Home | About | Donate

WATCH LIVE: Sanders Delivers Speech on Why Democratic Socialism 'Only Way to Defeat Oligarchy and Authoritarianism'

Warren’s response: she laughs.

The woman is despicable. Absolutely despicable and anyone tricking themselves into supporting her who supported Sanders before is fooling themsevles.

You really the woman who couldn’t win a debate with Charlemagne of the Breakfast Club debating Trump? Do you want to lose?

I fully understand because my ex brother in law was a CIA operative who died of suspicious circumstances that cannot be posted on an open thread.

Back to the topic: WE the people vs the monetary royalists exposed in the speech.
Three questions for potential candidates:
Here are my 3 questions for potential candidates:

  1. Who is funding your campaign? (correct answer: the people who will vote for you, not the mega-bucks person or corporate person)

  2. What will you do to change the direction of climate change? No answer IS an answer. it says that you don’t care if the world becomes uninhabitable by humans.

  3. Will you prosecute, not pardon, the law breakers in the previous executive branch (back as far as you can go)? Let bygones be bygones has sent the message that “high profile” office holders are above the laws that apply to the rest of us and can get away with anything.

1 Like

You’re looking at the savings from single payer wrong. Roughly speaking, with our current system, total healthcare spending (by the govt, businesses and individuals) will be about $47 trillion over the next 10 years, but with single payer it should be about $42 trillion. The government currently accounts for about 1/2 of total spending so under our current system it would spend 1/2 of that $47 trillion ($23.5 trillion) with businesses and individuals spending the other half, but under single payer the govt. would account for 100% of the $42 trillion in spending…the govt would spend about $18.5 trillion more over the next 10 years with single payer…businesses and individuals, however, (except for the very wealthy) will pay substantially less (increased taxes vs no premiums, etc.). $18.5 trillion more will have to be raised in taxes but $23.5 trillion will not be spent by businesses and individuals for premiums, deductibles, and co-pays.

Not really. We spent $813 billion last year on the military. Even if we spent zero, that would only be about $8 trillion in savings over the next decade. MFA alone would require about $18 trillion more in tax revenue…easily raised, however. No problem raising the tax revenue for all of his other proposals either.

Economic Royalists vs Berine

In his speech, Sen, Sanders has spelled out, in clear, precise terms and descriptions the conflict between narcissistic, Ayn Rand, objectivism behind the ‘Free Market’ ‘greed is good’ capitalism and the ‘we are all living on this planet’ so let us do what is necessary for us to survive socialism. Something along the lines of “for ourselves and our posterity” as is found in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

FDR “in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination for a second term, delivered at Philadelphia on 27 June 1936, said, “The economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power.” He was referring to persons prominent in finance and industry who in general opposed his tendency to centralize the government and to put it into competition with private enterprise.”

(https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/economic-royalists)

This is still today’s fight. Since Ronald Regan, the monied elite, the “economic royalists” have been spending vast sums of money to ensure that they maintain their privileges, provided by paid-for politicians, pundits and sycophants, and simultaneously insure that the voting public not interfere with the status quo. Sanders is not calling out ‘just’ the GOP, but the members of the ‘I’ve got mine, so screw you’ class which includes most of the members if the meritorious class.

What can be done? What are we supposed to do?

EVERYONE who is eligible MUST VOTE IN THE PRIMARIES.

NOT VOTING IS A VIRTUAL VOTE FOR THE STATUS QUO!

Eschew obfuscation

We must always remember that famous statement by Vladimir Lenin: “The goal of Socialism is Communism.” Needless to say, as history shows, he was 100% right about that.

1 Like

? How in the world am I looking at it wrong? I know the data and know why single payer would save money, collectively. What does that have to do with what I said? I am talking about some of the macro issues MMT focuses on.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring to the last sentence in one of your posts: “The savings from single payer would pay for most of the other things Bernie wants, outside of the massive public spending we need in response to the environmental crisis.”

I was pointing out that the govt. would have to spend about $18 trillion more over the next decade for single payer than without it and that there would thus not be a savings by the government that would pay for most of the other things. Even though total healthcare spending would be $5 trillion less, the govt. would have to raise an additional $18 trillion in tax revenue.

As for MMT, that’s another story…which I don’t want to get into with you. Suffice it to say I have studied it a great deal and disagree with your take on it.

I understand that, I am talking about societal savings. And the fact of the matter is that when it comes to economic planning, it is impossible to perfectly plan a complex system. There will some years when a single payer healthcare system might have a surplus, how it uses that, who knows. There will be instances where there is a deficit. There will never be a year when things are perfectly balanced. Technically, the federal government doesn’t need to borrow or tax in order to spend, which was my point.

Well, I don’t know why I should accept you not liking what I am saying. It isn’t a minor point, so if you read so much about it but disagree with me, spell out your argument. And keep this in mind; MMT doesn’t say we should do this or that, it shows how things are in the modern economy and tries to dispel fantasies about the government “running out of money” or things not being “affordable”. From the federal government’s perspective, those claims are absurd. My guess is that you are like the editor of the Financial Times, Ed Crooks. His basic argument is to do what all “critics” of MMT do (it ultimately amounts to showing that most of them haven’t in fact read much from MMT economists and them giving extremely simplistic arguments in regards to inflation), which is to acknowledge that the things it says are true (which he and other critics are forced to admit), but that having fantasies about deficits, public debt, taxes and the like are preferable to actual reality because if people acknowledged actual reality then bad things can happen. Decades of stagnating wages, massive inequality, an environmental crisis crumbling infrastructure and a systematically corrupt political system obviously aren’t bad things. Kind of a childish take, and one that will doom us in regards to the environmental crisis. I’ve heard silly people talk about the “affordability” of basically trying to fend off societal collapse. I guess we shouldn’t do it because, according to their simplistic and ignorant views, inflation could increase.