During a recent appearance on Late Night with Seth Meyers, Democratic (Socialist) presidential candidate Bernie Sanders explained why democratic socialism isn’t the eeeevvil awful thing so many conservatives have made it out to be.
14 thoughts on “VIDEO: Bernie Sanders explains why “socialist” isn’t a dirty word”
Comments are closed.
Next up, the Kim Jong-un to explain why Communism is not a dirty word.
It’s late night tail-gunner davey, with nothing to say again.
Whodda guessed?
Dave Blaska, Bernie Sanders is no Kim Jong-un. For starters, Bernie Sanders clearly believes in democracy, whereas Kim Jong-un clearly doesn’t.
David, got your socialism right here.
“5 U.S. Banks Each Have More Than 40 Trillion Dollars In Exposure To Derivatives.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-25/5-us-banks-each-have-more-40-trillion-dollars-exposure-derivatives
To help you put $200 trillion in perspective, annual US GDP is around $16 trillion.
AFAIK, most of those bets, that’s what derivatives are, are interest rate swaps and credit default swaps.
Via the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Program) the elites laid off all the risk for their bets on the taxpayers.
Why aren’t you complaining about federal welfare for billionaires?
Aren’t you worried about inflation?
“Global trend in art market drives up prices”
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8faa48d2-199b-11e5-a130-2e7db721f996.html#axzz3e2vjXa2y
Sure looks like demand-pull inflation, too many dollars chasing a scarcity of art work.
How much do you understand about quantitative easing? Isn’t that another form of federal welfare for billionaires?
“Health care is a right” sounds so wonderful at first glance. And leave it to progressives/socialists to only take a first glance. The problem with positive rights such as the right to health care is that they cost money. And if I have a right to demand health care or housing or a “free” education etc… it imposes on others a responsibility to pay for your supposed right. So when you or I are forced to pay for someones rights, we are forced to work for another persons benefit, without compensation. I thought we outlawed slavery. A more immediate problem is that people will demand more and more costly “rights” and productive people will stop working so hard and eventually there will be no money for the bogus rights. And when that happens as it always does, the shit will really hit the fan.
Watch out Denis Casper will be in to post a bunch of links to something completely unrelated. My guess is marijuana this time!
OR another thought is that the community becomes stronger as those who could not participate fully begin to see the world is not the selfish, ugly place some would like it to be and start to contribute their share; remembering the help that was given to them.
When did it become wrong to help grow and strengthen our communities for everyone’s’ benefit?
Milwaukee has a long history of socialism and only since the dispersion of those values has our community begun to devolve into me versus them policies.
Thank God for Bernie; he really scares the racists and their apologists, enablers and the ignorant who wander over to this site occasionally from the security of their “white supremacist” or “tea party” gatherings.
Laurie, socialism creates the very “me versus them” problems that you decry. When wealth is forcibly transferred from one to the other, with government employees taking their cut, you have winners and losers. The private sector, via non coercive, win-win arrangements is far superior, though not perfect, as utopia is not one of our options.
Denis,
The U.S. leads the world in health care spending. As of 2011 it was north of 17%
of GDP (gross domestic product).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_%28PPP%29_per_capita
Unlike the rest of the world, US doesn’t even provide universal care.
W/R/T your claim that “wealth” is transferred to “government employees,” are any of them billionaires? How is “wealth” transferred to government employees? Which government employees? Please be specific.
Where are the “win-win” arrangements in health care? Again, please be specific.
You always neglect the fact the other people will also be paying for you and your family too, so yet another case of perfect projection from the master of delusional thinking when saying the other people are thinking far enough ahead on an issue.
Productive people have been and again will be put out of work with the Republicons all of the sudden best friends with Obombya on the TPP. You won’t have to go to Africa and India to get wholesale trash and trinkets made by slaves and child labor, because you’ll be able to get it here, with fewer if any customers to buy it from you. Another instance of failing to see beyond your nose.
Strengthening and extending patent rights on medicines where a Hep-C treatment that costs $1000 in India, costs $84K in the US. Whose pocketing the difference there?
Denis,
1. W/R/T health care, how exactly would we run out of money? Explain that. Do you remember you bragging last year about your knowledge of health care? Feel free to bring in some links from Breitbart.
2. I understand what value physicians, hospitals, nurses, allied health professionals, Big Pharma, and medical device makers bring to patients. I don’t understand what value the health insurance oligopoly brings. Can you explain that?
“Potential insurance mergers could spur more provider consolidation”
“Michael Bernstein, a partner with Baird Capital’s private-equity team, said he didn’t expect to see insurance consolidation at this “jumbo” scale. For instance, if UnitedHealth bought Aetna, it would create a company with $200 billion in projected revenue this year.”
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150622/NEWS03/150629987/potential-insurance-mergers-could-spur-more-provider-consolidation
Above, you wrote, “….we are forced to work for another persons benefit, without compensation.”
Couldn’t agree more. That’s how the health insurance oligopoly got so wealthy. They rake in premiums and don’t pay it out in claims. Isn’t that how they got so wealthy?
3. Per Warren Mosler, why wouldn’t a federally funded program as he describes work?
“Everyone gets a ‘medical debit card’ with perhaps $5000 in it to be used for qualifying medical expenses (including dental) for the year.
Expenses beyond that are covered by catastrophic insurance.
At the end of the year, the debit card holder gets a check for the unused balance on the card, up to $4,000, with the $1,000 to be spent on preventative measures not refundable.
The next year, the cards are renewed for an additional $5,000.”
http://moslereconomics.com/2009/03/02/mosler-health-care-proposal/
Remember, “(Federal) Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-mosler/taxes-for-revenue-are-obs_b_542134.html
That doesn’t mean federal taxes are obsolete, they’re not.
For Erik and all the other charter members of the nanny state, “Ted Cruz’s Cannabis Conversion Reflects The Political Prudence Of Marijuana Federalism.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2015/03/05/by-supporting-marijuana-federalism-republican-candidates-can-be-principled-and-popular/
re: Healthcare. Other countries seem to have figured it out. The US managed to put a man on the moon and beat fascism in the last century, but getting everyone healthcare in this country is too damn hard. So much for the idea of US exceptionalism, I guess.
I’m glad Democrats/Independents are fighting back against the idea that anything having to do with the common good is “socialism”, though. It’s time to stop tolerating stupid conservative talking points.
Various forms of socialism work well in Scandinavia. No gulags, as implied by Blaska, no dire economic collapse, as predicted by Denis. Just happier, healthier people. I’m afraid that’s just a fact, guys.