Well, partly
The former presidential candidate, Democrat rigging victim and socialist once famously complained that Americans had “too many choices” in the free market (to audiences of bobbleheaded millennials and vacuous hippies whose lifestyles would not exist without the surplus wealth the free market creates).
He was an idiot, of course.
But he was right about one thing; one Saint Paul brew pub has given drinkers a choice that, to a real beer drinker and confection fan, is not a choice at all; they’ve combined two flavors that never, ever belong together.
Don’t make me come down there.
When you’ve been constantly repeating the need for a “revolution” and it still hasn’t happened, you are probably not the one who will be leading it.
Interesting fact: Clinton won 16.8 million votes to 13.2 million for Sanders, or about 55 percent of the vote to his 43 percent, a 12 percentage point gap. If Clinton had won by that sort of margin in a general election, it would be called a landslide.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-democratic-primary-a-close-call-or-a-landslide/
Emery,
you’re not going to like the future you are voting for with Hillary. She is on record espousing an open borders unlimited immigration policy for the whole hemisphere in addition to removing the cap on H!-B visas.
I’m sure you believe the open borders will be a force multiplier for your 6 figure salary chiefly through cheap labor in the trades. But with open borders and no barrier to immigration your employers will start recruiting from those 31 ABET accredited programs south of the border and PE salaries will stagnate for the next 30 years.
Hell you might even be replaced by a PE from An-Najah National University in the West Bank, Palestine.
Mitch, I think you should debate Sanders, then we’d see how much of an idiot you’d make him appear.
I don’t agree with Sanders on all things, and some of his message is simplistic (on purpose doubtlessly), but his primary assertion that this economy is stacked against the middle-class, that’s not idiotic nor is his observation that it’s due to the trickle-down myth of Republicans. That latter one you have disagreed with for the better part of 20 years, thinking that if you simply give money to the richest of us they’ll share it willingly with the rest of us, an oxymoronic approach if there ever was one and one which ignored the broader world reality of super-cheap labor. So, like I said, he’s not very busy these days, I think you should try to get on stage with him sometime and have your debate, put your money where your mouth is, and see who comes out the idiot. He’s a graduate of the University of Chicago, one of the very finest universities in the U.S. He was mayor of Burlington, elected 6 times, and stood up to extending the Bush Tax Cuts (a disastrous policy that gave the rich big breaks and expanded the debt). I’m fairly sure he’d talk circles around you on policy, but hey, the only way to know for sure is for you to give it a whirl rather than keeping it small and resorting to name calling.
Pen,
Wasn’t saying Sanders was an idiot.
I was saying his claim that “too much choice” is a bad thing was stupid.
Fact is, I was being generous. He was being ignorant. Choice is one of the reasons the free market works; instead of some central planning agency deciding what gets produced, and how much, 320 million people get to choose every day, using the most powerful word in the English language; “No”. The things they don’t choose, die. The resources and talent that went into producing them goes on to produce something else. The decision is made daily, hourly, every time people choose or don’t choose something.
I’m fairly sure he’d talk circles around you on policy, but hey, the only way to know for sure is for you to give it a whirl rather than keeping it small and resorting to name calling
Nah. I’d crush him like a pop can.
Don’t believe me? Make it happen. Arrange the debate. I’m there.
peeve barked: ” thinking that if you simply give money to the richest of us they’ll share it willingly with the rest of us, an oxymoronic approach if there ever was one “
here let me fix that for ya,
thinking that if you simply allow high earners to keep more of the money they earn they’ll invest it willingly in a market that is unburdened by excessive regulation,creating growth and opportunities for everyone.
This is basic capitalism peeve, John Kennedy said “a rising tide lifts all boats” then went ahead and slashed the top marginal tax rates by over 20% (more than Reagan or Bush dreamed of) which provided the boom years of the 60s – look it up its history
Pen, there’s a difference between credentials and being clever and actually being wise. Bernie’s got credentials and is clever, but anyone who goes to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon during the Brezhnev era and doesn’t figure out that there is something horribly wrong with the whole deal cannot, in any sane world, be considered wise.
Put Bernie on the podium with any halfway fair moderator, and anybody with average IQ who knows the history of Communism and socialism would thrash him. There are quite frankly non-negotiable realities like a hundred million graves filled too early that no amount of IQ advantage can overcome.
And candy corn beer? I hate candy corn, but I must concede the idea of a corny tasting beer sounds intriguing.
You can get a degree in economics and never hear the term ‘trickle down economics.’
That is because ‘trickle down economics’ is a pejorative and political term. There is no ‘trickle down’ theory of economics. I believe the term originated with Will Rogers, an entertainer, not an economist.
Economists usually talk about free market economies versus command economies, though command economies aren’t talked about much at all, these days. Because they lost. Command economies produce poverty, not prosperity, because they do not measure value properly. Money spent in command economy is not spent by choice (that’s the command in “command economy”), so it has a multiplier < 1.0.
Free market economies produce prosperity because consumers will not willingly take part in an exchange where the multiplier is < 1.0. In simple terms, they will not pay a dollar to get ninety-eight cents. Free market economies will beat command economies every time, for well established reasons.
There is always a market and there is always the law of supply and demand. Even when you make them illegal.
Kel: Democrats nominated a terribly flawed candidate with a dubious record of achievement. What does the GOP do in response? They nominated a buffoon.
Democrats nominated a buffoon. . What does the GOP do in response? They nominated a terribly flawed candidate with a dubious record of achievement.
Don’t undersell her Emery: she’s an experienced, professional crook.
Trump is the end result of what the GOP has been advocating for years, he’s just the first to have the temerity to say it all out loud. Trump is exactly what the GOP deserves, but the country doesn’t.
“Trump is the end result of what the GOP has been advocating for years,”
Against free trade? Against foreign wars? Against immigration? What alternate universe are you living in?
Ever since the GOP convention, the media has been saying that Hillary is a flawed candidate, but that she is “a conventional politician.”
This is a lie.
Hillary has run for elective office twice before. She was elected, and reelected, the junior senator from New York. This was a safe seat, and a prize. She got the nod because her husband pulled strings for her. Her record as NY’s junior senator was unremarkable. She did what Chuck Schumer told her to do. As secretary of State her only signature achievement was the overthrow of Ghaddafi.
There is no field of human endeavor in which Hillary has ever done better than mediocre. This is why her supporters change the subject to Trump. when they are asked to name Hillary’s qualifications for the highest political office in the land.
Here is what Bernie actually said:
If 99 percent of all the new income goes to the top 1 percent, you could triple it, it wouldn’t matter much to the average middle class person. The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn’t matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty. You can’t just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.
While not everyone apparently understands his position, it has to do with income inequality and some aspects of failure of the free market system in allocating resources.
And why would you “go down there” if you truly believe the free market system will eradicate a bad product idea without your intervention? Yeah, I get it that you aren’t really going anywhere, that’s all just empty talk. But your argument suggests you have a problem with the very system you claim you support.
At least it is a less violent sounding reaction than your response to an excess of Axe body spray, LOL.
Just sayin’.
DG,
You confirmed that I understood his position perfectly.
You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.
So let’s make sure the children of the families who make 22 underarm deodorants and 17 pairs of sneakers are unemployed? Because “income inequality”?
If he believes my having a choice in cell phones or shoes or soup makes other people poorer, then he’s a bigger idiot than I thought.
Sanders has the same conceit about “economics” that “Black Lives Matter” has about justice and campus feminists have about speech: they believe you can get more equality, justice and fairness by taking them away from other people. It’s diametrically false; you get more more of each when you have more of each.
Yeah, I get it that you aren’t really going anywhere, that’s all just empty talk. But your argument suggests you have a problem with the very system you claim you support.
How on earth do you get to that?
Products that don’t work in a free market go away fast. Go ahead – try to find someone making Edsels, Betamaxes, 8086 PCs.
BTW, DG? Products that aren’t regulated by government, the way Bernie (and apparently you) want have decreased in price (expressed as hours of work to acquire) in recent years; food, cars, applicances, especially electronics. The drop is incredibl8y dramatic. Products and service that are regulated – healthcare, education, pensions – have gotten more expensive, in many cases astronomically so.
I’ll vote for the establishment over some self-loving blowhard with nothing but empty slogans.
The more interesting question, is what the GOP and Democrats will look like in 2018.
“I’ll vote for the establishment over some self-loving blowhard with nothing but empty slogans.”
So you are voting for Trump?
A correction: Hillary Clinton as a representative of the Establishment can only be true If the Establishment is La Cosa Nostra!
Sanders is a f*ckin’ idiot with no knowledge of history or economics. Why do other idiots support him? Because of his knowledge of history and economics!
A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932.
He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews.
So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.
So Sanders is a “democrat” who thinks the people make terrible choices in elections. Uh — okay.
Paul von Hindenburg won the 1932 German election for president. Hitler lost, but made a strong enough showing that von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Von Hindenburg hated Hitler and didn’t think much of democracy. He didn’t appoint Hitler chancellor because it was the will of the people, but because Hitler controlled a private army of 200,000 people. If Hindenburg had not appointed Hitler chancellor, Hitler would have staged a coup.
But Bernie blames the people for electing the wrong guy. Sanders is a moron.
“I’ll vote for the establishment over some self-loving blowhard with nothing but empty slogans.”
What part of the establishment do you think is worth preserving, Emery? Obamacare? 0% interest rates? Endless secret wars? Like all Hillary supporters, when you try to state why you support her, you can only insult Trump.
So Emery is not voting for “some self-loving blowhard” … Emery?
AFDC food stamps; SNAP; free breakfast, lunch and dinner at the government schools; food pantries…
Wards of the state, moochers, looters and losers can’t take three steps without tripping over free food for their kids. The parent of any kid in America that goes hungry should be arrested for child abuse, because it takes deliberate neglect for that to happen.
The solution to “struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems” is fewer choices in “underarm spray deodorants” and “pairs of sneakers”?
How will this restriction solve that problem? Do command economies usually work such miracles? Please provide examples.
I think Sanders knows plenty about economics…
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/bernie-sanders-summer-house
Always interesting that Democrats can be “public servants” from young adult through to retirement living very well, never making more than $150,000 a year (that the IRS knows of), but some how manage to eek out a multi-million dollar retirement. Of course they’re corrupt, but hey, if our Democrat Party Dominated Media Culture doesn’t question Terry Macaulliffe giving the wife of the FBI Asst Director overseeing the Clinton email investigation $600,000, why should they turn they turn down a good futures tip (plus the capital to make the trade) from Tyson Chicken or a sweetheart 0% home loan from Tony Resko or the CEO of Countrywide? It’s not like their idiot rank & file (like Penny & DG) know any better.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 10.24.16 : The Other McCain
In an attempt to stay on topic, I see posters are trying to get more mileage out of recycled talking points.
emery whinged: “In an attempt to stay on topic, I see posters are trying to get more mileage out of recycled talking points.”
hows that different from what you do, whats your objection?
kel wrote: “emery whinged”
It doesn’t really work as an insult and just re-emphasizes what a boring repetitive poster you are.
ok, emery sniveled: “It doesn’t really work as an insult and just re-emphasizes what a boring repetitive poster you are”
and hows that different from what you do, making the same comment.on multiple posts?
Get a map. Ask your phone. Ask the person next to you.
Emery: grab one iota of self-awareness.
To build on some nonsense DogGone claimed about not “needing” lots of deodorants and sneakers when there are hungry people, that’s a false dilemma. Exactly who goes hungry because I have the choice of hundreds (probably thousands) of different sneakers or deodorants? Is there an evil person out there saying “I think I’ll let some kids starve so we can have different boutique deodorants.”? Of course not, and thousands of kids who have been adopted from Russia and China (some of which I know personally) are speaking testimony of the fact that command economies do really, really badly in protecting the vulnerable. That is why these kids are growing up here.
I’m going to introduce a different hypothesis; poor people not only have decent shoes and deodorant due to free markets, but they also have the opportunity to help bring shoes and deodorant to market in free markets. When it comes to economics, DG finds herself in the same place as Bernie Sanders: doesn’t know s*** from Shinola.
Why are calling someone’s comments or posts “talking points” considered to be an insult? I’ve worked at organizations that used “talking points” to make certain that every executive or manager covered the same issues when dealing with the media or the investment community or even customers. It’s especially true for people who deal with the investment community.
But take Mark Dayton (please)… his crack about the Affordable Care Act being unaffordable was so unfortunate for DFL candidates he’s trying to “row back” his comment. Think if he’d had “talking points”. At least his barely coherent mumbling wouldn’t have gotten the DFL in so much trouble. Likely the reason Hillary Clinton is in Dick Cheney’s bunker for the duration – like Obama and Dayton, when she’s off the talking points her negatives skyrocket.