Bernie's plans: It's not that they're liberal, it's that they're bunk

[CrowCityDem]

It seems every time I try to question the wisdom of one of Bernie's plans, I get accused of being a Republican who hates progress. That is such a garbage line of thinking that everyone who uses it should be ashamed, but I thought I would one more time lay out why I can't support Bernie's plans. I don't disagree with the goals, but I find his execution embarrassingly ill-thought-out.

Health Care: Bernie wants to create a single-payer system. While I don't think there are anywhere near the votes to pass such a system, I am not against the idea. However, Bernie promises greater coverage than anywhere else on the planet, while using the numbers from less generous systems to prove his will work. That is dishonest. Furthermore, he pays for it not just by raising taxes on the wealthy, but by raising the payroll tax as well. I'm sorry, but I don't think adding to the tax burden of the working poor and the middle class is an acceptable answer.

College: Bernie wants to make tuition at state schools free. First, I dislike the lack of any talk on his part about how to control the cost that will be taken on by the taxpayers. He is nearly silent on making tuition bills smaller once the government is paying for them. Second, he has no answers to how to prevent colleges from double-dipping and raising the cost of room, board, and fees to keep attendance levels where they currently are. Third, his plans lacks infrastructure on how to accommodate potentially millions of additional students without sacrificing the quality. Furthermore, he pays for this not just be taxing Wall Street speculation, but by putting a fee on every stock or bond purchase by middle class people trying to invest their money. I'm sorry, but I don't think adding to the tax burden of middle class families trying to get ahead in an acceptable answer.

Energy: Bernie wants to totally ban fracking, and shut down nuclear plants. We do not currently have the capacity to run this country on renewable energy, which means in the meantime we would have to either burn more coal (which is worse for the environment) or send money to terrorist-friendly countries to buy the necessary oil to fuel out needs. I'm sorry, but I don't find putting money in the hands of the people who want to kill us an acceptable answer.

I could go on, but I think that makes the point. These are all policy critiques that show why, even as someone who supports the ultimate goals, I find Bernie's plans to be woefully insufficient for a contender for the Presidency.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

1. Poor people seeing a doctor.

Poor kids in college.

Clean energy.

ITS ALL BUNK!


I don't want my kids going to school with poor kids, and I don't want my electricity from renewable sources! TRUM...ERR HILLARY 2016!

[CrowCityDem]

9. Would you care to address any of my criticisms?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

24. I just did.

They were so outrageously dumb that they don't deserve any form of address outside of ridicule.

[CrowCityDem]

25. What is outrageous? They are real, serious consequences Bernie never talks about.

[KPN]

2. OK, so you got a problem with Bernie starting from a position that allows actual compromise

without giving up the farm. And you get excited by wonkish details. Did I miss anything?

Never mind that he's actually out for peoples' as opposed to corporations' and personal best interests.

[Gomez163]

13. There is no evidence of that. He has not proposed a coherent program.

I suspect he is out for himself.

[Human101948]

3. There is no health plan that is "less generous" than the one that people with no insurance have...

Think about it Einstein.

[AgingAmerican]

4. Is this your GOTV effort with Sanders supporters?

FAIL

[Txbluedog]

5. My experience with BS supporters in real life....

Has been that they just hear buzz words and run with it, they have no idea, or worse don't care how this is going to be achieved

[scscholar]

6. Those things need to be done...

so we shouldn't fight the details, but instead talk about how we're going to do it.

[CrowCityDem]

10. Details are how you do it. Without them right, you have nothing.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

7. Funny.

My experience with Hillary supporters in real life is that they think helping the poor in this country is too far fetched of an idea and we should settle for four more years of health care related bankruptcies.

[Txbluedog]

19. Your experience is your experience

[YouDig]

21. Is that actually true? You know Hillary supporters that say that we shouldn't help the poor?

I don't know any. Guess we don't know the same kinds of people.

[YouDig]

8. Yes, that is the problem. You are correct about all of them.

I didn't even realize he wanted to end nuclear. Without natural gas and nuclear, we are looking at more coal, which is the worst thing environmentally.

I think free college is a good idea, but the Wall Street transaction tax he's proposing won't cover it, and will end up taxing retirement savings, while the Wall Street sharks will either find a way around it or move their big trading operations offshore.


And so on down the line. His policies just aren't well thought out and not suited for the real world.

[Gomez163]

15. The problem with offering to pay for college is the law of supply and demand.

One the government is paying for it, the colleges will raise tuition sky high.

[highprincipleswork]

11. You obviously don't think they're bunk. You admit that you "don't disagree with the goals".

Nobody's plans that they lay out for how they will accomplish what they say they're going to accomplish are probably going to go down exactly the way they spell them out. A leader doesn't become a leader by simply being a policy wonk. When President Kennedy said we were going to go to the moon, he did not lay out a detailed plan. I guess that would have disqualified him for President by your standards.

If you agree with Bernie's goals, then why not fight for his chance to work towards them? He is neither promising he will finish them, do them alone, succeed at all of them, do them exactly the way he spells them out now, etc.

Personally, I think that's the wrong way to choose a presidential leader. They are not supposed to be the ones that figures out every detail of how every goal shall be achieved. They are most crucial in identifying real and valid goals and seeing if that's what the people want and then working towards getting those goals delivered.

Half of what Hillary shoots for, I don't even want. That is one reason why I don't particularly want her in the White House. Another portion will be lost on me because I believe she will "compromise" with Republicans to accomplish even more goals that I don't want. These are two big strikes against her. And then, she has changed position, and in a direction not towards me but away from me so many times that I simply cannot trust her. I would not want her as my representative, if I had a true choice.

So many here claim to be Progressives, and then refuse to back the most Progressive candidate that has come down the pike in some time.

That is your privilege and your choice, but to tear him down because you don't think his plans cross every t and dot every i of what you in your infinite wisdom think is going to work is kind of a silly game. Bernie would accomplish much, as he already has, by hanging in there with what he truly advocates. Hillary will accomplish less of what she says, partly because it truly is bunk and likely will change before the convention or after, if she and her advisors and upper Dem elite continue to feed us the same old bait and switch they've been doing for several decades now. Also, because it's not clear her heart is into Progressive change. Also because, if she and the party continue to piss off large contingents of those who would support her, they will have a much harder time raising money, getting volunteers, and winning votes in November.

No, his ideas are not bunk. They just require people to stand up for them, like they could stand up for him or at least for his right to have and promote them. I wish that was you. I wish that was more of this allegedly Democratic Party.

[CrowCityDem]

12. Goals are not plans. The goal is fine, the plan to get there is bunk.

[highprincipleswork]

17. Thank you policy advisor central. Now how about you deal with the rest of what i had to say, which

is really the crux of the matter?

[YouDig]

22. Which things that Hillary shoots for do you not want?

When I look at her platform on her website, the things she's shooting for look pretty good to me.

[highprincipleswork]

26. Let me put it this way - these are no more specific than Bernie's plans, 2 be honest. That disproves

the poster's major point right there.

Secondly, yes, they do sound alright. And very similar to Bernie's in many instances, if sometimes watered down. They sound fine.

And I've been making the point for a number of weeks now that not only could Hillary win the election, not only could she unify the party, not only could she be the first woman President, but she could be the first woman President as great as FDR - if only she would stay true to the Progressive roots of the Democratic Party as established mid 1900's.

Those of us who no longer believe in the Clinton mystique because we've seen past it, don't trust her to keep her word till the election is over, much less while in office.

It's one or both of two things - either the Clintons and the Democratic establishment don't believe the Reagan Revolution is now officially dead, declared dead in fact by none other than Donald Trump, or they simply are a bunch of pig-sucking Conservatives who want to be in bed with Wall Street. Because they keep going back that way, and they keep doing it in disgusting ways.

The DNC is currently disgusting, and I will never donate to them again in their present form.
The shenanigans around making sure people are enfranchised in every primary are disgusting, and totally unnecessary, unless you're clinging too tightly to what you feel is your destiny instead of simply winning a primary because you're better.
I don't want to vote for anybody because somebody else is worse or they are going to implode. I want to vote for somebody because they're clearly better.
I don't want to see a national convention torn apart because people feel underrepresented. Hillary and the Democratic Party should be making major inroads right now to make friends and peace with the Bernie camp. Instead they seem to be planning for war, and if that is their attitude I am quite sure they are going to get it and suffer for it along with the rest of us.

Hillary has pretty much been sticking and even expanding her Progressive policies, so far, and that's a good sign. But she also seems to be signaling to Wall Street that they've got nothing to worry about. That's troubling.

Finally, she's got an FBI investigation over her head, and to be honest I don't think that what she did is right or legal. That to me is a big problem hanging over all our heads and until it is verifiably over we are all in danger.

That's what I have to say. I really dislike people parroting what they've heard about Bernie's plans not being tight enough. They are plenty tight, and he believes in and is going for the right things. The main points of my post were that that's enough for me, and compounded with my airtight belief in his follow-through, that's what makes me a Bernie supporter.

I don't want to be fooled or disappointed by the Clintons again. If she becomes the nominee, I hope I won't be. And I'd like to invite you and other Progressives (if you consider yourself one) to communicate clearly with your candidate that our hopes and dreams are to some degree living and dying with her. She really could be great, truly great, or she could let us down, which I also think is the way she would be defeated.

[YouDig]

28. That's a thoughtful answer.

I have pretty low expectations of the next administration. The GOP is going to block everything. Either we get Trump, and it's horrible, or else we get Hillary, and it's a continuation of the Obama administration fighting GOP obstruction. And by the way, if Bernie was elected, that's also a continuation of the Obama administration. Because his proposals, realistic or not, are going nowhere. Same as what the GOP is doing with Obama.

I think the OP is right about Bernie's plans, but in a way it doesn't matter, because his plans aren't going to happen even if he gets elected and the Dems take back both the house and senate. It matters in the sense that he's riling up anger against Hillary and other Dems based on fantasies, because that could help the GOP.

Dems are on defense, I'm voting to stop Trump more than anything. You have to remember, FDR had huge Democratic majorities in congress. LBJ too. There won't be another FDR until that changes. And in light of that, Obama has been pretty damn great.

[highprincipleswork]

31. Can you explain to me how and why Dems are "on defense"?

That's exactly what so many of us are complaining about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[YouDig]

32. Because the GOP controls congress and most state legislatures.

With redistricting, the house is GOP until 2022.

Best case we take the Senate and the Presidency. Pretty good, but still our agenda is blocked. Worst case the GOP controls POTUS and both chambers of congress. Very bad. At that point we're hoping Trump gets into a big fight with the GOP and nothing done.

Plus a lot of what Obama has done is through executive actions. All that ends the first day of a GOP presidency.

[highprincipleswork]

33. These kind of "fact" and the defeatist attitude around them get us nowhere.

As if things like gerrymandering dictate everything and we should just curl up in a little ball and die. The districts are the districts, but people and teams win all the time against odds much greater than these.

We are in this mess exactly because we are such chickenshit Republican-lite Reagan victims, with very little guts to stand up for what we believe in and no credibility in fighting for what our base and many other Americans truly want. That is Hillary's major problem as well. Too many do not believe she will do the right things and stick up for them. They do not believe they can trust her (or Bill, who she now says will be key to the economy) to fight for Liberal values. And the people are ready for this. This is the reason Bernie Sanders has come out of nowhere to the popularity he has. This is even the reason for Trump's nomination, and still we sit in our pity party and trot out the same old bad, kowtowing ideas.

If we had a little guts, we'd actually have a major Democratic base. One that would turn out energized and fight, like the Republicans do. If we actually ran on our principles, we'd win every time, because more people agree with our principles than those of the Republicans.

What we need to do is get rid of this mentality, that is defeatist and rightist and contrary to what Democrats have stood for for so long. And then we need to run vigorous, Progressive, Populist, Liberal campaigns that people can actually believe in.

And we need to have integrity, and let the people have their say.

Do that, and we win this year, the presidency and possibly both houses of Congress. If not, then just the Senate. If not that, then at least make major inroads.

[YouDig]

37. I'm being realistic. Cynical? Sure. But am I wrong?

I'm not saying we should curl up and die. I think we should fight. But the best way to fight is based on reality. We should do what is best in the real world.

In the real world, Hillary is going to be the nominee. For better or worse. But a significant minority of the people on this board seem to want to vote third party instead of voting to defeat Trump. What will that get us? Nothing. It will set progressive causes back hugely. To me that's crazy. I don't know how you feel about it. It's great that Bernie has excited so many people. It's not great that a lot seem more anti-Hillary than anti-Trump.

We have a country where some big percentage are fundamentalist Christians. Not that there's anything wrong with Christianity or religion, but a lot of the fundamentalists are nuts, frankly. A lot of people are racist, overtly or covertly, and that in itself explains a lot of the Trump success. I disagree that the country is clamoring for liberalism. I've talked to too many people from too many parts of the country to believe that.

I'm somewhere between Bernie and Hillary. I don't think Bernie's policies would work, but I'm more liberal than Hillary, don't like the Iraq War vote, and a few other things. The tone that Bernie's supporters have taken, with an assist from his campaign (like calling Hillary a whore and unqualified) has pushed me more in the Hillary camp. But I'd take either. Just no GOP.

[arcane1]

14. You utterly failed to "correct the record"

Your criticisms are bunk. See how easy that was?

[Gomez163]

16. Based on what?

[YouDig]

23. So you use the "correct the record" line on everyone?

I thought I was special!

[imagine2015]

18. It is far better to propose nothing, rather than something progressive that we need and want.

Not really.

Let the right-wing attack progressive ideas and proposals as they always do. We should defend and advance those ideas and demands.

[CrowCityDem]

20. I prefer a more moderate, but workable, plan to a more liberal, but bunk, one.

[Eric J in MN]

27. His 'College for All Act' is

...a partnership with states to eliminate tuition and "required fees."

If a state university requires students to live on campus and charges them for housing, then it's not eligible for the partnership.

Text of College for All Act:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1373/text

[bunchofpenguins]

29. It never amazes me to see Hillary supporters do everything they can to dismiss liberal ideas.

Never mind the fact that Bernie's ideas are the norm in just about every single industrialised country in the world, much to Hillary's chagrin.

[CrowCityDem]

30. You need to read what I said again:

I was not saying the ideas of single payer, affordable/free college, and clean energy aren't doable, or worth fighting for. I'm saying that Bernie's specific plans for how to achieve those goals are utter bunk. And I've yet to see a real critique of my concerns.

[hellofromreddit]

34. Energy

Sanders does not propose shutting down all energy production over night.

Fracking: without fracking, US NG production will fall, but not stop. Fracking is a procedure used to improve or restore the production rate of a well. Without it the wells can still operate, but at reduced capacity. We'll have to curtail or end exports. That's manageable.

Nuclear: he wants to stop renewing licenses of nuclear plants. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-reactor-license-renewal.html It will be a while before they're all shuttered.

And there's always the obvious: reduce energy usage. Shutting off street lamps (not all of them) and billboard lights alone would save quite a lot of power with limited impact. Renovating the transmission system would save several entire power plants worth of electricity and it's within his energy plan.

So his positions are entirely attainable.

His other positions are also attainable.

[basselope]

35. Such bunk...

"Health Care: Bernie wants to create a single-payer system. While I don't think there are anywhere near the votes to pass such a system, I am not against the idea. However, Bernie promises greater coverage than anywhere else on the planet, while using the numbers from less generous systems to prove his will work. That is dishonest. Furthermore, he pays for it not just by raising taxes on the wealthy, but by raising the payroll tax as well. I'm sorry, but I don't think adding to the tax burden of the working poor and the middle class is an acceptable answer. "

The point is completely missed here. Again, comes to scream of "more taxes" without the resulting savings being considered. Most people (as in the VAST MAJORITY) will SAVE MONEY under Bernie's system. And no, he doesn't promise greater coverage than anywhere else ont he planet, while using number from less generous systems.. that is just made up nonsense. It is actually a VERY SIMPLE system. Medicare for all, paid for with a payroll tax. Having a single negotiator will force down the prices of the private industries currently gaming the system. It is the way it works in every other industrialized country on earth.

College: Bernie wants to make tuition at state schools free. First, I dislike the lack of any talk on his part about how to control the cost that will be taken on by the taxpayers. He is nearly silent on making tuition bills smaller once the government is paying for them. Second, he has no answers to how to prevent colleges from double-dipping and raising the cost of room, board, and fees to keep attendance levels where they currently are. Third, his plans lacks infrastructure on how to accommodate potentially millions of additional students without sacrificing the quality. Furthermore, he pays for this not just be taxing Wall Street speculation, but by putting a fee on every stock or bond purchase by middle class people trying to invest their money. I'm sorry, but I don't think adding to the tax burden of middle class families trying to get ahead in an acceptable answer.

Cost taken on by the taxpayers = well.. 0. It is paid for via an FTT (Financial transaction tax) which this country had from 1918-1966. The rest of your post is kinda nonsense, b/c nothing in the plan requires colleges to admit more people. It simply provides a payment vehicle for the 2/3 of tuition currently paid for by families, usually via loans. So, no you don't need infrastructure to accommodate millions of new students. To call the FTT a "tax burden" is to completely misrepresent it. The "impact" on a middle class family would be so small as to be probably less than $1.00 per year, since you are looking at .05 per $1000 traded. So to get to a $1.00 tax, that middle class family would have to buy 20K worth of stocks in a given year. So, please sell the "tax burden" somewhere else.

Energy: Bernie wants to totally ban fracking, and shut down nuclear plants. We do not currently have the capacity to run this country on renewable energy, which means in the meantime we would have to either burn more coal (which is worse for the environment) or send money to terrorist-friendly countries to buy the necessary oil to fuel out needs. I'm sorry, but I don't find putting money in the hands of the people who want to kill us an acceptable answer.

Yes, we DO have the capacity with proper investment in a reasonable amount of time. Fracking needs to be banned tomorrow. Not banning it is basically criminal. Bernie is not talking about shutting down nuclear plants TOMORROW, but it is about a goal. Nuclear is not the way to go for the long term... since the infrastructure is there it serves as a better bridge than fracking, which is far more dangerous.

Sorry, but no we can't doesn't play very well with thinking people.

[CrowCityDem]

36. Not bunk.

And no, he doesn't promise greater coverage than anywhere else ont he planet, while using number from less generous systems.. that is just made up nonsense. It is actually a VERY SIMPLE system. Medicare for all, paid for with a payroll tax.

But he does. He promises to cover everything with no co-pays or deductibles. None of the other countries offer that amount of coverage without rationing what is and isn't available treatment. No one offers to cover everything imaginable for no cost to the patient. Furthermore, his plan is not Medicare, and calling it that is disingenuous marketing. Medicare has exactly the kind of co-pays and restrictions that virtually every single-payer system has... except the one he proposes.

The rest of your post is kinda nonsense, b/c nothing in the plan requires colleges to admit more people. It simply provides a payment vehicle for the 2/3 of tuition currently paid for by families, usually via loans. So, no you don't need infrastructure to accommodate millions of new students.

Bernie sells his plan as college for "everyone". How can he promise that if the schools don't have to admit more students? Is he lying to us, or will the schools have to accept more students when people try to take advantage of the free tuition they were promised? It seems obvious that more people will apply, and more people will choose the free state schools over the expensive private ones. If they can't get in, they were deceived.

Yes, we DO have the capacity with proper investment in a reasonable amount of time.

Right now, renewables are roughly 13% of our energy production. You seriously think we can increase that tenfold in short order?

[basselope]

38. Bull doo doo

But he does. He promises to cover everything with no co-pays or deductibles. None of the other countries offer that amount of coverage without rationing what is and isn't available treatment. No one offers to cover everything imaginable for no cost to the patient. Furthermore, his plan is not Medicare, and calling it that is disingenuous marketing. Medicare has exactly the kind of co-pays and restrictions that virtually every single-payer system has... except the one he proposes.

Completely BS... just complete. Canada has no co-pays or deductibles and no "rationing" http://www.pnhp.org/news/2012/june/5-myths-about-canada%E2%80%99s-health-care-system I could go around the world country by country since MOST don't have copays, deductibles or rationing. But why bother when our neighbor to the north covers this.

Bernie sells his plan as college for "everyone". How can he promise that if the schools don't have to admit more students? Is he lying to us, or will the schools have to accept more students when people try to take advantage of the free tuition they were promised? It seems obvious that more people will apply, and more people will choose the free state schools over the expensive private ones. If they can't get in, they were deceived.

No, that isn't how he sells it at ALL. This is just made up nonsense. He has ALWAYS said that someone who works hard and is otherwise able to go to college shouldn't be barred by COST. You can read about the plan here. https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/

No where does he attempt to establish college as a fundamental right, the way you try to describe.

"Right now, renewables are roughly 13% of our energy production. You seriously think we can increase that tenfold in short order?"

Within 20-30 years. Yes. Studies have shown that even with CURRENT technology we can be at 100% renewable by 2050, but that assumes no major growth in battery capacity or collection techniques. We can LIKELY go much faster if we commit to the project. If we commit... it is likely MUCH closer. We have the basics of the technology, but currently fracking is just cheaper, as is coal and gas; however, with proper investment, you can tilt that balance and if you BAN fracking, you take it off the table and FORCE innovation.

It's kind of a shame, but if we had Ross Perot's proposed $2.50 gas tax in place during the 1990's, we would likely be much further along b/c electric cars would have been much more attractive MUCH earlier.

Hindsight is 20/20, as people feared it would tank the economy, but little did we know we had a dot com boom that could have absorbed the cost AND funded innovation.

[nc4bo]

39. Saying the same thing for decades better than constantly transforming,

reinventing, mimicking, evolving, shapeshifting, lying.....