Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 123
Thanks Tree106Thanks

Thread: How Bernie Won?

  1. #101
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    1985

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by orangecat View Post
    We're already too far left, imo.
    Here's one way to approach the question of how far left is the right amount. Picture laying all the countries of the world out on a spectrum, from right to left. There are a lot of factors that could be used to differentiate countries on a left-right axis that way, but just to have a simple one with hard numbers to use, picture if you did it by looking at how much each country's total government spending was as a share of GDP. So, at the far left of the spectrum you'd have a country where the entirety of the economy took place in the form of government spending, and at the far right you'd have a country that had no government spending at all.

    I think if you did that, you'd find that all the wealthy nations fell within a range -- about 28% to 58%, approximately. That's the range of workable solutions for how far left you can be and still be generally prosperous -- any further left or right than that, and you're out in uncharted territory, where it may not even be possible to maintain general prosperity.

    Using that analysis, let's say you're Finland, with government spending at 57.1%:

    https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-go...t-spending.htm

    Well, I'd argue you're probably too far to the left. You're almost out in that territory where it's not even clear it's possible to maintain prosperity. You could well be risking becoming so socialistic that the incentives of capitalism no longer function effectively and the economy starts to come unglued. To be on the safe side, you'd do well to cut government spending a bit, privatize some matters currently handled by the government, and move more safely towards the middle of the pack of wealthy peers.

    Well, in the same sense, what if you're the United States? Well, in that case, you're sitting to the right of nearly all the other wealthy nations. There isn't a single large wealthy nation with a government that spends less than yours, as a share of GDP.... just a few smallish wealthy nations with boutique economies, like Ireland, and a few poorish large nations like Russia. So, you'd probably be better off to move away from the fringe, by boosting government spending. There's no serious question about the fact it's possible for a large nation to be well to the left of the US and yet still have general prosperity, whereas there's a very serious question about whether it's possible for a large nation to be even further to the right than the US without losing its general prosperity. So, the safe move for the US is to shade to the left, just as the safe move for Finland is to shade to the right.
    Last edited by Arkady; 15th May 2018 at 11:12 AM.

  2. #102
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,687
    Thanks
    31375

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by TNHarley View Post
    Why no?
    https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/polit...xes/index.html
    There are all kinds of articles like this. Articles about republicans hating their party. Articles stating independent #s get bigger every day.
    And yet they continue to vote Republican.

    Quote Originally Posted by TNHarley View Post
    And yet libertarian votes are not going very far. Libertarianism is not an ideological alternative to conservatism or liberalism, but is its own thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by TNHarley View Post
    People are waking up. I hope you and babba do, as well.
    I am plenty awake, thank you very much.

    Quote Originally Posted by TNHarley View Post
    It has always been like that? Is that why the jeffersonians started to eliminate the federalist party in the late 1700s early 1800s?
    Well, there was a period when there was effectively only one party, but I am assuming you do not think that is an improvement over two.

  3. #103
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,687
    Thanks
    31375

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Changes in campaign finance and lobbying laws as well as proportional seating, among other things, would be necessary to avoid that.
    Proportional seating would, of course, require constitutional amendments in order to restructure the legislature in its entirety. Changes in campaign finance and lobbying laws are unlikely in any case, since once a party gains ascendence it will want to take the same advantages as is predecessor.

  4. #104
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    49,734
    Thanks
    35469

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    he should be allowed to run if that's what he wants. This still is America. But, if he does, he shouldn't be allowed to run free and easy like last time. One of the problems with HRC is all her baggage. Because of that she agreed to go easy on Bernie. Big mistake. She should have went at him with all she had. That way, all of her baggage would have be litigated during the primary. JMO. The Democrats need to stop playing nice with Sanders. He's not playing nice with them. So, why should they keep allowing him to screw them over without a fight?
    Bernie should not be allowed to run as a Democrat again. I do not care what he does outside of the Party.

    And,if the DNC embraces him, Perez and Ellison both need to go. I do not have much faith in either one, the way they have acted. Perez going on a tour with Bernie as soon as we was chosen. Ellison was always a supporter.
    Thanks from Friday13 and the watchman

  5. #105
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    45,490
    Thanks
    27568

    From
    New Hampshire
    Vanity Fair just came out today with an article about how Sanders could hurt the midterms more than help them as he is endorsing and pushing democratic socialists and far left people that probably cant win a general. Interesting they are now going on the cable channels saying this just as Weaver said "Bernie is thinking about running in 2020 and will decide over the summer."

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018...risk-the-house

  6. #106
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    81,400
    Thanks
    43909

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryAnne View Post
    Bernie should not be allowed to run as a Democrat again. I do not care what he does outside of the Party.

    And,if the DNC embraces him, Perez and Ellison both need to go. I do not have much faith in either one, the way they have acted. Perez going on a tour with Bernie as soon as we was chosen. Ellison was always a supporter.
    not sure there's any way to stop him from running as a Democrat. I say let him. He has even less of a chance of getting the nomination than in the last presidential primary. But, if he runs as an independent he'll split the ticket. Let a candidate without the baggage Hillary had put him out of his misery. Expose him for the fraud he is.

  7. #107
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    15,120
    Thanks
    5577

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Proportional seating would, of course, require constitutional amendments in order to restructure the legislature in its entirety. Changes in campaign finance and lobbying laws are unlikely in any case, since once a party gains ascendence it will want to take the same advantages as is predecessor.
    would you consider those things beneficial to our system or not?

  8. #108
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,687
    Thanks
    31375

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    would you consider those things beneficial to our system or not?
    As far as campaign finance and lobbying, it would of course depend on what changes to the law we would be talking about.

    As to proportional seating, that would be a change in the system itself.

  9. #109
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,959
    Thanks
    49440

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by TNHarley View Post
    By "natural progression" do you mean voters?
    No. The system forces the two party system.

  10. #110
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,687
    Thanks
    31375

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    No. The system forces the two party system.
    The existing system does not force a two-party system. (Even parliamentary systems have two major parties.) But it is not conducive to multiple parties. Nevertheless, there is not the political will to completely rewrite the Constitution in order to change the system - a move I would oppose in any case.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Where's Bernie?
    By tnbskts in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 15th August 2016, 11:14 AM
  2. Replies: 156
    Last Post: 28th May 2016, 06:55 PM
  3. Bernie Sanders Only Cares About Bernie Sanders
    By Minotaur in forum Current Events
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 14th May 2016, 09:16 AM
  4. Bernie's Right
    By vikingbeast in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 9th July 2015, 08:38 PM
  5. Don and Bernie
    By vikingbeast in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 9th July 2015, 03:17 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed