I He never did answer the question "what would you say to those millions of people that are forced off their insurance"? Socialist don't value the freedom of individuals as much as the Mega Government run centralized, EXPENSIVE way of doing things. At least Pete offers some solutions to addressing the key issues without a One Way of the Highway approach of which most socialist promote. Get the mass doing things one way in order to control. Communism is socialism, and socialism is communism.
It wasn't a lie and it also doesn't really mean anything. Bernie doesn't want to make it so nobody can have three houses. He never pretends that he's poor. He just wants to help poor people not struggle as much and equal the playing field a little bit so they have a better chance to lead happier lives.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/fact...democratic-debate/ar-BB10bffv?ocid=spartandhp I always find these interesting the day after the debates it always pops up.
The problem with these is that people can throw together whatever numbers they want to match want they want to show. They always have a ton of assumptions, and the reality we won't know until it happens if it saves anyone's life, it costs someone their life, or what the true costs are. You listen to some people they say oh 25 trillion dollars! You listen to others it'll save trillions of dollars. There is a lot of cognitive bias going on with what we chose to believe with this stuff. Heck, I don't know what the truth will eventually be if we go towards universal healthcare and I'm not saying they're, "wrong", just that these types of studies I always take with a massive block of salt.
No one person needs or deserves to have 64 billion dollars, to use Bloomberg as an example, while our poorest people struggle as much as they do. It is obscene and immoral and represents a failure of society. Of course there will still be people richer than other people, no one is against that. Smarter, harder working people will still be more successful. Bernie's plans represent evening the playing field just a bit, giving poor people more of a chance to lead better lives.
^^^But exactly who is going to "save $450 Billion per year?...taxpayers?...hospitals?...insurance companies?...pharmaceuticals? And how is it really going to save that much when it is estimated to cost Trillions per year?
I struggle to understand how it's immoral or a failure of society. I think some people get rich by being "immoral or because of failures in society", but I think if someone is really smart or makes something people want to buy and they get "obscenely rich" from it, that doesn't make them immoral...
Simply having 64 billion dollars that you will never ever need or even want to spend while others struggle to feed themselves and keep a roof over their heads is immoral, in my opinion. No one deserves to make that much money, in comparison to how poor the lowest people are, no matter how good their product was. The free market isn't a moral beast.
So here's an example, is Dame Immoral if when he ends his career he's worth half a bill doesn't need like 1/10th of that money so the other 9/10ths should go to the government? Another the guy who made Minecraft sold it to Microsoft a few years ago for 2 billion dollars, was it immoral of him to take it? Why? What's the line? Why do we think we should get to define what the line is for others in terms of what they can make off of their image, their products, their businesses. I think most athletes have been making the argument they should be able to make as much as their worth for what they do, is all of that immorality as well? How much is it on Bloomberg, or Gates, or whomever to make sure that everyone has a roof over their heads or to eat. I think what's immoral here is when people like bloomberg or Gates use their immense wealth to keep poor people poor, that is immoral to me. Simply having more money then they can ever spend isn't immoral IMO and I am not sure it should be up to you and I or the government to determine what the cap is on how wealthy someone can be before they become "immoral" in our eyes.
Sorry, but I don't get your premise at all. Who's to say how much someone can make...and where is the cutoff on earnings? To someone who lives in poverty, pro athletes making millions per year is obscene and immoral.
If Paul Allen hadn't made billions by being innovative and productive, we wouldn't have our Blazers and Seattle would have lost their Seahawks. Economist will tell you money isn't capital, its the tool or implement you purchase, thats capital. Im grateful that we've had billionaires in this country that have used their fortunes to help people and most give their fortunes away. There is a reason that many from socialist countries want to come to the USA.
TB, the other thing that some might not even consider is that people like Bloomberg, Gates, Bezos, et al, is that they are providing jobs to millions of employees.
Hmmm...I get all the more being undeclared/independent in Iowa because you can change your party at the door to participate in the caucus, so the candidates fight for the independent vote really hard...I'm so glad the caucus is over.
