Which word better describes Bernie Sanders? (1 Viewer)

[chet]

Although you may not agree that either word perfectly describes his philosophies, for the purpose of this poll, you must pick one of the two choices.

 

[The_Man]

Aside from trying to provide health care for every citizen, can you point me to any examples of Bernie seeking to nationalize an industry or even a single company?

 

[chet]

Aside from trying to provide health care for every citizen, can you point me to any examples of Bernie seeking to nationalize an industry or even a single company?

He wants to redistribute income and pay for college. I dunno--he seems more communist than capitalist to me but I must say I am more than a little surprised by the poll results.

 

[Gawain]

So public school K-12 is communist? All Bernie is proposing is making Public Colleges fit the same model.

 

[The_Man]

Aside from trying to provide health care for every citizen, can you point me to any examples of Bernie seeking to nationalize an industry or even a single company?

He wants to redistribute income and pay for college. I dunno--he seems more communist than capitalist to me but I must say I am more than a little surprised by the poll results.

Tax rates today are less than they were under Reagan. I don't necessarily agree that increasing taxes is the same thing as redistributing income.

 

[hagmania]

Patriot.

 

[Harry Manback]

Aside from trying to provide health care for every citizen, can you point me to any examples of Bernie seeking to nationalize an industry or even a single company?

He wants to redistribute income and pay for college. I dunno--he seems more communist than capitalist to me but I must say I am more than a little surprised by the poll results.

Then you probably shouldn't have used such loaded words to describe it.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Which word better describes Chet?

Ignorant

Idiot

 

[NCCommish]

I'm surprised the choices werent communist or really big communist. Oh and here's a tidbit. There has already been massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich. Trillions of dollars. There is class warfare in this country and the rich are winning.

 

[timschochet]

I did make a joke about Fidel Castro a few nights back, but in all seriousness it's absurd to call Bernie Sanders a Communist. Anybody who does really has no understanding of Communism (or capitalism for that matter).

Since at least 1933 this country has been part capitalist, part socialist, combining the best aspects of the free enterprise system with the welfare state. It has worked very well for us, it has made us the most prosperous nation on Earth and continues to do so. Despite rhetoric from Bernie that his ideas are revolutionary, they're really not; he simply wants to expand the welfare state a little more at the expense of free enterprise. Whether or not this is a good idea is debatable, but it's hardly Communism.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good grief this is pathetic.

Discuss the meaning of socialism, the various formulations of it, and proceed from there.

This is like a whackamole tournament.

 

[The Commish]

By process of elimination I had to go with capitalist. I know he's not a communist.

 

[The Commish]

Aside from trying to provide health care for every citizen, can you point me to any examples of Bernie seeking to nationalize an industry or even a single company?

He wants to redistribute income and pay for college. I dunno--he seems more communist than capitalist to me but I must say I am more than a little surprised by the poll results.

all politicians want to redistribute income. that's why our laws are written the way they are. All of them are picking and choosing winners/losers with the way they conduct business in Washington. If that's your definition of "communist" you need to go back to the drawing board.

 

[bagger]

By process of elimination I had to go with capitalist. I know he's not a communist.

this

 

[B-Deep]

which word/phrase better describes Pauly Shore

Genius

or

Intellectual Titan

 

[B-Deep]

Aside from trying to provide health care for every citizen, can you point me to any examples of Bernie seeking to nationalize an industry or even a single company?

He wants to redistribute income and pay for college. I dunno--he seems more communist than capitalist to me but I must say I am more than a little surprised by the poll results.

perhaps you should investigate the difference between communism and socialism, as a start

 

[bud29]

He's hardly even a full-on socialist, let alone a communist.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I was looking for the "neither" option.

 

[renesauz]

WOW

What an AWFUL poll. Bernie is not against Capitalism, but concerned about it's unrestricted excesses. He's not a "Capitalist", but he's a hell of a lot closer to capitalist than Communist.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

My biggest problem with him is that I keep calling him Barry.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Can Chet even vote?

 

[bostonfred]

Sexy communist

Or

Sexy capitalist

 

[17seconds]

When has he pushed any idea close to communism? He doesn't want the working class to own the means of production. He's against loosely regulated capitalism. He wants to correct the income inequality which has gradually occurred over the last 30 years. He's always talking about the top 1%, not the top 10%, 20%, or 50%.

 

[E Street Brat]

Can Chet even vote?

Effin Canucks.

 

[sho nuff]

 

[Tom Servo]

It is Wiki, but I think the term "social democrat" probably best applies.

Sanders rose to national prominence following his 2010 filibuster[12][13] against the proposed extension of the Bush tax cuts. Sanders favors policies similar to those of social democratic parties in Europe, particularly those instituted by the Nordic countries.[17] He is a leading progressive voice on issues such as income inequality,[18]universal healthcare, parental leave, climate change,[19]LGBT rights, and campaign finance reform.[20] Sanders has long been critical of U.S. foreign policy and was an early and outspoken opponent of the Iraq War. He is also outspoken on civil rights and civil liberties, and has been particularly critical of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system[21] and mass surveillance policies such as the USA PATRIOT Act[22] and the NSA surveillance programs.[23]

 

[cstu]

When has he pushed any idea close to communism? He doesn't want the working class to own the means of production. He's against loosely regulated capitalism. He wants to correct the income inequality which has gradually occurred over the last 30 years. He's always talking about the top 1%, not the top 10%, 20%, or 50%.

Didn't stop people from calling Obama a communist and socialist.

Even though we already have a progressive tax system, people try to equate a more progressive tax system with communism.

 

[The_Man]

One-third call him Communist - pretty much the exact percentage of the overall electorate that's currently backing Trump. Probably a lot of overlap in those two groups.

 

[pandora]

Not one word, but "Way to old"

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Yeah, it's capitalist by a mile.

He wants to (further) socialize medicine. You could say that he wants to further socialize education (though there are semantic issues with that since most private universities would remain private under his system, I believe).

But think of all the markets he doesn't want the state to take over: markets for electric razors, neckties, organic turmeric, pizza cutters, mom jeans, USB cables, waterproof backpacks, leather wallets, selfie sticks, gym equipment, jade earrings, underpants, hot cocoa, and vacuum cleaners. If I had time, I could list more.

It's not really close.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Problem Drinker or African-American Haberdasher?

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Great poll!

 

[NutterButter]

I think chet is seeing right through Sanders' capitalist smokescreen. Don't go blaming uncle chet if Sanders gets elected and 4 years from now, everything is controlled by the government. You've been warned.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There has already been massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich.

I disagree with this as a matter of semantics.

Consider a hypothetical world in which our wealth consists only of what we make with our own hands. On day one, you and I have nothing. On day two, I make two cookies and you make one. On day three, I make three cookies and you make one. (Cookie ingredients are freely available to everyone!)

I would not say that there has been a redistribution of wealth from you to me on day three. Yes, the rich (me) got richer and the gap between the rich and poor widened. But that's not redistribution unless it was caused by the government taking a brownie from you and giving it to me, which is not what happened.

Back to the real world, it's true that the income and wealth gaps have been widening in the U.S. for the past few decades. It's also true that there are some regressive government programs that have arguably contributed to that (e.g., state universities). But for the most part, redistribution has gone more from rich to poor than the other way around. Our tax policy has generally been progressive, for example. (I think you could make a good counterargument against this point by arguing that intellectual property is a form of redistribution from relatively poor consumers to relatively rich patent- and copyright-holders, but I suspect that's not what you had in mind in your original post. There mere fact that top incomes have risen much faster than median incomes, however, is not a prima facie case that top earners have benefited from redistribution -- see the cookies.)

 

[Tom Servo]

Yeah, it's capitalist by a mile.

He wants to (further) socialize medicine. You could say that he wants to further socialize education (though there are semantic issues with that since most private universities would remain private under his system, I believe).

But think of all the markets he doesn't want the state to take over: markets for electric razors, neckties, organic turmeric, pizza cutters, mom jeans, USB cables, waterproof backpacks, leather wallets, selfie sticks, gym equipment, jade earrings, underpants, hot cocoa, and vacuum cleaners. If I had time, I could list more.

It's not really close.

Medicine is like 1/7th of the economy. Education is another pretty big segment.

Selfie sticks? Jade earrings? C'mon, MT, you're better than this.

 

[renesauz]

There has already been massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich.

I disagree with this as a matter of semantics.

Consider a hypothetical world in which our wealth consists only of what we make with our own hands. On day one, you and I have nothing. On day two, I make two cookies and you make one. On day three, I make three cookies and you make one. (Cookie ingredients are freely available to everyone!)

I would not say that there has been a redistribution of wealth from you to me on day three. Yes, the rich (me) got richer and the gap between the rich and poor widened. But that's not redistribution unless it was caused by the government taking a brownie from you and giving it to me, which is not what happened.

Back to the real world, it's true that the income and wealth gaps have been widening in the U.S. for the past few decades. It's also true that there are some regressive government programs that have arguably contributed to that (e.g., state universities). But for the most part, redistribution has gone more from rich to poor than the other way around. Our tax policy has generally been progressive, for example. (I think you could make a good counterargument against this point by arguing that intellectual property is a form of redistribution from relatively poor consumers to relatively rich patent- and copyright-holders, but I suspect that's not what you had in mind in your original post. There mere fact that top incomes have risen much faster than median incomes, however, is not a prima facie case that top earners have benefited from redistribution -- see the cookies.)

I'm not so sure this analogy holds up well under a closer look. Corporate CEOs making millions in salary, often 1000s of times what the average worker (PRODUCER) does working for them suggests something is amiss. Multi Billion dollar profits for pharmaceuticals and oil companies and financial institutions suggest otherwise. When a middle class American is paying 4 dollars a pill for a necessary medication that costs the pharm company 5 cents to produce and sells for 25 cents AFTER shipping it to another country, something is DRAMATICALLY amiss. Paying that 4 dollars is a big part of how the income is getting re-distributed.

Profit is not a dirty word, and most progressives in this country won't try to suggest it is, but some sectors of our business world have absolutely gamed the current system. Other sectors operate in areas where the normal laws of supply and demand simply don't work to restrain prices. Capitalism is NOT the answer for all sectors. The funny thing is....we've long ago recognized this...utilities have been reigned in for decades, unable to charge whatever they want. And lo and behold...those companies are doing just fine despite not being able to charge anything they want for the electrical power we need.

 

[NutterButter]

Heated driveways for everyone!

Don't forget the patios

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There has already been massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich.

I disagree with this as a matter of semantics.

Consider a hypothetical world in which our wealth consists only of what we make with our own hands. On day one, you and I have nothing. On day two, I make two cookies and you make one. On day three, I make three cookies and you make one. (Cookie ingredients are freely available to everyone!)

I would not say that there has been a redistribution of wealth from you to me on day three. Yes, the rich (me) got richer and the gap between the rich and poor widened. But that's not redistribution unless it was caused by the government taking a brownie from you and giving it to me, which is not what happened.

Back to the real world, it's true that the income and wealth gaps have been widening in the U.S. for the past few decades. It's also true that there are some regressive government programs that have arguably contributed to that (e.g., state universities). But for the most part, redistribution has gone more from rich to poor than the other way around. Our tax policy has generally been progressive, for example. (I think you could make a good counterargument against this point by arguing that intellectual property is a form of redistribution from relatively poor consumers to relatively rich patent- and copyright-holders, but I suspect that's not what you had in mind in your original post. There mere fact that top incomes have risen much faster than median incomes, however, is not a prima facie case that top earners have benefited from redistribution -- see the cookies.)

I'm not so sure this analogy holds up well under a closer look. Corporate CEOs making millions in salary, often 1000s of times what the average worker (PRODUCER) does working for them suggests something is amiss.

Quite possibly, but the question I was addressing isn't whether something is amiss; it's whether whatever is amiss should be labeled "redistribution."

 

[Politician Spock]

There has already been massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich.

I disagree with this as a matter of semantics.

Consider a hypothetical world in which our wealth consists only of what we make with our own hands. On day one, you and I have nothing. On day two, I make two cookies and you make one. On day three, I make three cookies and you make one. (Cookie ingredients are freely available to everyone!)

I would not say that there has been a redistribution of wealth from you to me on day three. Yes, the rich (me) got richer and the gap between the rich and poor widened. But that's not redistribution unless it was caused by the government taking a brownie from you and giving it to me, which is not what happened.

Back to the real world, it's true that the income and wealth gaps have been widening in the U.S. for the past few decades. It's also true that there are some regressive government programs that have arguably contributed to that (e.g., state universities). But for the most part, redistribution has gone more from rich to poor than the other way around. Our tax policy has generally been progressive, for example. (I think you could make a good counterargument against this point by arguing that intellectual property is a form of redistribution from relatively poor consumers to relatively rich patent- and copyright-holders, but I suspect that's not what you had in mind in your original post. There mere fact that top incomes have risen much faster than median incomes, however, is not a prima facie case that top earners have benefited from redistribution -- see the cookies.)

I'm not so sure this analogy holds up well under a closer look. Corporate CEOs making millions in salary, often 1000s of times what the average worker (PRODUCER) does working for them suggests something is amiss.

Quite possibly, but the question I was addressing isn't whether something is amiss; it's whether whatever is amiss should be labeled "redistribution."

The redistribution isn't occurring due to who is making cookies. The redistribution is a result modern money mechanics. Things like ZIRP and Quantitative Easing has raised the value of assets across the board. The rich own those assets. The poor don't.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Pictures with Pesci for everyone!

 

[Short Corner]

Yeah, it's capitalist by a mile.

He wants to (further) socialize medicine. You could say that he wants to further socialize education (though there are semantic issues with that since most private universities would remain private under his system, I believe).

But think of all the markets he doesn't want the state to take over: markets for electric razors, neckties, organic turmeric, pizza cutters, mom jeans, USB cables, waterproof backpacks, leather wallets, selfie sticks, gym equipment, jade earrings, underpants, hot cocoa, and vacuum cleaners. If I had time, I could list more.

It's not really close.

Medicine is like 1/7th of the economy. Education is another pretty big segment.

Selfie sticks? Jade earrings? C'mon, MT, you're better than this.

What were they 30 years ago and what is the reason for the change?

 

[Rogi]

So public school K-12 is communist? All Bernie is proposing is making Public Colleges fit the same model.

College loans are getting crazy. Anyone can get them and pile on debt at a young. Possibly the next bubble waiting to burst.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

He's more Bull Moose, I think.

 

[Maelstrom]

45 people (right now) don't understand what the word communist means...and haven't spent any time researching what Bernie stands for.

 

[Galileo]

There has already been massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich.

I disagree with this as a matter of semantics.

Consider a hypothetical world in which our wealth consists only of what we make with our own hands. On day one, you and I have nothing. On day two, I make two cookies and you make one. On day three, I make three cookies and you make one. (Cookie ingredients are freely available to everyone!)

I would not say that there has been a redistribution of wealth from you to me on day three. Yes, the rich (me) got richer and the gap between the rich and poor widened. But that's not redistribution unless it was caused by the government taking a brownie from you and giving it to me, which is not what happened.

Back to the real world, it's true that the income and wealth gaps have been widening in the U.S. for the past few decades. It's also true that there are some regressive government programs that have arguably contributed to that (e.g., state universities). But for the most part, redistribution has gone more from rich to poor than the other way around. Our tax policy has generally been progressive, for example. (I think you could make a good counterargument against this point by arguing that intellectual property is a form of redistribution from relatively poor consumers to relatively rich patent- and copyright-holders, but I suspect that's not what you had in mind in your original post. There mere fact that top incomes have risen much faster than median incomes, however, is not a prima facie case that top earners have benefited from redistribution -- see the cookies.)

I call BS...No way the government can take a brownie from someone who only has cookies. <_<

 

[rockaction]

Aside from trying to provide health care for every citizen, can you point me to any examples of Bernie seeking to nationalize an industry or even a single company?

Aside from health care? Oh, jeez. He also asked the government to get involved in labor law and bank funds that favored workers' cooperatives in America.

Incrementalism can sometimes be just as effective as outright nationalization or lead to it in its inevitability if crafted correctly in the executive or legislative branches.

 

[rockaction]

I'm surprised the choices werent communist or really big communist. Oh and here's a tidbit. There has already been massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich. Trillions of dollars. There is class warfare in this country and the rich are winning.

According to Stieglitz and other U. Chicago professors, the main transfers of assets go from the middle class to the middle class, especially with respect to education and state higher education

eta* and I see Maurile beat me to this. But I'd add that the main transfers of wealth go from the middle class to the middle class with a nice bureaucracy to make those transfers inefficient.

eta2* and I disagree with Maurile's main point that he's more capitalist than communist by a mile. It's the old democratic socialist saw, which mainstream political outlets have begun to realize was correct all along.

 

[chauncey]

45 people (right now) don't understand what the word communist means...and haven't spent any time researching what Bernie stands for.

I'm pretty sure 10-90% of those votes are in jest. Do you really expect to get an honest poll (other than Who's Hottest) in the FFA?

 

[rockaction]

45 people (right now) don't understand what the word communist means...and haven't spent any time researching what Bernie stands for.

I'm pretty sure 10-90% of those votes are in jest. Do you really expect to get an honest poll (other than Who's Hottest) in the FFA?

Communist means ownership of the means of production by the workers (proletariat). Its intellectual foundation comes from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who penned The Communist Manifesto and The Origins of Private Property and the State. Its philosophy is scientific materialism, IIRC, and is based upon the notion that there will be a revolution by the proletariat in reaction to the holding of capital by "capitalists" and that there will be a revolution at the end of history when capitalism has exhausted itself. It's Hegelian in nature, that meaning that Marx was a firm believer in both teleological ends of history and dialectic. (Marx was a Young Hegelian at University). The state will set wages, prices, determine where one works, how long one works, what one buys, and how they buy it.

Is that enough?

 

[rockaction]

I'm gonna write a punk song like the #####'s "John Wayne Was a Nazi." I'm going to call it "Marx Was a Young Hegelian," because Hegel's biggest thrill in life was watching Napoleon march down his own block, victorious in war, claiming victory over his homeland's property.