How Do Conservatives Feel About Bernie Sanders?

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Drbrumley , you don't even know what communism is, making you a typical American rightw-ing doofus .

Libertarians aren't right wing, in fact their social agenda is even more left wing than yours.

http://www.lp.org/platform

Barney Frank just wants to keep business and industry from creating mass unemployment and poverty in America, which is exactly what they are doing . He wants ot create a fairer ,more equitable America..

Obviously De Horn is thinking about the good ole days when Bawney Fwank was in office.

FRANK-articleLarge.jpg


The thread is about the socialist Bernie Sanders.

Bernie-Sanders-Is-The-Most-Dangerous-Man-In-America.jpg
 

The Horn

BANNED
Banned
Oops. Finger slip. Of course i meant Bernie Sanders . At least Barney Frank was honest enough to admit being gay . There are so many closeted gays in the GOP who furiously denounce homosexuality and gay people just to kiss up to the religious right and gain right-wing votes while living the gay life in private .
At least Barney is no hypocrite .
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Oops. Finger slip. Of course i meant Bernie Sanders . At least Barney Frank was honest enough to admit being gay . There are so many closeted gays in the GOP who furiously denounce homosexuality and gay people just to kiss up to the religious right and gain right-wing votes while living the gay life in private .
At least Barney is no hypocrite .

And like every homosexual, Bawney likez em young.

barneyFrank-steveGobie.jpg


http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...barney-frank-tributes-the-prostitutes-2011-11

And now we return to the regularly schedule programming which talks about pro sodomite, pro baby murderer and thief of taxpayers money: Bernie Sanders.
 

Tinark

Active member
As a fiscal and economic conservative, these are the parts I really disagree with:

Opposed NAFTA, CAFTA, permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China, the TPP, and other free-trade agreements. These deals kill American jobs by shifting work overseas to nations which fail to provide worker protections and pay extremely low wages.

This makes the world a more level playing field and substantially reduces extreme poverty in the poorest countries. This also increases our economic competitiveness: inefficient jobs that barely make a profit are replaced by higher value added jobs. Consumers in the country are the ultimate beneficiaries with better product selection at better prices.

Introduced the Employ Young Americans Now Act with Rep. John Conyers. It would provide $5.5 billion in immediate funding to employ one million young Americans between the ages of 16 and 24, and would provide job training to hundreds of thousands of others.

Ridiculous - paying people to do a bunch of make-work jobs is not a plan for long-term sustainability. The way to tackle this issue is to learn the reasons why youth have trouble finding unemployment and tackle those issues directly, not mask the problem by creating a government program that hires them anyway despite these issues. That's not curing the underlying issues.

We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years.

Really bad idea that does little to reduce poverty:

A good summary of the issues with the minimum wage is here:

Recently, Michael Wither and Jeffrey Clemens of the University of California, San Diego looked at data from the 2007 federal minimum-wage hike and found that it reduced the national employment-to-population ratio by 0.7 percentage points (which is actually a lot), and led to a six percentage point decrease in the likelihood that a low-wage worker would have a job.

Because low-wage workers get less work experience under a higher minimum-wage regime, they are less likely to transition to higher-wage jobs down the road. Wither and Clemens found that two years later, workers’ chances of making $1,500 a month was reduced by five percentage points.

Many economists have pointed out that as a poverty-fighting measure the minimum wage is horribly targeted. A 2010 study by Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser found that only 11.3 percent of workers who would benefit from raising the wage to $9.50 an hour would come from poor households. An earlier study by Sabia found that single mothers’ employment dropped 6 percent for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage.

A study by Thomas MaCurdy of Stanford built on the fact that there are as many individuals in high-income families making the minimum wage (teenagers) as in low-income families. MaCurdy found that the costs of raising the wage are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Minimum-wage workers often work at places that disproportionately serve people down the income scale. So raising the minimum wage is like a regressive consumption tax paid for by the poor to subsidize the wages of workers who are often middle class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/o...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Instead, I support strengthening the earned income credit and perhaps instituting a low, basic universal income (start low right now and bump it up a little bit as we can afford it). The earned income credit has been enhanced under every single Republican administration since Reagan, by the way, countering the myth that conservatives are just a bunch of greedy selfish individuals that don't care one whit about helping the poor and reducing poverty.

He also wants to raise tax rates on the top earners to more than 50%. Another really poor idea that the empirical research strongly agrees that high marginal tax rates harm economic growth:

Nearly every empirical study of taxes and economic growth published in a peer reviewed academic journal finds that tax increases harm economic growth. In my review, I examine twenty-six such studies going back to 1983, as shown in Table 1. All but three of those studies, and every study in the last fifteen years, find a negative effect of taxes on growth. The table shows summaries of each study’s findings, but the most recent and influential studies will be discussed here in more detail.

Go here to see all twenty-six such studies that were published in reputable journals.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth

He just seems like your typical tax and spend liberal. The solution to every problem is spend more money and raises taxes.

More spending on government infrastructure
More spending on research
More spending on teacher pay
More spending on colleges and universities
More spending on healthcare (universal healthcare)
More spending to create jobs
More spending on anti-poverty
More regulations
Much more taxes

There is no problem that Bernie Sanders doesn't seem to think that spending more money won't fix.
 

journey

New member
I can't stand socialists, and that includes Clinton and Sanders. Clinton deserves to be in prison instead of running for President.
 

Tinark

Active member
I can't stand socialists, and that includes Clinton and Sanders. Clinton deserves to be in prison instead of running for President.

You and the extreme socialists have common totalitarian tenancies. You are not so far apart as you'd like to think.
 

gcthomas

New member
Go here to see all twenty-six such studies that were published in reputable journals.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth

He just seems like your typical tax and spend liberal. The solution to every problem is spend more money and raises taxes.

Take care quoting from advocacy sites, they are not always honest.

Tax Foundation seems to bend the truth on those published papers :

What Really Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth?

A Reply to the Tax Foundation

FEBRUARY 18, 2014

BY

CHYE-CHING HUANG*AND*NATHANIEL FRENTZ[1]

A 2012 Tax Foundation report asserted that “nearly every empirical study of taxes and economic growth published in a peer-reviewed academic journal finds that tax increases harm economic growth.”[2]**The report cited 26 studies (19 on the impact of federal or national taxes on national growth and seven on the effects of state taxes on state growth), claiming that 23 of them find that taxes have a “negative” effect on economic growth, while the other three find a “neutral” effect. *A previous CBPP analysis found that the Tax Foundation misrepresented the findings of three of the seven state-level studies it cited.[3]* This analysis looks in detail at the 19 national-level studies and finds:

The Tax Foundation mischaracterized, exaggerated, or selectively described the findings of six of those 19. When one adds to these six studies the three state-level studies that the Tax Foundation misrepresented and the three studies that the Tax Foundation correctly identified as showing a “neutral” effect of taxes on growth, 12 of the 26 studies that the Tax Foundation cites do not support its flat assertion that tax increases harm growth.
The Tax Foundation’s review omitted dozens of relevant studies published in major journals or edited compilations since 2000, many of which conclude that levels of taxation have little if any impact on economic growth or that adverse impacts are limited to particular taxes or time periods.The Tax Foundation’s assertion of a growing “consensus among experts” that taxes harm growth is false.
In fact, studies that the Tax Foundation cited, as well as others that it omitted, explicitly note the lack of academic consensus.


From http://www.cbpp.org/research/what-really-is-the-evidence-on-taxes-and-growth
 

PureX

New member
I think the Democrats have their tactics arranged all wrong on Sanders. I think he stands a much better chance in the general election than Clinton. The Democrats' impulse is to play it safe, treat Clinton like a fragile egg who can't be challenged on her road to the nomination, and keep their powder dry for the general, but there's really nothing more dangerous to their own chances that they could do.

But perhaps some of the Democrats don't like him because he isn't really a party member.
He's speaking out about the ugly truth of things in the U.S. (we are now an oligarchy). And the democrats, being servants of the oligarchy, aren't going to like that. Especially the democrats, because they like to pretend they aren't corrupted by corporate money. (The republicans don't care who knows it.)

I predict Bernie Sanders will be gone before the election cycle goes into full swing. The oligarchs can't allow him to continue going around and telling people what they mostly already know, like he is: pulling back the curtain on 'em, so to speak. So they will do away with him one way or another. (With the democrat's help and/or approval.)
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
He's speaking out about the ugly truth of things in the U.S. (we are now an oligarchy). And the democrats, being servants of the oligarchy, aren't going to like that. Especially the democrats, because they like to pretend they aren't corrupted by corporate money. (The republicans don't care who knows it.)

I predict Bernie Sanders will be gone before the election cycle goes into full swing. The oligarchs can't allow him to continue going around and telling people what they mostly already know, like he is: pulling back the curtain on 'em, so to speak. So they will do away with him one way or another. (With the democrat's help and/or approval.)

A politician who speaks the truth usually winds up dead or marginalized. If he starts gaining significant traction, something bad's going to happen.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
a reasonable third party candidate could win
if
bernie was the democrat
and
trump was the republican
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
I vote republican in november

what do you do?

Voting for anybody but, Jeb Bush or any other RINO running.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who is bankrolling Jeb...Democrats. :chuckle: It is no wonder why he will lose if nominated, everyone knows he is another RINO shill posing as a conservative he will not sell to the common man, that is why he is sucking wind in the polls.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jeb-bush-democratic-donors/2015/07/28/id/659220/
 

rexlunae

New member
He also wants to raise tax rates on the top earners to more than 50%. Another really poor idea that the empirical research strongly agrees that high marginal tax rates harm economic growth:

Go here to see all twenty-six such studies that were published in reputable journals.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth

That's why when Bush Sr. raised taxes and Clinton taxed the rich, the economy crashed and the deficits went sky-high. And then when Bush Jr. cut taxes for the rich, the economy boomed and cut the deficit down to practically nothing.

That's what happened, right?

Do those 26 studies collected by the think-tank represent a consensus of economists?

He just seems like your typical tax and spend liberal. The solution to every problem is spend more money and raises taxes.

Tax and spend is a good thing. You need a dollar, tax a dollar, and then spend that dollar. It's sustainable, and if done right, it can be an economic boon to the whole country. The conservative preference, which is tax-cut and spend, or spend-and-spend, causes really big problems.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
I post this question because it seems like NO ONE in the rightwing sections of the Internet (or even my own newsfeed), to say nothing of the mainstream media, is talking about Senator Sanders.

Even as he continues to draw the largest crowds nationwide, even in traditional rightwing hotbeds like Arizona and Texas.

In case you haven't heard of him (like, say, because you only watch Faux News or even CNN or MSNBC), here's a breakdown of his platform:
The Platform

So, conservatives, what do you think?
Do you prefer him to Hillary for the Dem nomination?
How does he stack up in your preferences vs. the current horde of Republican hopefuls?

Bring on the flames or hate or love or whatever.
I'm just honestly curious because I've seen ZERO discussion of the senator or his platform or anything related to him.

I looked through that link. I'm with him on the money/politics, environment, and trade topics. I wish he gave some Key Actions for the Income and Wealth Inequality. It's hard to form an opinion without that. I go back and forth on some of his other economic actions.

I doubt he has staying power but I like to see people like this mixing things up. I hope he continues to be a force even though I don't think I'd ever vote for him. I'd probably take him over Clinton.
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
It sounds like you're once again backing a "business as usual" RINO (we've had more than enough of the Bush's).


I vote republican in november

what do you do?

I don't sell out God just because a political party and it's candidates have an "R" at the beginning of their name (i.e. you'll vote "R" no matter what their platform looks like).
 
Top