A quick question for the Establishment supporters: Which of these policies Bernie proposes do not

[Vincardog]

Belong in the Democratic platform?

I am not asking if they could be passed with the current congress or how to pay for them.

1) Making college tuition free at all state universities.
2) Eliminating the corrupting influence of money in our elections by publicly financing federal elections.
3) Raising the minimum wage to $15/hr.
4) Providing health CARE for every US citizen.
5) Fixing SS so we can increase benefits and finance it for ever.
6) Renegotiate our trade agreements so that they benefit American Workers.
7) Making it possible for every new parent or person with a ill family member to stay home and care for them.

Please tell me what doesn't belong and why?

[seaotter]

1. But, but, its MY turn!!!!!

[Vincardog]

2. Thank U for your contribution.

[cyberswede]

3. Good post.

Actually, every democratic candidate should fight for these things. We may not get all of them, but they should be a goal.

[Vincardog]

4. word

[daleanime]

5. Well, they're on "my" platform.....

this primary will determine if they're also the democratic platform.

[Vincardog]

6. That is why I am working for Bernie's nomination.

[daleanime]

7. ......

[Dragonfli]

12. This is the "New Democratic Platform" and sadly it has replaced the previous Dem platform

[Vincardog]

71. We are working to correct that error

[Ferd Berfel]

8. It's time the Party came back to the People.

[Vincardog]

9. We need to Bern down the old corrupt way of politicking

[Ferd Berfel]

10. yes we can

[hill2016]

11. you forgot

(1) Basic guaranteed income for all citizens
(2) Reparations for slavery
(3) Abolishment of border control. Since we're not enforcing it, why bother?

[Armstead]

24. Some here prefer the Democrats just mimeograph the GOP platform

[warrprayer]

79. Goodbye n/t

[litlbilly]

116. that fence thing is so right wing. There is however a net negative mexicans coming into our country

more are leaving than coming in. Just an fyi. As for the reparations, Bernies proposals will more than fix that. Hard to fix 400 years of slavery and oppression but he's at least gonna try, Hillary will not. period. the income thing, no one in this country should be allowed to die because they are poor, nuff said about that.

[Bohemianwriter]

126. How about some reperations...

to the Native Americans your ancestors killed?

Or give something back to the African American community that the same ancestors leeched off and Hillary think she owns as a default voters block?
What will Hillary do to repair the damages caused by the war on drugs and the poli9cies her husband implemented in the 90's?

Tell us exactly how the Hillary camp is on the side of the people they have made their wealths and privileges on the last 500 centuries?

[Vincardog]

14. I am not asking if they could be passed with the current congress or how to pay for them. Which

Should be in the platform? IF not WHY NOT?

[stopbush]

15. Why not? Because a platform is supposed to mean something, something that can be accomplished.

It's enough to say you want to raise the minimum wage without setting down some number in stone. It's enough to say you want to make healthcare more affordable without endorsing a specific plan.

The party platform is a range of ideas, not a must-do list for whoever wins the presidency, and especially not a must-be-done-THIS-way list that straight jackets the president in how he wants to get things accomplished.

Example. You wrote: "Eliminating the corrupting influence of money in our elections by publicly financing federal elections."

Why not just get rid of Citizen's United first? That would have a great effect. Publicly funding elections? We can already do that by checking off the box on our tax returns. Citizen's United is still operative.

[Vincardog]

17. What should not be in it and WHY?

[jalan48]

20. So "ending racism" should be left out as well?

[Old Codger]

21. Also not

With a pisspoor attitude either

[stopbush]

23. Attitude is meaningless and sophomoric. Trump has attitude in spades.

Your point?

[Old Codger]

32. My point is

No one anywhere will ever accomplish anything with an attitude of " can't so why try" and what the fuck does trump have to do with it?? Using a scare tactic won't win anything ever.. Sleeze politics won't do it either it just proves the point that we need what Bernie stands for...

[stopbush]

33. BSers love saying that HRC's message is "No, we can't"

When her message is actually, "No, we won't be suckered into voting for fantasies, whether they come from an R or an I turned D."

[Old Codger]

39. she

is toast , her entire campaign is based on sleeze politics.. you all can waste more time and energy attempting to make her some sort of special person but you are all on the wrong side of history again this time around..

[stopbush]

40. I'll see you in a few months after Hillary has the nomination wrapped up.

It's going to happen. Sorry you can't see that.

[ablamj]

60. And

I'll see you in November when she's lost the General...

[GoneFishin]

64. I have dealt with such people in person. They suck, and they undermine perseverance, which in

this case that is the goal of the meme.

Every fucking amazing thing that anyone has accomplished was hard. I don't want hear whining about goals being hard. Of course they are fucking hard.

[Lazy Daisy]

22. It took over 30 yrs to break it

why do you expect it to be fixed in 1 term.

President Obama started something, remember Hope and Change?
Why are we so willing to now rest on our laurels? Electing President Obama was a large step forward, Hillary isn't taking that next step, she's standing in place.

Bernie is the next step in the President's legacy. He's willing to imagine big just like the President. We push for perfection but accept excellence, not "meh take what little we can get, cause it's too difficult"

[stopbush]

26. Hello newbie. Welcome to DU.

To answer your question: because the one thing Bernie is definitely NOT doing is taking the next step forward in Obama's legacy. No, he's been very clear about that. He is going in a different direction entirely.

Hillary is the continuation of Obama. Simple as that.

I'm a life long D. First voted in 1972. I don't believe for a nanosecond that the D Party needs major reform at all. Nope. What the D party needs is to control Congress so the programs we have always advocated for have a chance of becoming a reality. The way the Ds will win the WH and Congress is to motivate their typical constituencies to get out and vote. The so-called Independent vote is a wash. Always is. Never decides elections and this one will be no different.

[floriduck]

41. Are you serious? Do you think

all Americans are as well off today, under third way policies, as they were 25-30 years ago? Are you satisfied with those who cannot afford any health insurance, need to work multiple jobs to pay rent and feed their families? Are you also fine with the power corporate America has gained under both Democratic and Republican presidents and Congresses?

Tell me again that you either don't care about these issues or that you see what so many of us see, on both sides of the Party!

[stopbush]

44. Oh, I see what you see. I just find Bernie's solutions to be fantasies.

Not at all realistic.

I'm not religious, so I don't put much credence in make believe, faith and magic. I like to see things that make sense, numbers that add up.

Bernie's don't.

I'd respect BS supporters more if they said "hell yeah, his numbers don't add up. His plans are a fantasy. I don't care." But I don't hear that. I hear the Kool Ade being slurped.

[floriduck]

53. I think you just refuse to look for solutions.

It's typical of Hillary supporters to just not try. How did President Obama EVER get you to buy into "Yes We Can."? He was great at campaigning. But once he got into office, he frequently chose the advisement of those deeply embedded into the existing political mindset. That is why Bernie is the real deal. He has been on this crusade since he got into politics.

If you want change, you fight for it. If you are happy with life as ir is, you roll over for a do little candidate. Do some research and you'll see Bernie's numbers add up. But if you'd rather repeat the establishment line, just continue to parrot what you've been fed erroneously.

[stopbush]

54. Nope. I looked at Bernie, hoping to find solutions. What I found was bullshit.

Simple as that. I've done plenty of research, and Bernie's numbers only add up if you believe our growth rate is going to hover just under 5% for a decade and that we're going to find billions of dollars in savings from places where the potential for those savings don't even exist.

Why do you think liberal and single-payer-friendly economists are coming out of the walls to dispute Bernie's fantasies? It's not because they're pro-Hillary. It's because they're pro-math.

You know, if Bernie had come out and said, "I'm a democratic socialist. I think government has a bigger role to play. I think we need to take the money that is currently being taken as profit by the private sector and move that money over to the feds by increasing everybody's taxes in this country to around 40-50% of their yearly income to pay for healthcare etc," I might be in, because THEN we could have had a real debate over how they pay for it all in Europe, and what socialism really means, warts and all.

But he didn't do that, did he?

Socialism's moment in the American limelight came, and Bernie punted.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

67. He didn't say that because it would have been a lie.

I suggest you quit lying yourself. But you are a HRC supporter, after all.

[mikehiggins]

57. Okay, that's as honest an answer I've seen from the other side, so

"hell, yeah, his numbers don't add up..." unless you want to change something.

And, "hell, yeah, I don't care."

I've been voting since 67 and, you know what? All we are saying is THIS is what we want. Go and get it. There are ways and means to achieve anything we want.

Suppose we scrap plans for the new super-Subs. That'd pay for a lot of these changes all by themselves.

Oh, no, that's a fantasy. We can't do that.

How about dumping the F-35? How many billions can we get just from that? A warplane nobody wants except the MIC?

Oh, no, that's a fantasy. We can't do that.

How about eliminating the subsidies we give the fossil fuel companies? How many billions would that save us?

On, no, that's a fantasy. We can't do that.

And so on and so on and so on ad infinitum. I once heard a man give a speech in which he explained that we couldn't change things because doing that would change things and we just can't change things.

We can change things, even though that would change things.

Beleiving everything has to stay the same as it ever was?

That is the fantasy.

[stopbush]

58. Reality check: the ENTIRE defense budget is under $600-billion a year.

Eliminate the whole thing and you're still at least $1.5 trillion short of paying for Bernie's plans.

[Vincardog]

77. Cost is not part of this discussion. Contrtibute something useful or start your own thread.

[floriduck]

61. Thanks my, you got to it before I could.

And then stopbush tries to use only the defense budget as not adding up to get Bernie's numbers. See, that is the illogic approach to No We Can't thinking. Instead of aiming high and getting more than the status quo, the opposition would rather back a candidate who has demonstrated poor judgment, been caught in numerous falsehoods and who is tied and deeply invested in the financial sector that nearly demolished our economy.

Pragmatism is code for status quo when Hillary uses it. And her AA new dedication was lost when she backed her husband's war on crime. Why else would the private prison industry give her big bucks?!

This just reinforces my belief that Bernie is the only option available if America ever expects to get moving forward and putting its citizenry first.

[Vincardog]

74. OFF topic. What proposal do you oppose and WHY? Cost aside.

[stopbush]

86. OK. I'll try it:

1) Making college tuition free at all state universities.

Unrealistic. Free tuition was always the exception, not the rule. Historically, state colleges started as tuition free for residents of the state. But those residents and out-of-state students paid fees that weren't called tuition. Typically, states had to move away from offering free tuition as enrollment increased. I don't think this belongs in the D platform as it is untenable.

2) Eliminating the corrupting influence of money in our elections by publicly financing federal elections.

Begs a lot of questions, like is a candidate required to take public funding? What if a Trump type wants to self-finance a campaign? Do we say that's illegal? How do we determine how much $ goes to each candidate? Do candidates from major parties get the bulk of the funding, screwing insurgent parties? I say overturning Citizens United is a better goal than trying to build up a publicly financed system. At present, we have a voluntary system where one can donate via their tax return. An election financing system that imposes taxes to exist seems contrary to our values.


3) Raising the minimum wage to $15/hr.

Agree that the MW needs to go up. I would prefer that we go for a $12 wage to start and work to get legislation passed that mandates Congress examine the MW every 5 years, or build in a COLA formula tied to inflation that raises the MW every 5 years.

4) Providing health CARE for every US citizen.

Agree. It's just a matter if how we do it.


5) Fixing SS so we can increase benefits and finance it for ever.

Agree. The only real fix we need is to lift the cap on taxable income.

6) Renegotiate our trade agreements so that they benefit American Workers.

Agreed.

7) Making it possible for every new parent or person with a ill family member to stay home and care for them.

Agreed. There is no simple plan available to make this happen.

[Lazy Daisy]

87. Well hello back atcha

Although calling someone a "newbie" isn't very welcoming, but you already knew that, which is why you addressed me in that manner.

Bernie Sanders is very much a continuation of President Obama's legacy. Hope and Change / A Future You Can Believe In

I love when people tell me "I've been doing this for whatever amount of years" My response is, yeah, but who says you've been doing it right?

[Armstead]

25. The GOP line since 1980. They appreciate your sharing it.

[stopbush]

27. It doesn't cost money? Do you live rent free?

Everything costs money. Bernie's plans will just cost a shitload more than he's letting on. It's that simple.

[Armstead]

29. No it isn't that simple

There are many ways to accomplish things. Reordering priorities, more progressive tax to open up new revenue sources apart from us average schmucks, cleaning up corruption that siphons money, etc.

But Rush thanks you,.

[stopbush]

35. And yet Bernie is the guy with the "simple" plan.

Go figure.

[Armstead]

37. No it's an overarching goal and direction -- as is the "Can't pay for anything" mantra

I prefer the one that is positive and more in line with liberal/progressive values than the GOP mantra of starving the public sector

[stopbush]

42. At present, Bernie's numbers are very accurate on how to pay for 50% of his plans.

He needs to show us the other 50%...which means higher taxes.

It's that simple.

BTW - do you really believe the country can sustain a 4.5% growth rate over ten years? Because that is what Bernie's plan calls for. The country has never sustained anything higher than a 3% growth rate.

[Armstead]

46. Any candidate's plans get sliced and diced

I don't take any candidate's specific campaign proposals seriously. They're just "chicken in every pot" marketing to voters.

But as a guideline of their goals and directions, they are useful. If Bernie's plan takes us further along the road to single payer (perhaps a public option) and makes the issue more politically palatable to people, then he'll have succeeded. Same with all of his proposals.

I choose that over "Why bother?" anyday.

[stopbush]

50. So you don't believe BS is being straight with the country, right?

His plans ARE a fantasy, offered simply to maybe kick the can down the street toward an INCREMENTAL solution. In other words, he's just another typical politician.

I can live with that. It's better than actually believing there's going to be a revolution in this country.

[Armstead]

65. You're twisting what I said

They aren't a fantasy any more than Social Security, Medicare, civil rights, etc were.

Can Bernie walk into the WH, press a butrton and BAM we suddenly have his single payer system as he proposed? Nope.

But if he pushed that and it ends up being debated discussed and -- if the Democratic Party actually stands up for it -- we can take steps and get it accomplished over time, with a lot of tweaking along the line. And maybe incremental steps.

That's a whole lot different than saying "That's unrealistic. It costs too much. Maybe we can improve the status quo just a little bit, if the GOP allows us to take a few little steps."

[stopbush]

76. Social Security and Medicare were programs that started small

and were later expanded.

That is hardly what BS is talking about. He's talking about dumping the entire hybrid system we currently have for healthcare and going to 100% single payer.

If Bernie was interested in expanding Medicare, he would do it incrementally, like first lowering the eligibility age to 60 or even 55.

[Armstead]

99. He may do exactly that..He's pretty smart

He did the same thing as Mayor. People dismissed him as an ideologue, but once in office he proved to be a very competant executive who got things done and got reelected three times.

[stopbush]

100. Sorry if I take people at their word.

I'm not voting for what a person might do. I voting for them based on what they say they're going to do.

How can it be otherwise?

[JonLeibowitz]

103. I vote based on what they have done.

Hillary contributed to starting a war.

[stopbush]

104. Bernie has had 3 bills he introduced passed into law.

Two of them renamed post offices.

[Beowulf]

36. Why can Europe afford these things,

but we, the richest country on the planet, cannot?

It's not a matter of money. It's a matter of political will and moral courage.

[stopbush]

38. Do you want to pay 40-50% in taxes?

Because that's what they pay in Europe. That's how they afford it, with high income taxes, VATs and other taxes.

If you're OK with that, have at it. I can assure you that most Americans are not OK with that.

If Bernie was out there saying what it actually costs to have a European-style economy, people would be leaving him in droves. But he isn't. He's offering a Republican-style "something for nothing" deal, taking the old Reagan model of blaming "the government" for all our problems and morphing that into "the establishment."

Same bs, different name. That's all.

BTW - the first thing Bernie could do is to point out which European countries have a true single-payer system. He won't, because all of them have hybrid systems, just like the USA.

[Beowulf]

55. Depends on what I get for it.

And when you add it up Federal, State, Local, property, sales, SS, medicare, insurance premiums, student loan payments, I'm over 50%. In this country for my 50% I get stuff like a bloated military budget, bailouts for the 1%, and outrageous medical bills.

[Vincardog]

94. You seem to be talking about COST. That is not the topic.

[Todays_Illusion]

31. We used to tax the richest more and had tuition free state colleges and once free for all

well baby care clinics in every county of the nation those clinics included immunizations and and some care for adults such as testing for TB etc. There were also county hospitals that treated the poor and received federal funding assistance for that effort. Our rich weren't suffering then why are you reluctant to return to a higher tax for them.

There has been no benefit for the nation from their tax reductions. In fact our payback was the exporting of our jobs so they could accumulate enough money to purchase our government and have done exactly that.

[stopbush]

45. When were tuition-free state colleges the norm in this country?

Some states like CA offered such things, but they were the exception, were they not?

[Todays_Illusion]

49. They were common in nearly all states until the 1980s. When the first Reagan tax cuts cut federal

funding that went to state colleges. I don't have a list but yes it was common and even the states that had tuition had low tuition mostly in the south and just enough to keep out the poorest and African American students)

[stopbush]

51. Really? Because I started college in OH in 1972 and I definitely paid tuition every quarter.

I think you're imagining things.

[hifiguy]

66. It may not have been free but it sure as hell was easily affordable.

I was at my state's flagship public university from '81 to '85. Most I ever paid in tuition - as a full-time student - was a little less than $1600 for my entire senior YEAR.

[stopbush]

73. That's around $4600 adjusted for inflation.

Still cheaper than what it costs today. The College Board estimates the average yearly cost of a 4-year public college to be around $9400.

[Vincardog]

88. Were you in state at a public U? Before or after grants?

[Todays_Illusion]

102. I said most states and did you attend a state college or a private college?

[stopbush]

105. State.

[Todays_Illusion]

106. And were you paying tuition or room and board, two distinctly different things and was it

A state university or a state college I don't really know Ohio, but I will certainly look your claim up.

I live in CA. We do have two systems but they were very low tuition, called registration fees for both the State College/later state university system and the University System and the Community College System. by the end of the 80s they all had not only registration fees, but tuition.

[stopbush]

107. Paid tuition and room and board in a dorm. Do you think I don't know the

difference between tuition and room and board? I paid for them all with money I earned in the summer and a partial scholarship. Had a job in the work-study program as well.

Got out of the dorm as soon as I could. Continued to pay tuition throughout my university years.

Went to Kent State U in Kent, OH. Started there two years after they killed those 4 students.

[Todays_Illusion]

113. I am surprised, I live in CA and know from older relatives that both the State college/university

system and the University of California system were tuition fee until the 80s.

I am surprised because I thought Ohio was progressive in education in those days.

Look how high the fees are now. Prohibitive for working class, even middle class young people.

http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/kent-state-university-at-kent/paying-for-college/tuition-and-fees/

[sulphurdunn]

43. You pay for it from a GDP

of $17 trillion dollars a year and by liberating a considerable amount of that money that has been flowing into the hands of a tiny fraction of the population for the past 40 years, and by reorienting how the federal government allocates its 25% or the national economic activity. It requires neither unicorns nor magic. Does that answer your question?

[stopbush]

47. No, it doesn't. Sorry, but without any details on how one does it, it's a mirage.

I hear anger, not viable solutions. And people often embrace fantasies when their anger boils over.

[sulphurdunn]

56. If you aren't angry, you either like the status quo

or have no clue whats happening. You start with deciding to do something then you determine how to do it and pay for it. That is neither fanciful thinking nor blind rage. It's how change happens and things get done.

[Vincardog]

93. You seem to keep wandering off topic. This is about the Democratic Platform not about unicorn farts.

[sulphurdunn]

129. Reagan opposed

tax and spend public economy. He preferred borrow and spend after cutting taxes. The federal percentage of GDP remains about the same regardless. The difference is that if you raise taxes and pay cash for things there's no need to pay interest on borrowed money and give republicans an excuse to cut social spending to pay for the debt. The issue is always what the money is spent for and how it is raised. The middle class wants a much bigger piece of the action again since they bear the largest share of the burden for public spending as a percentage of income and are far more productive than the financial upper classes. Don't worry. It's the republicans who run-up massive tax cuts for the rich and inflate the federal deft to pay for it, not the democrats. Sanders is no exception.

[Bohemianwriter]

127. So did the Wall Street bailouts...

and the endless wars the Hillary was pushing for...

Where's your priorities?

Bullets and bombs, or schools and hospitals?

[Red Oak]

16. Excellent post - thank you

Obviously they all belong.

[Vincardog]

18. Your welcome. Still waiting on some intelligent responses from the other side.

[hifiguy]

68. Don't hold your breath!

[MisterP]

19. "we own your vote like we own your labor: train your replacement, get out, and be sure and GOTFV!"

[TBF]

28. To me all of those are more important than fighter jets and drones. nt

[RiverLover]

98. +330,000,000!!

[aquabuddha]

30. Question for Bernie Sanders Supporters

How do you define what the "establishment" is? Bernie has been in Washington since 1990. First as a Congressman and now as a Senator. Being an elected official makes Bernie part of the establishment. He's not operating outside the system. He might not bought and owned like many politicians are, but he's still working in the same corrupt system.

[TBF]

108. You would prefer he lead strikes and so forth?

Theoretically so would I, but then he'd be tear-gassed and thrown in jail for upsetting decorum in the empire.

Let's not be silly here.

Oh, and welcome to DU. Snort.

[Tarc]

34. I am not in favor of #1 and #3

1) We have student loan programs, make loans easier to get with more reasonable interest rates and time to repay.

3) Inflating salaries is not the direction to take; rather, work on ideas to make everyday goods and services more affordable.

There are more constructive and viable ways to address issues in our country rather than "give stuff away for free".

[Ken Burch]

48. Student loan programs mean you have to spend most of your twenties and thirties and forties

doing or trying to do corporate work...which means you can't use your education to live your truth. It's going to be too late to start doing meaningful work, in most cases, if you aren't financially free and clear to do it until you're 50 or so.

I would be for something like price controls, though...we should never have accepted the idea that corporations should be allowed to charge whatever the hell the want to charge for things. We should support federal rent control legislation, too...there's no reason the Democratic Party should accept landlords being able to raise rents so high that only the wealthy can live in places anybody would WANT to live. High rents are destroying multiracial and bohemian/nonconformist areas of every city.

[pinebox]

62. That's incredibly depressing to read from someone who calls themselves a "Democrat".

I'm sorry but it is.

You repeat Rand and Ron Paul talking points with "free stuff".
It's absolutely disgusting.

[Tarc]

95. You embody every bad stereotype by wanting to give everyone free stuff, so...

...there ya go.

[pinebox]

111. And there you have it folks!

A Dempublican!
Thank you for showing us your RW colors. We appreciate it.

[Tarc]

112. Not everything slightly to the right of you is a Republican, bud

Last edited Thu Feb 18, 2016, 03:47 PM - Edit history (1)

But, thanks for playing, and enjoy your drubbing on Super Tuesday.

[pinebox]

121. Then maybe you should revisit that screen shot I posted

Because you are verbatim repeating their talking points as I illustrated.
Use your noggin' bro.

[Tarc]

124. Yes, because if Rand Paul happens to say a thing...

...it renders said thing automatically invalid.

This is what happens when someone sleeps their way through Intro to Logic, kids.

[pinebox]

128. Ah you're still failing to corelate things?

You just don't quit do you?
I demonstrated how you repeat RW talking points. It is what it is.
Welcome to reality and if it walks like a duck it's a duck.

Let's see what else we have here shall we? XD

Oh look, you yourself criticized Obama! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4646116&mesg_id=4646318

It's funny you call us Rand/Ron Paul fans with liberal arts degrees http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511119408 yet you repeat their talking points.

It is what it is.

I win!

Anything else you'd like to get handed to you?
Seriously dude just stop. You're looking foolish at this point.

[Tarc]

130. Since I have, at best, skimmed

what you have to say, it really doesn't matter.

Congrats on your 2nd place finish this year.

[pinebox]

131. Ha!

Deal with it.

[Tarc]

132. Deal with the candidate who leads by 25-30% in 10/12 Super Tuesday states?

As my adorable Tarc Jr. likes to say, "kk bro".

[pinebox]

133. Check your polls XD Race is tied nationally. TYVM

[Tarc]

134. You mean the national polls that are completely meaningless?

and do not determine the party nominee, i.e. the one where Clinton topped Obama by 300k in 2008?

I need more for the show goin on up in here.

[pinebox]

135. Sure because SDs go against people lol

What's MI

[PaulaFarrell]

109. i agree

It's the exact phrase that Republicans use to mock Democratic voters

[Kang Colby]

52. Each one of those things sound good individually,

but if understood in whole would not represent the Democratic Party Platform. Instead, those proposals would represent the "bankrupt you and your employer platform." Bernie pushes this economic stupidity, full of proposals for things like Tobin taxes that have been shown to drive tax revenues down, not up. And what do people do? They buy into it because they think they will end up with a bunch of freebies.

Ask yourself this, if taxes are raised dramatically, what stops US companies from moving entirely overseas? The answer is nothing. Why do very few countries tax overseas corporate earnings? Because the companies already pay taxes in the host nation! Turning the US economically hostile towards business is ridiculous.

[Vincardog]

72. I specifically asked that cost not be part of this discussion. Anything else to add?

[Kang Colby]

75. You can't avoid that, otherwise you are just peddling fairy tales. n/t

[Vincardog]

78. So you have nothing to contribute. Thanks for trying.

[Kang Colby]

81. I contribute enough already.

Income taxes - county, state, and federal...property taxes, sales taxes, etc. I say no thanks to Sanders' policy proposals. If I was meant to live in Venezuela I would have been born there.

[Vincardog]

82. That is increadibly off topic. Keep it up and I will ignore you.

[Kang Colby]

83. Sorry, Vincardog. Didn't mean to come off as rude. That's just my opinion. We

can agree to disagree. Good luck this weekend.

[Celebrandil]

69. What about costs?

I think the costs varies a great deal depending on which point you are taking about. In Sweden we have all those benefits, except for point 6 that is not really applicable. We also pay more in taxes than what most of us really want. On the other hand, no party, from left to right, is actively campaigning against the benefits we currently have, at least not those on the list.

Free college education is almost considered a universal right in most parts of Europe. If you have the brain to study at a university and can compete in terms of good high school grades, you should be able to enter a university. I have no idea whether my colleague comes from a rich or poor background, because it doesn't matter. The society as a whole should benefit from allowing everyone with the capacity to learn to get a qualified education. If the cost of educating a student in America were the same as in Sweden, the total cost of introducing free college education in America would be about $80B. That includes everything from facilities, to administration and professor salaries.

Free health care is another point that is considered a universal right. To me it would feel very awkward, and morally wrong, knowing that your neighbor might not be covered, when you know that are covered yourself. In Sweden the cost of free health care is about 10 times as high as free college education. That's a lot of money. Somehow America is already spending all that money and it still isn't enough to get everyone covered. In fact, America is spending way more money, about twice as much. Either those with coverage have access to better health care than what we have, or money disappears somewhere. Is the life expectancy longer and the child mortality rate lower in America? Hardly.

Sorry, my intention was not to bash America in any way. I just wanted to point out that everything does not necessarily have to cost as much as one might think. You simply want the best bang for the bucks.

[Vincardog]

70. Bernie has laid out plans to deal with the costs. This thread is meant to discuss policies and

Which ones we as Democrats should support

[beaglelover]

80. #1 should definitely go. Probably #7 too but it is too vague to make a determination.

[Vincardog]

84. Continue WHY? WE had free education until Ray-Gun and there are countries who offer 1 year maternity

Leave to both parents. Why not us?

[Chichiri]

89. 1 because teachers need to eat, and 6 because it's too vague. nt

[Vincardog]

91. Teachers ate before Ray-Gun pulled the federal money from education. Is a platform required to be a

Detailed plan or a goal? I have heard criticism from both sides. Why is 6 not a valid goal?

[one_voice]

90. Well I'd love to take part in this discusssion..

but, your subject line:

A quick question for the Establishment supporters:

Sets it up so that if anyone disagrees with anything on your list-they support the establishment-obviously a negative.

So discussion is shut down once again, unless you want to be bullied and ostracized.

I didn't bother to read your list. I stopped after the first line.

Have a pleasant evening.

[Vincardog]

92. Nice you took the time to share. Sorry the subject line gave you a sad. If you didn't read past it

How did you see the list?

[one_voice]

96. I could see there was a list..

without *actually* reading it.

Another Sanders supporter reinforcing that he [Sanders] doesn't need my vote. You guys seem to have this all wrapped up.

An undecided voter.

I was an O'Malley person. Now I'm trying to decide.

Good luck to you.

I'll go elsewhere for my discussions.

[Vincardog]

97. Would you prefered that I asked the HRC supporters? Then they could cry about "attacks"?

[metroins]

101. I answered

1
2 possibly (number is debatable)
7 possibly, depending on situation

The D Party is left, but also pragmatic.

[Vincardog]

110. Sorry, I didn't see the "WHY" part of your answer

[geek tragedy]

114. (1) is of dubious constitutionality since it effectively takes control

of state universities and colleges from the states themselves.

it would effectively abolish all 50 state university/college systems and replace them with one federal one.

if a state can't control its own universities budget, it's no longer a state university

the rest seem pretty uncontroversial to me.

[Vincardog]

115. Was the University of California system abolished when it was tuition free before Ray-Gun?

[geek tragedy]

117. No, because it was CALIFORNIA making those decisions. Not the federal government. nt

[Vincardog]

118. The federal government provided 70% of the funds required

, the state covered 25% and left the student with 5%.
Everybody realized that investing in an educated population was a good investment for the country.
The federal government providing funds does no harm to the states.

[geek tragedy]

119. so the states would get to send a blank check to the federal government for all of their public

colleges and universities?

[Vincardog]

120. I specifically said this thread was not about costs. They are the details to be worked out.

[brooklynite]

123. ...and that's the problem...

...you can't take this into a campaign and say "this is not about costs". People will judge it in large part on the costs, actual or perceived.

[brooklynite]

122. I don't object to any of them...

I just don't believe Sanders can campaign on these issues and get elected to implement them.

[Sheepshank]

125. It cracks me up that fringe supporters calls all others, establishment supporters

labels are so passe, don't you think?