General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders, mulling presidential run, adopts novel stance on deficit
Bernie Sanders is headed to Iowa. On Thursday, the irascible Vermont senator and self-described democratic socialist will kick off three days of public speaking events in the state, joining the scores of other rumored presidential contenders who have recently descended on the crucial 2016 battleground.
Like the others, Sanders has not yet said whether he is running for president. But he has repeatedly said that he is prepared to run, particularly if nobody else steps up to fill a left-wing, economically egalitarian vacancy in the Democratic primary field.
In the meantime, Sanders has used his position as a ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee to expound on his own vision for a political program. Last month, he put out a report advocating for a federal budget that would help rebuild the disappearing middle class.
Most of the policy initiatives suggested in that report such as raising the minimum wage and boosting infrastructure spending have been proposed before by Sanders and members of the Democratic Party. But the report also included a novel way of thinking about the federal deficit: Although Sanders said debt reduction is a worthy goal, he put far greater emphasis on reducing what he called the other deficits in our society, such as unemployment and income inequality.
more
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/19/bernie-sanders-mulling-2016-bid-adopts-a-novel-stance-on-the-deficit.html
daleanime
(17,796 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)(Deficits don't matter.)
Poor Sanders. All that seem to matter, when the rubber hits the road, are wars and austerity and he doesn't seem to be a big fan of either.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)He represents my values and fights for my interests. He has my vote.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)especially the rich paying their share of the taxes. After all they made their billions creating that deficit.
But how can we get the rich to pay their fair share of the taxes while the Republicans control Congress?
Obama can negotiate with them to close some tax loopholes; but that's about all.
There will be no new taxes on the wealthy as long as the GOP runs Congress.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)2016.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Until they use it as an excuse to privatize everything including Social Security.
Yay, Bernie!
antigop
(12,778 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)in the people.
Just ask the bank$ters we have enriched over the past 6 years while letting over 5 million more of our neighbors slide into poverty, tens of millions more near there.
Those are the deficits that matter.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)slumcamper
(1,658 posts)SharonAnn
(13,834 posts)But then, Bush drove through "tax reform", started the war in Iraq, and increased crony spending.
Remember "It's your money?" Nobody ever said "It's your debt!".
It's really sickening that we took the great opportunity and turned it into an economic disaster.
Having said that, a reasonable national debt is not necessarily a bad thing. If it's investment in this country, it can be a good thing.
After all, even households go into debt to buy a house, a car, an education, etc.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Why shouldn't the government?
But Bush should have paid for the war he fought in Iraq and Afghanistan by raising taxes. He should not have given the tax breaks he did.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)K&R
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)whoever really does run. It won't be him...just the word socialist (forget the democracy part) will put off enough people...the Democrats have run from that label for years. That's how we came up with Progressive, as I see it. Didn't carry the Liberal baggage. Now I hear neoLiberal...what the hell is that?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Think austerity, free trade, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton etc. It is the driving philosophy behind most bank run think tanks like ThirdWay and PPI.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)public education, health care, etc...the social aspect. Maybe you're saying that the trade issues affect the social issues negatively? Which I can also see.
I became Liberal during those years. Oh my, what to get politically and socially behind any more.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Regarding education, health care etc. they favor privatization as a means to build a "strong economy". I disagree strongly with neoliberals on nearly every issue, unfortunately, neoliberalism has become quite popular among European politicians as well as US pols and is a global movement.
Us old fashioned liberals are being left behind I am afraid.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)I was attending Richard Nixon's alma mater, 1968-1970, so it was really intense there. (We had free Junior College then, too)
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)We did good work back then, civil liberties, an end to the draft, a short lived but sincere war against poverty (that could leave a blueprint for the young when they decide it is important again).
There was a time when economic theories embraced by liberals understood that an economy that strengthened the bottom 99 was good for the entire country even the 1% (Keynesian) and embracing those theories led to the largest and most prosperous middle class in US history. Neoliberals prefer supply side economics which are destroying that middle class at an exponential rate and has led to record income inequality (Friedman and the Chicago school of economics). Of the two, ours is by far the proudest legacy, don't ever forget that.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)And I still wear tiedye and sport a freak flag
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)based on "copyright grounds".
Thanks anyway, I will play it from my collection since you got me in the mood.
That song brings back memories good and bad, today I will listen and just think of he good.
srican69
(1,426 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)If only Julian Castro was older, but I think he'll get picked for VP...groomed for 8 years from now. He's definitely Left.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Sanders would be a good follow-up to Obama. Obama compromised a lot but got the country back on an even track economically. Our country, however, does have infrastructure and social deficits that exceed even our budget deficit. Sanders approach would be wise at this time.
Managing the economy is not a matter of following this or that economic theory to its ultimate extreme but rather balancing incentives and changing focus when the need arises. Right now, we need to build and rebuild infrastructure. The age of television is fading away. The age of the internet and electronic media has only just begun. The fossil fuel age is also fading away. We need to rebuild our grid and our transportation facilities to make it possible for us to move into a new age.
We can only allow ourselves to take advantage of the new technologies now being developed if we invest wisely as a country. Private companies will play their role, but the infrastructure to support the investments of private money has to be available.
The internet got a big boost when universities started using it, when students started developing programs around it. But essentially, the primary development of the idea of computers was boosted by the government including by our military. That's the way we make progress -- through government and the private sector boosting each other. We have gone too far in the direction of relying on private companies to develop our economy. Sanders' ideas would be the right antidote for our social stagnation.
erronis
(16,445 posts)And of course those worries are what are going to be focused on when the "democrat" convention comes around.
Infrastructure, improving education, providing universal health care, and decent minimum wages (better a guaranteed minimum income) - these are all critical to this country starting to grow again.
--- tl;dr ---
I was in on the original arpanet which preceded the internet (much like Al Gore, but really.) While funded by the gov/mil it was really a result of a lot of prior academic work and a lot of volunteers that hopefully made a good living by being part of its growth.
The internet was essentially free and (usually) ran over your POTS copper to the home. Getting the cable, DSL, and satellite companies into the equation meant that corporate profits started to play a role.
Now we are all used to paying some number of bucks/equivalent for pretty good high-speed access through corporate entities. These entities want to make more money and are more than willing to "tier" access or filter information. The government also wants to get in on the inspection and filtration.
My fear is that there will be a world-wide decision by some entity to instantly make these conversations like on DU impossible. China has shown how to do it. There is no doubt that the US could do it also (secret signing letters). The US controls some huge percent of all conduits and can quickly change how they work. (Recently, they also control 80-90% of all hard drives around the world...)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)perfect simple frame
Although Sanders said debt reduction is a worthy goal, he put far greater emphasis on reducing what he called the other deficits in our society, such as unemployment and income inequality.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)and vote for.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Preferably both.
Before someone points it out, I know his ideas are not new but rather used to be the centerpiece of our party, it is time for a new return to old values.
Ramses
(721 posts)I will also vote for the most progressive candidates down the ticket to the local level.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)lesser of two evils.
The only way the best candidates win is if you vote for them.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Yay, Bernie!