But, Mr. Sanders is the tip of a paradigm shift that could threaten the hold corporate/conservative politics have over the nation, Ms. Clinton isn't. You could have a new generation of people asking why not in the face of gridlock. *granted there was an even stronger youth movement in the 60's and not much changed by legislation and there was little long term effect on the political landscape. Mostly it just yeided creeping social acceptance. There were fewer ways to get opinions into the mainstream then.
Can you substantiate that based on historical and electoral evidence? Actually there was more change in the 60's due to both strong movements such as Civil Rights but also do having a consummate insider in the office (LBJ) who makes Hillary Clinton look a girl scout when it comes to slimy dealings.
No I can't. Passionate true believers usually get worn down to ineffectiveness because corporate forces pay for their advocacy and profit from it. Skilled professional people will work hard for good pay without believing in the product, but counter-corporate crusaders eventually have to eat and pay rent. But the internet has democratized information where the corporate interest can't control all of it anymore. But it is also reaching volumes where information cannot be vetted and truth and fiction can appear equally valid. I just think having a candidate that pushed the envelope of progressive politics will yield some momentum. As for LBJ's progress: The Eighty-ninth United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It met in Washington, DC from January 3, 1965 to January 3, 1967, during the third and fourth years of Lyndon Johnson's presidency. The apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives was based on the Eighteenth Census of the United States in 1960. Both chambers had a Democratic supermajority. It is regarded as "arguably the most productive in American history".[1] Some of its landmark legislation includes the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, the Voting Rights Act, Higher Education Act, and Freedom of Information Act. He also had the support of the military industrial complex who were all for gearing to stop communism, i.e. The Domino Effect
Bernies supporters Do you think the American retirement system should be like the Denmark retirement system?
Denmark has best pension system http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pensions-survey-idUSKCN0I227W20141013
He's going to explain to us how privatization is the cure to all the evils of capitalism. It's a double down thing that's popular in America right now.
from what I can see it works like the system in Canada, public basic income for retirees funded by payroll taxes/general taxes and supplemented by DC/private plans/company plans. Unless the folkepension has been recently privatized I'm not seeing what you're seeing. http://www.pensionfundsonline.co.uk/content/country-profiles/denmark/119
I'm trying to find a good site that breaks it down. I'm not going to profess that I'm an expert on their system but what I have read about it makes it seem vastly superior to ours. You can contribute much greater amounts to your pension each year compared to our setup. I believe it is up to 46k a year that is tax deductible. Combine that with the first 44k of your income being exempt from federal tax then that is pretty favorable. Maybe I am misunderstanding something with their setup, but it seems pretty interesting. The investment plans are basically an 80% bond and 20% stock portfolio from what I understand and the plans are not run by private companies. Also there is a 2:1 employer:employee contribution rate. Even the Denmark tax structure at the federal level is simplified (albeit on the high side) and seems much better than our structure. There was a good website that explained it pretty well. I'll try to find the sites I was reading about it when I get back home.
I mean that it invests in bonds and stocks and is funded by employees and employers primarily. Our social security system is ultimately back stopped by the government.
FWIW having a portion of the social security funds invested in some sort of bond/stock portfolio would have worked out very well. I don't really think there is any argument against it, but I would we happy to read anything that shows otherwise. I don't know...call me crazy but some flexibility with this program would be beneficial. Do you feel differently?
Yeah but he's never said his plan is to copy every single thing about that one country. There are problems with every system, you don't copy the problems if there are any. Also, Bernie's message is not: nothing should be left privatized. If it's beneficial he'll support it. That's why he helped write the ACA, which is mostly not a socialistic policy.
Well if he feels that way then he has fooled me. He has universally panned anything related to Wall Street or investing. I won't even get into the ACA and healthcare, but you are certainly spot on with saying the ACA is not socialist.
their public pension seems to be funded by general taxes from what I can see. not super aware of what happens with Social Security, though it does sound like Social is more rigid than the Canadian and Danish pension systems.
https://www.socialsecurity.gov/international/Agreement_Texts/DenAnnFile/DenArticles 8 0.html The contributions are mandatory. So I guess that can be called a tax of some sort.
