Cue conservatives saying that Gore, Kerry and Clinton were the most extreme liberal monsters history has ever known. That was certainly their opinion in each respective election.
And every republican has been a Nazi since Eisenhower. That was certainly the opinion of liberals in each respective election.
I don't think the older Bush was ever considered a Nazi. He wasn't super popular (except, I think, at the start of the Persian Gulf war), but he wasn't hated even by liberals.
In a recent piece for Foreign Policy, Erlend Kvitrud, a member of the Norwegian Green Party, links democratic socialist economic policies and Nordic countries’ prosperity. “Take Norway for example. According to the World Bank,” he writes, “Norway and the United States have nearly identical GDP per capita.” That points to the conclusion, Kvitrud argues, that Norway-style government involvement in the economy is not just viable—it is preferable. The country’s success, he continues, “is inconvenient for critics of progressive, big-government economic and social policies”—like me, whose work, Scandinavian Unexceptionalism, he calls out. Kvitrud is not alone in such arguments. Internationally, the left has for decades showcased the Nordic nations as proof that socialism can work not only in theory but also in practice. In his years in the U.S. Senate and through multiple campaigns for president, Bernie Sanders has based much of his political ideas on introducing Nordic-style democratic socialism in the United States. Powered By Inconveniently for fans of the Nordic welfare model, though, Norway’s actual economic success rests on its wealth of natural resources. With a population of only 5 million inhabitants, it has abundant natural resources in the form of forestry, mining, fishing, oil, and natural gas. Norway’s oil fund is the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, worth around $200,000 per citizen. It wasn’t Norway’s social democratic economic policies that created the country’s wealth. It was nature. Indeed, more impressive than Norway’s success is that the United States—which exports 4 barrels of oil per individual per year compared to Norway’s 87—still manages to nearly match Norway in living standards. The other Nordic countries, which lack Norway’s oil and natural gas riches, have lower living standards than the United States. U.S. GDP per capita was $62,480 in 2018, nearly on par with the $65,603 in Norway and higher than Denmark’s $55,019, Sweden’s $52,767, and Finland’s $48,248. To Kvitrud’s point about state ownership of major industries, Norway does have about 231,000 individuals employed in state enterprises, due to the country’s massive oil industry, which is controlled by the state. But the norm in the Nordics as a region as a whole is actually of limited state ownership. In Sweden, with a population twice that of Norway, the number of employees in the state sector is half of the level in Norway (124,000). In Finland, with roughly the same population as Norway, only 72,000 individuals are employed in state enterprises. Denmark, whose population is slightly larger than Norway’s, has merely 19,000 employees in state enterprises. What’s more, the Nordic countries’ social successes predate their high-tax, high-social spending policies. A 2016 paper by the economists Anthony Barnes Atkinson and Jakob Egholt Sogaard shows that most of the progress toward income inequality in Norway and Sweden happened before 1970, at a time when the two countries had low tax regimes and less redistributive policies. Similarly, the Nordic countries’ social successes were more pronounced in those years. Relative to the rest of the world, for example, they had a greater advantage in life span and child mortality in 1970 than they do today. In other words, the Nordic model arose after those countries were already prosperous and egalitarian. Today, Nordic countries are even moving away from socialism. Although they do still have high levels of taxation, they have introduced free market regulation. Numerous state-owned enterprises have been privatized, taxes have been reduced, and the generosity of welfare systems curtailed. In the largest Nordic nation, Sweden, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, a social democrat, has promised to cut the 5 percent highest marginal tax rate. The reduction, according to numerous studies, may stimulate the economy enough that the cut won’t even cause tax revenues to fall. That wouldn’t be the case if the Nordic model worked in the way its champions argue. As the downsides of democratic socialism have become more evident, the Nordic countries are moving away from government involvement in the economy, cutting taxes, and reducing the generosity of their welfare states. For observers in the United States and elsewhere hoping to copy the model, it is worth remembering that the real Nordic experience is about the limits, rather than successes, of democratic socialism. Welfare State socialism Bernie's way will not produce prosperity only large expensive government that ALL American citizens will pay with tax increase like they have never seen. His idea that all should get free college including those here illegally and open borders along with free medicare for all not even the 1% billionaires could pay but you and me will pay taxes like we've neverb seen before. He's selling snake oil and the Nordic will testify that its hard to cover cost with an open door policy.
They hate him and they dislike him. I seriously question whether the DNC would rather have Bernie over Trump. At least with Trump the establishment folks could stick to their business-as-usual money making schemes and not have any pesky progressives to worry about.
Conspiracy Mode Initiated. The Bush family actively helped fund and support the Nazis during WWII. That is all.
This is an interesting poll that seems to contradict other polling. For this result to be accurate, Bernie would need to be a lot of people's second choice (in addition to those for whom he's the first choice) but other polls suggest that he's relatively few people's second choice. I don't know which is correct, but this poll is surprising to me. barfo
Well for one its a strawman argument, very few people who are “against socialism”, are “for crony capitalism”. For two say in their made up scenario that those numbers are totally true, foodstamps are not the only “socialist”-type of expenditures that come out of people’s paycheck. So already they’re fighting a battle that isnt the argument that is normally espoused and they’re in my opinion using the tid bits of facts that tell the story they want to tell. Thirdly, its a leap to go from you support this and dont support that, you hate x. Like the only reason one may not like socialist programs is their personal hatred for, “poor people”. Thats a whole lot of assumptions being made about the reasons why people think the way they do about something.
Perhaps not explicitly in all cases, but the vast majority of people who decry social programs are not spending a lot of time decrying the tax-payer money that's funneled to corporations. The tweet did say if this upsets you more than that...what you spend your time complaining about does tend to illustrate your priorities, i.e. what upsets you more. That's fair but nitpicking a bit. Adding in other social programs still doesn't add up to the amount that goes to corporate subsidies, from what I've seen. So, yes, the raw dollar amount is distorted to create a larger contrast, which I'll grant you, but really doesn't change the point. It's phrased provocatively, for sure, but whether or not "hate" is the appropriate word, when you focus on socialized costs that help impoverished rather than the socialized costs that help corporate entities, it's hard not to draw the inference that the target of the socialized cost is your real trigger.
Well some would argue that by helping “corporations” to succeed you are helping that target to have a chance to get out of poverty, with good paying jobs While government programs keep people in poverty. Im not necessarily making that argument because Im not a true believer in trickle down economics most of the money stays at the top of the corporations, but if that is what someone believes in, its not “hate” for that target demographic but a different approach for how they think to go about helping that target demographic. Overall the leap in logic to me is that when you start getting into people’s motivations for their beliefs and saying well you like this but not this so I know you’re feelings its very often not the case, because people have years of different experiences that go into their motivation, yes some may, “hate” poor people but to pretend thats the only logical conclusion seems counterproductive to real conversation on the subject.
I'd agree that the tweet tends to indulge in the very Internetty desire both to frame things as very black-and-white and to phrase things as harshly as possible.
