I didn't get the impression that millenials in 2008 were choosing Obama as the lesser of two evils. If anything the Obama phenomena seemed larger than the Sanders phenomena now. For that matter many Millenials couldn't vote then but Obama certainly seemed to have the youth edge. Yes and as I said the frustration is understandable. What is missed though is the how of what any of this get's passed. People argue that to vote for Clinton even while agreeing with many of Sanders' position is settling but how would that be settling if none of Sanders' proposals have a chance of passing? It strikes me as buying into rhetoric that appeals to emotion without deeper thought behind it. In other words it is what many frequently criticize conservatives for as soundbite politics. Granted Sanders has laid out plans for how he will pay for his programs but that isn't the same for how they will actually get passed into legislation. What makes it harder is that his methods for paying for his proposals are more polarizing than the proposals themselves. It's somewhat ironic that a man who has served in Congress since the 80's is seen as outside "the establishment". Considering too that posters here are also arguing that he is "king of bipartisanship". Not exactly what you think of as being a revolution. I will grant him that he has been outside the mainstream of American politics.
I'm a republican and I just might register as a democrat just to vote against Sanders. Bernie becoming the president is worst possible outcome for America. FeelTheBern in your wallets.
Yeah you are a 1%'er who spends all day on Clutchfans. If you are just an average joe and you think that, then you just haven't been listening. Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
Given Sanders' politics, you'd be more likely to see him gain concessions in the form of amendments than see him introduce major "bipartisan" legislation. It just seems a reasonable extension of him being a socialist and sticking his politics. That said. The fact he can negotiate concessions is a positive statement on his temperament. Even still, he worked (increasingly?) to get practical measures passed. Sanders most major deal is perhaps the VA overall he and John McCain worked on which did become law. He has a long documented history we can peruse. For both Clinton and Sanders, I am more interested in their principles, how they operated -- including enemies made and lobbyists supported, and how they negotiated than how many bills they got their names on.
The most important line in that piece is this: [rquoter]Other economists, however, feel that Friedman's analysis is overly optimistic,[/rquoter] Sanders proposals might have a very stimulative effect and I fully agree that infrastructure spending will have a long term benefit but as noted in the article to sustain such growth in the US will be difficult once inflation is factored in. Further I'm not completely sold on Sanders attack on Wall Street. I agree we need to address the too big to fail but at the same time Wall Street isn't just for the Fat Cats but many people are invested in the stock market. I don't think the implications of Sanders policies on the financial markets are well understood.
How long have certain economists been ringing that inflation siren call? It hasn't come to pass yet. The world economy is still in shambles. Inflation is the least of everyone's worries. Deflation is.
That is fine for someone who's consigned to be a back bencher but not exactly for someone who wants to lead the whole country. That is fine and there are much worse reasons to support someone. My own view is though is that I would like to see things done. Principles are a good guide but they have little meaning if they can't actually be implemented.
Largely that is due to Fed policy keeping interest rates low following a record recession. The US is growing now at over a 4% rate without a massive injection of government spending. What happens though with the amount that Sanders wants to inject into the economy is far from certain but many would say that would cause inflationary pressures.
You don't really believe this do you? Also I asked you a couple of times what my Red Scare propaganda was? I'm still curious what exactly I said that made you think that I was just bringing up Red Scare talking points with Bernie's ideas.
The inflationistas were crying that the Fed policy would lead to inflation (by definition). And Obama's spending would worsen it. It hasn't come to pass. Krugman was correct about zero-bound economic theory. The Fed knows that deflation is the real boogey man. And they desperately want to increase interest rates to near reasonable levels where they have room to operate if things go south again. But they can't until the economy is truly healthier. If economists like Krugman are correct (and they have been far more correct than wrong during this entire ongoing crisis), Sanders has much room for spending. Perhaps as much as a trillion more dollars in space before inflation is a big deal. And even then, the Fed can then increase interest rates to counteract any inflation Sanders introduces. Anyway, we should all be concerned with China. Their economy is on the verge of collapse and bringing the world back into the depths of the depression/Great Recession. They have just been making up their economic numbers and firing/arresting their economic chief isn't gonna solve the problem of weak fundamentals.
Getting things done needs to be looked at with the pragmatism of accepting the GOP for what it is. They are dedicated to obstruction. Neither Clinton, nor Sanders will change that. Sanders is a socialist. Clinton is a woman who doesn't know her place. The GOP will keep their heels dug in until the public changes its voting habits. So, as one poster pointed out, the message from the bully pulpit is gonna matter. Appointing justices is gonna matter. The Democratic nominee needs to better influence national conversation and not shy from doing so. Now, I think Clinton is making a mistake harping on "getting things done". She hasn't done much as a legislator, though is a prolific politician and craft and hard nosed. I'd like her to embrace those aspects more and not try the same arguments that failed her against Obama. The GOP fears her. And have for decades. And for good reason. She should embrace that, just as Trump has.
Pop isn't feeling the Bern <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xrxF1M7Ktgg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> FYI Popovich has donated to Democrats.
No, many people are not invested in the stock market. It's actually incredible how often Americans are told about the stock market considering: http://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/08/the-stock-gap-american-stock-holdings-at-18-year-low.html Having said that, I've seen reports as high as 45% - we'd have to go into the methodology to fully understand why there's such a huge difference in numbers being reported. I bet the 45% number includes people who hold pensions which makes them indirectly invested in stocks. The whole point of Bernie's ideology though is to get away from stupid risky things like that and rely more heavily on social security, socialized healthcare, etc. The stock market goes bust roughly every 10-15 years, is that really where you want part of your pension to be invested? As a person who spent a significant portion of half a decade directly overseeing several LARGE firms who manage such pensions for Americans, I'm ultra certain that the strategy is geared more towards getting higher returns for the manager than the pensioner. People don't know what's happening with their pensions, and they will never know enough about it to have control over it. It's just not reasonable for people to know the technicalities of what these people are doing in freezones and tax havens with their hard earned money. It's emblematic of the corrupt system overall.
Try reading your own links and then you would get your answer. The low number you referenced is people who own actual stocks, as int hey buy them directly through a broker, a brokerage account, etc. That study showed 48.8 are invested in the market overall though, which includes people who own mutual funds, 401(ks) and pension plans. That was also 2013 numbers so the report is kind of old. In 2015 the number was up to 55%. Prior to 2009 the number was over 60%. Even in a down or bumpy economy, 1 out of 2 Americans are directly impacted by the stock market. Edit: You have no idea what you are talking about.
Umm, I kind of exactly said that's probably the discrepancy between the two numbers? lol 1 of 2 Americans are IMPACTED indirectly, but ideologically Bernie's goal is to divest from that system so that Americans are not held hostage by the recklessness and thus far uncontrollable consistency with which large private interests inflate risks. In fact, I'd argue that virtually 100% of Americans are impacted indirectly by the stock market, which crashes and burns every 10-15 years. That's the problem with poorly regulated markets. I'm thinking you don't quite agree with or maybe understand the whole point of what Bernie is aiming for.
Agree. We Know the Republican strategy. Obstruct and vilify until they win the Presidency which is pretty ironic because when Bush lost the popular vote but won the election the phrase from Republicabns was that elections had consequences. They treated Bush's election as some mandate and went full speed ahead into crippling tax cuts and multiple wars.
Nailed it, they borrowed that strategy from the Democrats who borrowed it from the Republicans who borrowed it from the Democrats who...... Both parties are essentially the same.
