Talk:The Washington Post

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Washington Post on Bernie Sanders[edit]

SEN. BERNIE Sanders (I-Vt.) is leading in New Hampshire and within striking distance in Iowa, in large part because he is playing the role of uncorrupted anti-establishment crusader. But Mr. Sanders is not a brave truth-teller. He is a politician selling his own brand of fiction to a slice of the country that eagerly wants to buy it.

Mr. Sanders’s tale starts with the bad guys: Wall Street and corporate money. The existence of large banks and lax campaign finance laws explains why working Americans are not thriving, he says, and why the progressive agenda has not advanced. Here is a reality check: Wall Street has already undergone a round of reform, significantly reducing the risks big banks pose to the financial system. The evolution and structure of the world economy, not mere corporate deck-stacking, explained many of the big economic challenges the country still faces. And even with radical campaign finance reform, many Americans and their representatives would still oppose the Sanders agenda. Bernie Sanders's socialism speech in less than 3 minutes

Mr. Sanders’s story continues with fantastical claims about how he would make the European social model work in the United States. He admits that he would have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for his universal, Medicare-for-all health-care plan, and he promises massive savings on health-care costs that would translate into generous benefits for ordinary people, putting them well ahead, on net. But he does not adequately explain where those massive savings would come from. Getting rid of corporate advertising and overhead would only yield so much. Savings would also have to come from slashing payments to doctors and hospitals and denying benefits that people want.

He would be a braver truth-teller if he explained how he would go about rationing health care like European countries do. His program would be more grounded in reality if he addressed the fact of chronic slow growth in Europe and explained how he would update the 20th-century model of social democracy to accomplish its goals more efficiently. Instead, he promises large benefits and few drawbacks.

[Why Democrats would be insane to nominate Bernie Sanders]

Meanwhile, when asked how Mr. Sanders would tackle future deficits, as he would already be raising taxes for health-care expansion and the rest of his program, his advisers claimed that more government spending “will result in higher growth, which will improve our fiscal situation.” This resembles Republican arguments that tax cuts will juice the economy and pay for themselves — and is equally fanciful.

Mr. Sanders tops off his narrative with a deus ex machina: He assures Democrats concerned about the political obstacles in the way of his agenda that he will lead a “political revolution” that will help him clear the capital of corruption and influence-peddling. This self-regarding analysis implies a national consensus favoring his agenda when there is none and ignores the many legitimate checks and balances in the political system that he cannot wish away.

Mr. Sanders is a lot like many other politicians. Strong ideological preferences guide his thinking, except when politics does, as it has on gun control. When reality is ideologically or politically inconvenient, he and his campaign talk around it. Mr. Sanders’s success so far does not show that the country is ready for a political revolution. It merely proves that many progressives like being told everything they want to hear. Dapperedavid (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you just copy and paste the WaPo article? We tend to look down upon that.--Owlman (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess I will chime in here for a bit. Bernie Sanders has already put forth the ways in which he would pay for his "radical" ideas (his free tuition to public and community colleges and his Medicare-for-all single payer healthcare plan); they involve a financial transaction tax, a removal on the cap on payroll taxes, an increase to marginal income taxes, and an increase to capital gains (corporate) taxes. The US's citizens are taxed the least than they have ever been in their history with a small increase under Obama; Warren Buffet himself has advocated for an increase in taxes and specifically to millionaires under his "Buffet rule". Payroll taxes themselves have been the main source of income for the US government since they have cut income taxes and refuse to close corporate loopholes; payroll taxes hurt the poor and middle class the most since they are capped at $250,000. Also FDR, someone who Sanders tends to invoke, did not specify how he would pay for his proposals and yet he achieved the New Deal: the same can be said about LBJ's Great Society and the more moderate plans like JFK' New Frontier and Truman's Fair Deal. The problem with Hillary's 'moderate', and supposedly achievable, plans is that she is already willing to compromise where Sanders goes big first and then scales down; that is good negotiating. Lastly this is the GOP who still thinks Obama is some kind of foreign-born, Muslim CommuNazi and thinks the Clintons literally killed someone; where Sanders has a good reputation among voters and Congresspeople and has acheived the most amendments.--Owlman (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)