Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

Post by _Chap »

EAllusion wrote:But the reason this costs more is because people in the medical system are making that money. The efficiencies you get with Medicare for all involve stopping people from making that money. If you transition to Medicare for all, lots of people are either going to lose their jobs or face a wage crunch.


OK, so American people who buy health insurance are being gouged to support a huge and ultimately pointless parasite industry that does nothing to make people better. Only part of that money actually goes to pay real health costs.

Once the people who are being gouged have that money back to spend on things they really want, the US economy is perfectly capable of employing the ex-employees of the former parasite industry in providing goods and services that people really want and need.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Mar 14, 2020 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

Post by _EAllusion »

Chap wrote:
EAllusion wrote:But the reason this costs more is because people in the medical system are making that money. The efficiencies you get with Medicare for all involve stopping people from making that money. If you transition to Medicare for all, lots of people are either going to lose their jobs or face a wage crunch.


OK, so American people who buy health insurance are being gouged to support a huge and ultimately pointless parasite industry that does nothing to make people better.

Once the people who are being gouged have that money back to spend on things they really want, the US economy is perfectly capable of employing the ex-employees of the former parasite industry in providing goods and services that people really want and need.


It's not good if a politician who is advocating for a plan that will cause a temporary economic shock that leads to potentially hundreds of thousands of people either losing their job or facing reduced wage expectations refuses to meaningfully talk about that part.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

Post by _Chap »

EAllusion wrote:It's not good if a politician who is advocating for a plan that will cause a temporary economic shock that leads to potentially hundreds of thousands of people either losing their job or facing reduced wage expectations refuses to meaningfully talk about that part.


Yup.

What does Sanders do about reducing dependence on fossil fuels, which is another policy that involves closing down certain industries?

The answers I usually hear from people who advocate doing that are good ones: basically that there are huge possibilities for good and lasting jobs in the growing industries based on greener technologies, rather than in old industries that are ultimately doomed to extinction. Sanders?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

Post by _EAllusion »

Chap wrote:
EAllusion wrote:It's not good if a politician who is advocating for a plan that will cause a temporary economic shock that leads to potentially hundreds of thousands of people either losing their job or facing reduced wage expectations refuses to meaningfully talk about that part.


Yup.

What does Sanders do about reducing dependence on fossil fuels, which is another policy that involves closing down certain industries?

The answers I usually hear from people who advocate doing that are good ones: basically that there are huge possibilities for good and lasting jobs in the growing industries based on greener technologies, rather than in old industries that are ultimately doomed to extinction. Sanders?


I think that answer is politically good because I think the categorical similarity makes people think those losing jobs in, say, oil refineries can get one in the windmill industry. That isn't how that works, though. What happens is in economic churn people losing good jobs in one area free up resources to drive economic activity in another that other people usually are better positioned to take advantage of.

It's tough-talk to say, "Don't worry. The person who loses their well-paying job at a health insurance company will have a hard time, but there will be more exciting opportunities in computer science" or whatever. The Sanders approach, common on the left, is to advocate for government assistance with job training for those economically displaced to transition to new careers, but I think that's done in a way that constitutes "mumbling over that part" because it's politically difficult to confront.

As a practical matter, the healthcare lobby is very powerful and will not go down without a fight. Sanders, in a hypothetical universe in which he hasn't already lost the nomination, ain't passing squat if the median Senator is Joe Manchin.
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

George Carlin:

Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens.

This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. '


This is why we get Trump, and this is why we get Biden. From the same Reddit thread and the parent comment to the above Carlin quote:

I mean, your point is valid for sure. Bernie's supporters certainly are quick to pass the blame around -- it's the polling station closures, it's biased media coverage, it's Clyburn's endorsement or Warren's lack thereof. And those things certainly are valid to point out and absolutely have an effect on the election, just as it's fair to point out that Sanders himself could and should have done many things differently and that young people really do need to vote in greater numbers.

But I think most people would be very unhappy if Sanders supporters put the blame where it truly belonged. Because the real problem with America is, and always has been, the quality of its people. We talk a great deal about making D.C. a state, or packing the Supreme Court, or ratifying the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or implementing ranked-choice or proportional voting. But the truth is that none of those things will help because none of them address the root cause of our current situation. The truth is that there is no system of government ever designed, nor could one ever be created, that could survive and prosper with a population as arrogant, stupid, selfish and short-sighted as the average American.

Donald Trump is not an anomaly. He didn't appear suddenly, he was born here, and lived here his entire life. He made a fortune selling tacky, overpriced, gaudy junk -- and Americans bought it, and elevated it to a status symbol. He grifted, lied, swindled and stole -- and the American justice system enabled him and empowered him. He said shocking, disgusting, horrifying things -- and our media gave him a megaphone. And he did everything possible to demonstrate that he was a stupid, petty, arrogant and cruel man unfit in every way possible for any office in existence -- and a nation of stupid, petty, arrogant and cruel Americans turned out in droves to propel him to the highest office in the land. Trump is the real American. He's our boss, taking credit for our work as he angles for a raise; he's our grandfather, sighing in disgust about "kids these days" before passing out drunk on the couch, he's our grandmother, who thinks that women are too emotional to be president, he's our father, who knows nothing about economics and speaks confidently on the subject, he's our mother, who votes based on what she saw in a campaign ad; he's our brother, who doesn't look for a job but is convinced he doesn't have one because of "the illegals". He's our friend since childhood, who sometimes makes comments about "the Blacks" -- and he's us, when we remain silent instead of calling him out.

Democrats are eager to point out Clinton's victory in the popular vote, but they never stop to consider that the election should have never been close. They blame the Russians for fanning the flames of hatred and division, but they never ask why those fires were alight in the first place. They talk about "what's practical" while propping up an economic system that crashes every seven years and has failed the vast majority of those under its dominion and sneer at anyone who points out these obvious facts while advocating for alternatives. They answer questions of morality with words like "pragmatism" and rage against anyone unwilling to compromise their ethics. And they vote for an arrogant, loudmouthed, senile buffoon, a liar and a plagiarist who promises to return them to a blissful imaginary past while looking down on Trump supporters for doing precisely the same thing, albeit to a different extent.

And then they criticize Sanders for "not actually being a Democrat", when in fact that's his primary appeal. The truth is that Sanders didn't compromise enough to build a coalition -- because in order to build a coalition in America the compromises you have to make are moral ones.


Then again I voted for that other billionaire, I already forget his name, because I was worried about Sanders getting his ass kicked in November, so perhaps, and man I'm really stretching my belief muscles here, Democrats put that much thought into voting for Biden. I mean I doubt it. I believe they just remember Old Joe when he was with Obama and those were pretty good times, but ya never know.

- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_DoubtingThomas
_Emeritus
Posts: 4551
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am

Re: Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

Post by _DoubtingThomas »

EAllusion wrote:As a practical matter, the healthcare lobby is very powerful and will not go down without a fight. Sanders, in a hypothetical universe in which he hasn't already lost the nomination, ain't passing squat if the median Senator is Joe Manchin.


However, Sanders is really good on foreign policy, and the president of the US has a lot of power on foreign policy. Biden sucks on foreign policy.

So why is private insurance better than MFA?
_DoubtingThomas
_Emeritus
Posts: 4551
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am

Re: Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

Post by _DoubtingThomas »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I was worried about Sanders getting his ass kicked in November


Everybody thought the same thing about Trump in 2016. There is no evidence that Sanders can't win in Nov.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

Post by _Res Ipsa »

DoubtingThomas wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:I will pay more. I won’t have to pay the $300 and the small deductible. But I’ll have to pay for that in increased taxes, plus the $2000 or so a month that my employer used to be paying for me. If you have decent employer provided health insurance now, you will almost certainly be worse off under MfA. Employer provided health insurance is the biggest impediment to adopting MfA. That’s why Sanders will not provide specifics about how he would finance MfA. To make it work, Warren has to talk about a wealth tax.


Maybe, but it is all opinion. You told me, "I know if you ask five economists a question on a complicated subject like the causes of the 2008 crash, you’ll get six different opinions."

According to the Hill article, "22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money"
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog ... aves-money


We’re talking about two different things. I’m talking about the difficulty of transitioning to single payer from a system that relies heavily on employer-provided health insurance. You’re talking about projections of overall savings. Put another way: who is it that will actually pocket that saved money? I’ve yet to see numbers on that.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

Post by _Res Ipsa »

The question I think DT is trying to get at, is what happens under capitalism when the demand for labor falls to zero, or something close to it. In that case, only the owners of capital (robots and resources) earn money, and population shrinks until the small amount of labor that has some value becomes scarce enough to raise the price of labor to at least subsistence level. The moral is: be one of the guys that owns capital.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_DoubtingThomas
_Emeritus
Posts: 4551
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am

Re: Will Sanders' Supporters Ultimately Back Trump?

Post by _DoubtingThomas »

Res Ipsa wrote:The question I think DT is trying to get at, is what happens under capitalism when the demand for labor falls to zero, or something close to it. In that case, only the owners of capital (robots and resources) earn money, and population shrinks until the small amount of labor that has some value becomes scarce enough to raise the price of labor to at least subsistence level. The moral is: be one of the guys that owns capital.


Exactly! Thank you! I don't see how capitalism is going to be successful when the robots dominate the workforce. Socialism might be the future.
Post Reply