Despite the Math, Bernie's Already Won.

[georgephillip]

Just the fact that Bernie has alit of followers and that scares some people is reason snuff to at least like him. I would not vote for him but I do like it that his base is growing larger than anyone dreamed. I like that aspect.

Since I grew up during the cold war, it is very surprising to me Bernie is running successfully as a "socialist." If he moves into the White House, Change (if not Hope) will become possible.

 

[sonic]

Just the fact that Bernie has alit of followers and that scares some people is reason snuff to at least like him. I would not vote for him but I do like it that his base is growing larger than anyone dreamed. I like that aspect.

Since I grew up during the cold war, it is very surprising to me Bernie is running successfully as a "socialist." If he moves into the White House, Change (if not Hope) will become possible.

He's NOT running successfully. He's missing his targets badly (less than 90%) vs. a very successful Clinton who is hitting 110% of her delegate target. And it's only going to get worse as we move through Wisconsin Pensylvania, New York, California - big states he's going to lose. I get the Bernie enthusiasm, but also find most Bernie supporters to be ignorant (or unwilling to admit) to the facts of his campaign.

 

[MACAULAY]

How can you people support a guy, whose ideology has ruined every country it's touched? Have you seen the stories of Venezuela in the news? Name one thing going on there, that's 'good'?

_______

This is a good question....worth more discussion.

I believe there are two reasons:

1) He is very little different from most Democratic candidates...McGovern, Dukakis, come to mind...these are examples of liberals who are actually just socialists...just don't know it or won't admit it. Bernie's just honest.

2) There is a whole generation, maybe part of another, that did not have the example of the Soviet Union to see what Socialism actually is...in full bloom. So, it getting time to try the old experiment again. Every time, it not quite going to be true Marxism. Every variations fails, and it always will, until Human Nature changes. But, the young must learn for themselves.

 

[EverCurious]

In the past we, as a country, had the money to let the "children" play and find out reality for themselves. Not any longer. We're dirt poor, like we're in foreclosure poor. We cannot afford this, even if you want to take 100% from the wealthy you're not going to cover the cost of living, much less pay off any of our bills. Sander's idea is an economic disaster; if he looks like he's gonna win I suggest moving your cash - the yen is supposedly the most likely to become the new global currency, though I'm actually sinking into rubles as well just to cover my bases.

 

[georgephillip]

I get the Bernie enthusiasm, but also find most Bernie supporters to be ignorant (or unwilling to admit) to the facts of his campaign

What are you assuming those facts to be?
Facts establishing Hillary's ability to "get things done" are on display from Goldman Sachs to Benghazi.

 

[georgephillip]

In the past we, as a country, had the money to let the "children" play and find out reality for themselves. Not any longer. We're dirt poor, like we're in foreclosure poor. We cannot afford this, even if you want to take 100% from the wealthy you're not going to cover the cost of living, much less pay off any of our bills. Sander's idea is an economic disaster; if he looks like he's gonna win I suggest moving your cash - the yen is supposedly the most likely to become the new global currency, though I'm actually sinking into rubles as well just to cover my bases.

The US is the richest state in history, and it has never been richer.

The problem only Bernie will address is how those riches are distributed.

 

[mudwhistle]

Sure. The numbers present a narrow path to the nomination, but is that the important take away for Democrats in 2016?

"As it stands now, Clinton leads Sanders 1,243 to 975 in the pledged-delegate count and 1,712 to 1,004 overall when superdelegates are factored in.

"Even if Sanders is given a 73-to-28 split out of Washington State (so far, it's 25 to 9), going with the 72 percent margin he won by, he'd pick up 64 delegates in all out of Saturday.

"Going into the day, he would have needed 58 percent of all remaining delegates for a pledged majority. Coming out, he would need 57 percent. With superdelegates factored in, he needs a whopping 67 percent of all remaining delegate..."
Despite The Math, Bernie Sanders Has Already Won
"So can he win? 'Our calculations are that, in fact, we can win the pledged delegates,' Sanders said Sunday morning on NBC's Meet the Press. Sanders mentioned that his focus is on Wisconsin and New York, the two biggest contests over the next three weeks, and he pointed out that he has 'won five out of the six last contests in landslide fashion.'"

Hillary's been outed as a born loser with zero chance against whatever piece of white trash the Republicans vomit up next November.

Maybe progressives and conservatives should start demanding better candidates?

Why do you think Trump is winning.

 

[georgephillip]

Sure. The numbers present a narrow path to the nomination, but is that the important take away for Democrats in 2016?

"As it stands now, Clinton leads Sanders 1,243 to 975 in the pledged-delegate count and 1,712 to 1,004 overall when superdelegates are factored in.

"Even if Sanders is given a 73-to-28 split out of Washington State (so far, it's 25 to 9), going with the 72 percent margin he won by, he'd pick up 64 delegates in all out of Saturday.

"Going into the day, he would have needed 58 percent of all remaining delegates for a pledged majority. Coming out, he would need 57 percent. With superdelegates factored in, he needs a whopping 67 percent of all remaining delegate..."
Despite The Math, Bernie Sanders Has Already Won
"So can he win? 'Our calculations are that, in fact, we can win the pledged delegates,' Sanders said Sunday morning on NBC's Meet the Press. Sanders mentioned that his focus is on Wisconsin and New York, the two biggest contests over the next three weeks, and he pointed out that he has 'won five out of the six last contests in landslide fashion.'"

Hillary's been outed as a born loser with zero chance against whatever piece of white trash the Republicans vomit up next November.

Maybe progressives and conservatives should start demanding better candidates?

Why do you think Trump is winning.

If the "choice" next November is between Trump and Hillary, Trump's got my vote. I'm hoping Hillary self-destructs before I'm faced with that 1% distinction without a difference.

 

[georgephillip]

There is a whole generation, maybe part of another, that did not have the example of the Soviet Union to see what Socialism actually is.

What "socialism" did the Soviet Union practice? "State capitalism" would seem a more likely candidate.
State capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EverCurious]

The US is the richest state in history, and it has never been richer.

The problem only Bernie will address is how those riches are distributed.

I'm afraid your thinking that the US is "rich," while it's nearly $20 trillion dollars in the red, is a huge part of how we ended up in this mess in the first place. You cannot be "rich" when you're sitting on annual debt that exceeds your annual revenue, something the US has done consistently - 45 out of the past 50 years. Its not "by a little" either, we're talking about going in the hole an average of nearly $1 trillion a year when our total revenue is only about $3 trillion dollars (and Obama's 2017 budget proposes to spend an additional $1 trillion, so we'd be going in the hole $2 trillion a year.)

This is roughly equivalent to the average Joe family putting all of their utility bills on a credit card, with no intent to ever pay it off. The only difference is that there's not exactly an "authority" out there who can levy the US into paying it's debts; credit cards can get a judge to /force/ their clients to pay their debt off, but the Fed's don't have that kind of check & balance on their spending so they're inclined to blow it off.

When one considers that the value of the US dollar is based /entirely/ off of "faith," it's not hard to see how catastrophic it would be if global faith in the dollar were to falter. In the past, we had the productive capability of the US to kind of "back" the value of the US dollar, but we're currently bleeding out production at an alarming rate due to the US's high cost of operations. Now lets factor in a president like Sander's who desires to extract up to 90% of businesses (and personal) income to pay for additional social spending. With his "currently" proposed new taxes we're talking about going in the hole roughly $5 trillion a year (and that's pretty much going off Sander's own estimates - he [falsely imo] believes he can [while nearly doubling taxes on businesses] talk his way out of the blatant gap in his budget by securing lower costs for things like health insurance and tuition.)

So in such a situation you now have the equivalent of an average Joe family suing their employer for twice as much pay while simultaneously charging almost all of their bills to credit cards with no real intent to ever pay them off, and buying a new car... Even if such an average Joe family managed to keep their job, their credit rating is going to nose dive which will result in an immediate reduction of their ability to open additional "credit cards" with which to pay for their new "lavish" lifestyle.

Similarly to how a bank would decline to issue additional credit to the above average Joe family in that situation, the average investor is going to decline to sink money into the US. This would be coupled with a rapid increase in US debt sky-rocketing due to a spike in businesses and wealthy individuals fleeing the high tax and labor rates of the "new Sander's US." When that happens, there will be almost instantaneous repercussions around the world, not only will our own people find their government handouts cut off as businesses stop taking welfare (similar to how increasingly hospitals and doctors currently refuse to accept VA/Medicare/Medicaid because it doesn't pay enough,) but the financial support we provide to foreign countries will also fail - which will cause a massive global backlash against the US as many of these countries are practically living on our dole, further damaging US "reputation" and investor desire. We would essentially have a perfect storm of cascade failure and the effects could very easily destroy the country - because frankly, other than the individual citizen's wealth (which Sander's intends to steal,) our financial support of other countries, and our military might we basically have /nothing/ to offer the global community (and of course our military really only works if it's getting funds so I suspect that will also fail fairly quickly.)

-----

Also, I've only heard the US referred to as "state" by French (and/or eastern Canadians), but your other post didn't strike me as French... might I ask your nationality? I find language quirks such as this a curious study.

 

[tigerred59]

Sure. The numbers present a narrow path to the nomination, but is that the important take away for Democrats in 2016?

"As it stands now, Clinton leads Sanders 1,243 to 975 in the pledged-delegate count and 1,712 to 1,004 overall when superdelegates are factored in.

"Even if Sanders is given a 73-to-28 split out of Washington State (so far, it's 25 to 9), going with the 72 percent margin he won by, he'd pick up 64 delegates in all out of Saturday.

"Going into the day, he would have needed 58 percent of all remaining delegates for a pledged majority. Coming out, he would need 57 percent. With superdelegates factored in, he needs a whopping 67 percent of all remaining delegate..."
Despite The Math, Bernie Sanders Has Already Won
"So can he win? 'Our calculations are that, in fact, we can win the pledged delegates,' Sanders said Sunday morning on NBC's Meet the Press. Sanders mentioned that his focus is on Wisconsin and New York, the two biggest contests over the next three weeks, and he pointed out that he has 'won five out of the six last contests in landslide fashion.'"

Hillary's been outed as a born loser with zero chance against whatever piece of white trash the Republicans vomit up next November.

Maybe progressives and conservatives should start demanding better candidates?

If and should Hillary get the nod, the democrats should brace themselves for a loss. This lady, this pandering minion, this useless lump of shit, will not be president. She's a liar, a clown, a race baiter and a user of blacks and old white liberals. I hate this woman, will not vote for her, as many will not do. Bernie may not win, but damit, he'd be a better candidate to go against a republican than Hillary a DINO.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm afraid your thinking that the US is "rich," while it's nearly $20 trillion dollars in the red, is a huge part of how we ended up in this mess in the first place. You cannot be "rich" when you're sitting on annual debt that exceeds your annual revenue, something the US has done consistently - 45 out of the past 50 years. Its not "by a little" either, we're talking about going in the hole an average of nearly $1 trillion a year when our total revenue is only about $3 trillion dollars (and Obama's 2017 budget proposes to spend an additional $1 trillion, so we'd be going in the hole $2 trillion a year.)

America has the largest economy in all history along with the largest number of millionaires and billionaires, which explains why we also lead the developed world in income inequality. When I entered the labor force in 1965, the average CEO received $20 for every dollar earned by an average worker; today, the ratio is $354 to $1. Compounding our revenue deficiency is the fact we also lead the world in tax evasion. "Carried interest" alone allows billionaire hedge funds and private equity managers, earning $467,000 per hour in elite cases, to pay a 20% instead of 39.6% tax rate. Shortfalls are made up by productive workers' tax contributions or by government slashing social spending programs. The US is simply following an "eternal political triangle" that was old when Aristotle first warned about "wealthy families (emerging) within democracies to become a financial oligarchy. Book V of Politics traces how these oligarchies indebt a rising proportion of the population to themselves, creating hereditary estates on which to found aristocratic dynasties.

"In time, rivalries develop within the leading aristocratic families, and some decide to overthrow other elites of the old order by 'taking the multitude into their camp.'

"In the 7th century BC, populist tyrants gained power in Corinth and other wealthy Greek cities by canceling the debts, redistributing the land and driving the old ruling elites into exile.

"Democracy was introduced more peacefully by reformers in 6th-century Athens.

"Solon banned debt bondage in 594, and Kleisthenes locked in political democracy in 508.

"But an oligarchy emerged once again, to be followed by aristocracy, democracy, and so on in Aristotle’s eternal political triangle. Destruction of democracy by the creditors and property owners who..."
http://store.counterpunch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Killing-The-Host_PDF_V7.pdf (p.191)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sanders trails Clinton.

AND the democrats are not an honest party. The primary is a hoax, Hillary is anointed. Sanders could take every delegate and Hillary would be the nominee.

 

[Uncensored2008]

He's NOT running successfully. He's missing his targets badly (less than 90%) vs. a very successful Clinton who is hitting 110% of her delegate target. And it's only going to get worse as we move through Wisconsin Pensylvania, New York, California - big states he's going to lose. I get the Bernie enthusiasm, but also find most Bernie supporters to be ignorant (or unwilling to admit) to the facts of his campaign.

I predict that he will win the california vote, but that the delegates will be given to Hillary.

democrats appoint, they don't elect.

 

[georgephillip]

Sure. The numbers present a narrow path to the nomination, but is that the important take away for Democrats in 2016?

"As it stands now, Clinton leads Sanders 1,243 to 975 in the pledged-delegate count and 1,712 to 1,004 overall when superdelegates are factored in.

"Even if Sanders is given a 73-to-28 split out of Washington State (so far, it's 25 to 9), going with the 72 percent margin he won by, he'd pick up 64 delegates in all out of Saturday.

"Going into the day, he would have needed 58 percent of all remaining delegates for a pledged majority. Coming out, he would need 57 percent. With superdelegates factored in, he needs a whopping 67 percent of all remaining delegate..."
Despite The Math, Bernie Sanders Has Already Won
"So can he win? 'Our calculations are that, in fact, we can win the pledged delegates,' Sanders said Sunday morning on NBC's Meet the Press. Sanders mentioned that his focus is on Wisconsin and New York, the two biggest contests over the next three weeks, and he pointed out that he has 'won five out of the six last contests in landslide fashion.'"

Hillary's been outed as a born loser with zero chance against whatever piece of white trash the Republicans vomit up next November.

Maybe progressives and conservatives should start demanding better candidates?

If and should Hillary get the nod, the democrats should brace themselves for a loss. This lady, this pandering minion, this useless lump of shit, will not be president. She's a liar, a clown, a race baiter and a user of blacks and old white liberals. I hate this woman, will not vote for her, as many will not do. Bernie may not win, but damit, he'd be a better candidate to go against a republican than Hillary a DINO.

It is hard for me to imagine a worse choice in 2016 than Hillary. It is also hard for me to forget how another arrogant billionaire named Perot inflicted the Clinton Crime Family on this republic in 1992. Somehow, I don't see it getting much better...

 

[georgephillip]

He's NOT running successfully. He's missing his targets badly (less than 90%) vs. a very successful Clinton who is hitting 110% of her delegate target. And it's only going to get worse as we move through Wisconsin Pensylvania, New York, California - big states he's going to lose. I get the Bernie enthusiasm, but also find most Bernie supporters to be ignorant (or unwilling to admit) to the facts of his campaign.

I predict that he will win the california vote, but that the delegates will be given to Hillary.

democrats appoint, they don't elect.

It worked that way in 1968, as I recall.

 

[EverCurious]

America has the largest economy in all history along with the largest number of millionaires and billionaires, which explains why we also lead the developed world in income inequality. When I entered the labor force in 1965, the average CEO received $20 for every dollar earned by an average worker; today, the ratio is $354 to $1. Compounding our revenue deficiency is the fact we also lead the world in tax evasion. "Carried interest" alone allows billionaire hedge funds and private equity managers, earning $467,000 per hour in elite cases, to pay a 20% instead of 39.6% tax rate. Shortfalls are made up by productive workers' tax contributions or by government slashing social spending programs. The US is simply following an "eternal political triangle" that was old when Aristotle first warned about "wealthy families (emerging) within democracies to become a financial oligarchy. Book V of Politics traces how these oligarchies indebt a rising proportion of the population to themselves, creating hereditary estates on which to found aristocratic dynasties.

"In time, rivalries develop within the leading aristocratic families, and some decide to overthrow other elites of the old order by 'taking the multitude into their camp.'

"In the 7th century BC, populist tyrants gained power in Corinth and other wealthy Greek cities by canceling the debts, redistributing the land and driving the old ruling elites into exile.

"Democracy was introduced more peacefully by reformers in 6th-century Athens.

"Solon banned debt bondage in 594, and Kleisthenes locked in political democracy in 508.

"But an oligarchy emerged once again, to be followed by aristocracy, democracy, and so on in Aristotle’s eternal political triangle. Destruction of democracy by the creditors and property owners who..."
http://store.counterpunch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Killing-The-Host_PDF_V7.pdf (p.191)

So basically your solution to the astronomical growing debt is "Make the rich pay" - fingers in ears lalalalalala

Political ideological theory is nice and all, but a solution it is not. You would rather transferring the nations bad spending habits to "punish" fellow American citizens, who have worked hard for their families future. Its no wonder that the rich and businesses have less and less reason to want to be American citizens given the growing hostility towards them...

 

[georgephillip]

America has the largest economy in all history along with the largest number of millionaires and billionaires, which explains why we also lead the developed world in income inequality. When I entered the labor force in 1965, the average CEO received $20 for every dollar earned by an average worker; today, the ratio is $354 to $1. Compounding our revenue deficiency is the fact we also lead the world in tax evasion. "Carried interest" alone allows billionaire hedge funds and private equity managers, earning $467,000 per hour in elite cases, to pay a 20% instead of 39.6% tax rate. Shortfalls are made up by productive workers' tax contributions or by government slashing social spending programs. The US is simply following an "eternal political triangle" that was old when Aristotle first warned about "wealthy families (emerging) within democracies to become a financial oligarchy. Book V of Politics traces how these oligarchies indebt a rising proportion of the population to themselves, creating hereditary estates on which to found aristocratic dynasties.

"In time, rivalries develop within the leading aristocratic families, and some decide to overthrow other elites of the old order by 'taking the multitude into their camp.'

"In the 7th century BC, populist tyrants gained power in Corinth and other wealthy Greek cities by canceling the debts, redistributing the land and driving the old ruling elites into exile.

"Democracy was introduced more peacefully by reformers in 6th-century Athens.

"Solon banned debt bondage in 594, and Kleisthenes locked in political democracy in 508.

"But an oligarchy emerged once again, to be followed by aristocracy, democracy, and so on in Aristotle’s eternal political triangle. Destruction of democracy by the creditors and property owners who..."
http://store.counterpunch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Killing-The-Host_PDF_V7.pdf (p.191)

So basically your solution to the astronomical growing debt is "Make the rich pay" - fingers in ears lalalalalala

Political ideological theory is nice and all, but a solution it is not. You would rather transferring the nations bad spending habits to "punish" fellow American citizens, who have worked hard for their families future. Its no wonder that the rich and businesses have less and less reason to want to be American citizens given the growing hostility towards them...

Where's the "political ideology" in the magic of compound interest growing astronomical debt faster than the productive economy's ability to pay it off? Creditors make money by leaving their savings to accrue interest which doubles and redoubles their claims on the economy while ordinary Americans work two or three jobs in order to ensure a roof over their heads. Rich Americans are fortunate their fellow citizens aren't grabbing pitchforks and torches.
http://store.counterpunch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Killing-The-Host_PDF_V7.pdf (p.28)
"The problem of debts growing faster than the economy has been acknowledged by practically every society.

"Religious leaders have warned that maintaining a viable economy requires keeping creditors in check.

"That is why early Christianity and Islam took the radical step of banning the charging of interest altogether, even for commercial loans.

"It is why Judaism placed the Jubilee Year’s debt cancellation at the core of Mosaic Law, based on a Babylonian practice extending back to 2000 BC, and to the Sumerian tradition in the millennium before that."

 

[EverCurious]

I find that suspect, I live in one of the most expensive states in the country (Alaska), my husband and I have plenty of money, but our monthly bills - including our mortgage - 5 cars all insured, 4 snow machines all insured, and 2 boats also insured, typical utilities, an electric bill borne of 4 internet addicts + two Tivo's with all the channels, 3 cell phones, [one remaining] 16 year old boy [we had three teens], and [one remaining] dog [we had 3 dogs and 2 cats, all but one passed of old age].

Our grand total bill for all of that is about $4k/m. My husband makes $2.5/k a month doing a stupid paper route which only takes 3 hours a day. Then he has his /real/ job which pays well $25/h, which means I don't have to work unless I want to (which does happen, I get bored.)

I don't understand what all these folks are buying, but they clearly are not prioritizing their lives right.

To be completely frank, I can't decide if it's more pathetic that nearly half the country can't do simple budget math and live within their means, or that they can't find a decent paying job that affords them the lifestyle they /want/ to have... Four of my five kidos (ages 32, 21, 22 are already making $25+ an hour, and the youngest (16) already has [another] summer job lined up for May when the school year ends - he didn't say how much this one pays, but it's got full benefits plus retirement matching; for the record his summer job last year paid $10/h.

 

[georgephillip]

To be completely frank, I can't decide if it's more pathetic that nearly half the country can't do simple budget math and live within their means, or that they can't find a decent paying job that affords them the lifestyle they /want/ to have..

I admire your self-discipline and thrift; however, I wonder if you know why JP Morgan and JD Rockefeller regarded compound interest as the Eighth Wonder of the World, or why Adam Smith and Karl Marx believed it was entirely possible for an economic activity to generate a profit without creating any actual value?
http://store.counterpunch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Killing-The-Host_PDF_V7.pdf (p.36)
"J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller are said to have called the principle of compound interest the Eighth Wonder of the World. For them it meant concentrating financial fortunes in the hands of an emerging oligarchy indebting the economy to itself at an exponential rate. This has been the key factor in polarizing the distribution of wealth and political power in societies that do not take steps to cope with this dynamic."
I grew up during the years immediately following WWII, when the living memories of the Great Depression and Second World War made it impossible for Wall Street oligarchs to exploit the "magic of compound interest" in order to concentrate vast wealth in the hands of a few non-producers while inflicting austerity on a large percentage of productive workers.

Those days ended when another arrogant billionaire put Bill Clinton in the White House. The debt buildup we are seeing today has played out for thousands of years before either one of us was born.

I'm thinking Jubilee?