused the recession were all done legally. Or, to put it another way, do you think that if no one had broken a law the recession wouldn't have happened?

Recession was happening one way or another. There was breakdown across the board, but fraud was not the driver. People got mortgages whom shouldn't have been able to and banks packaged up the mortgages and sold them off. Ratings agencies (which are ridiculously conflicted similar to sell-side equity research) gave them AAA ratings and sent them on their way.

I still can't figure out what law people are saying was broken to cause the recession? Is it against the law for people to just be stupid? I'm expecting a ton of post from the usual suspects around whom they think should be prosecuted.

I think that the Fed should print money until we can inflate our way to universal healthcare and inflate our way out of debt!!! Who's with me?
 

Damaniel

Banned
Or that Hillary proposes. That's my point. It's silly, this whole thing between Democrats where "if you vote for him/her, then X automatically happens, so watch out!" This Vox article is sleazy fear mongering. It's disappointing.

What's so sleazy about it? Nothing wrong with letting us know where our candidates stand in terms of policy, and I can already tell you that tax increases like that are going to go over like a lead balloon. Even if he has no chance of passing it, the mere existence of a plan to raise taxes like that is a political career ender outside of Vermont. I want the Democrats to *win* this year - promising to spike everyone's taxes (regardless of the benefit) is the last way to go about doing that.

I can see the GOP attack ads now: just show the chart for 30 seconds with a little bit of voiceover. Considering how much Americans hate paying taxes in general, that would be the most effective attack ad in years.
 

Russ T

Banned
What's so sleazy about it?

Because it's implying that people's taxes will go up a hell of a lot more than they actually will. The graph they have is technically not incorrect about the taxes being paid, but is also hiding information about who is doing the paying.
 

Macam

Banned
EDIT: Also isn't it funny that whenever Bernie's platform has been promoted, it's promptly pointed out how unlikely it is he'd get it through. But in this instance, people are freaking out about how they can't afford it, as if he somehow gained powers to only do things they don't want to happen.

Oh, there's plenty of that going around. Just like how nothing Sanders is promoting will ever get through, but Clinton's policies have a better chance because of some superior negotiation/compromising skills that has yet to materialize.

Just par for the course at this point.
 
Oh, there's plenty of that going around. Just like how nothing Sanders is promoting will ever get through, but Clinton's policies have a better chance because of some superior negotiation/compromising skills that has yet to materialize.

Just par for the course at this point.
I don't understand why you and the several posters like you fail to grasp that many people don't support Clinton because of any specific policy she proposes but because of her experience on the national stage and her electability. It is widely acknowledged and accepted that neither her nor Sanders will get much past Congress as it is now. However, this is an election that is far more about the USSC than the Executive branch and consequently one that is extremely important to have any Democrat take the white house. To that end Hillary Clinton is simply the stronger candidate. The biggest reason to support Sanders over her is their policy differences which, as stated, is moot thanks to Congress.

"But Hillary...!" is an incredibly pointless rebuttal to the Sanders/Congress dilemma that reveals how little you understand his lack of support or why HRC is more popular than him.
 

lednerg

Member
I don't understand why you and the several posters like you fail to grasp that many people don't support Clinton because of any specific policy she proposes but because of her experience on the national stage and her electability. It is widely acknowledged and accepted that neither her nor Sanders will get much past Congress as it is now. However, this is an election that is far more about the USSC than the Executive branch and consequently one that is extremely important to have any Democrat take the white house. To that end Hillary Clinton is simply the stronger candidate. The biggest reason to support Sanders over her is their policy differences which, as stated, is moot thanks to Congress.

"But Hillary...!" is an incredibly pointless rebuttal to the Sanders/Congress dilemma that reveals how little you understand his lack of support or why HRC is more popular than him.

You assume we "fail to grasp" that. Look, I can't speak for everybody supporting Bernie, but I can't help but recognize how Hillary, McCain and Romney's experience sure didn't help them against Obama. To me, it's a weak argument. In terms of electability, the dems will be going up against the worst GOP candidate in recent memory no matter what (save for maybe Kasich, but that's not happening since the Tea Party despises him).
 

noshten

Member
People who keep going on about electability fail to provide the route for Cruz/Trump victory in a GE - they use more hypotheticals than any Sanders proposal.
In fact I'd say Sanders is more electable than Hillary in a GE especially against Cruz & Trump and that assertion is as right as any assertion of her electability.
 

Drek

Member
Oh, there's plenty of that going around. Just like how nothing Sanders is promoting will ever get through, but Clinton's policies have a better chance because of some superior negotiation/compromising skills that has yet to materialize.

Just par for the course at this point.

Clinton's policies and proposals would pass through a Democrat controlled house and senate. She could probably even pass them with some negotiating and adjustment with a handful of centrist Republicans.

Bernie Sanders couldn't pass any plan he's suggested this campaign season with anything short of gaining a super-majority in both the house and senate comprised entirely of his Reddit crew.

No Republican would side with Sanders, that shrinks to "most" with Clinton. 50% of Democrats wouldn't touch Sanders' proposals, most would with Clinton. This is not apples to apples.
 

Macam

Banned
"But Hillary...!" is an incredibly pointless rebuttal to the Sanders/Congress dilemma that reveals how little you understand his lack of support or why HRC is more popular than him.

No, not at all. I understand it just fine; the double standards, especially around here (by a subset of NeoGAF), are self evident.
 

Macam

Banned
Clinton's policies and proposals would pass through a Democrat controlled house and senate. She could probably even pass them with some negotiating and adjustment with a handful of centrist Republicans.

Bernie Sanders couldn't pass any plan he's suggested this campaign season with anything short of gaining a super-majority in both the house and senate comprised entirely of his Reddit crew.

No Republican would side with Sanders, that shrinks to "most" with Clinton. 50% of Democrats wouldn't touch Sanders' proposals, most would with Clinton. This is not apples to apples.

Barring the first sentence, and maybe that 2nd paragraph, this is a lot of wishful thinking.
 

noshten

Member
Clinton's policies and proposals would pass through a Democrat controlled house and senate. She could probably even pass them with some negotiating and adjustment with a handful of centrist Republicans.

Bernie Sanders couldn't pass any plan he's suggested this campaign season with anything short of gaining a super-majority in both the house and senate comprised entirely of his Reddit crew.

No Republican would side with Sanders, that shrinks to "most" with Clinton. 50% of Democrats wouldn't touch Sanders' proposals, most would with Clinton. This is not apples to apples.

Bernie Sanders not being able to pass any of the proposals he has in a Democratically controlled house and senate would just further indicate the need to clean out the house and senate. If the current representatives don't want to follow the Presidents mandate there need to be principled individuals who stand up and take up the mantle instead. Since what is needed is not just a Democratic senate and house but rather representatives who will fight for things the majority of the American populace wants.

In any case you are talking hypotheticals as per usual
 

Russ T

Banned
You assume we "fail to grasp" that. Look, I can't speak for everybody supporting Bernie, but I can't help but recognize how Hillary and Romney's experience sure didn't help them in 2008 against Obama. To me, it's a weak argument. In terms of electability, the dems will be going up against the worst GOP candidate in recent memory no matter what (save for maybe Kasich, but that's not happening since the Tea Party despises him).

Yeah, you're pretty much speaking for me, here!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom