Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Flipping The Script: Questions For Sanders Supporters [View all]nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)36. Not a suppporter of either candidate... my vote is my business, but you want to discuss policy sure
I was responding to one of the many posts trying to understand how people can support Hillary. I expressed my deep concerns regarding several of Bernie's proposed plans. Let's take three issues, for the sake of brevity.
1) Minimum wage: I think we can all agree that the living conditions in NYC are far different than in a rural town. While both candidates support large increases to the federal minimum wage, there are serious economic questions regarding whether less affluent areas can absorb an increase to $15 as quickly as other areas. Like the bill New York just passed, phasing in the increases, and seeing the economic impact being made before going even further, is a prudent way of making sure that we balance the need for a higher wage with our interest in making sure not to stunt economic growth. Why does Bernie, in his speeches, refuse to acknowledge the potential negative consequences of acting too fast?
The conditions are different but this staged increase was not the idea of either of the campaigns, though by the time 15 an hour becomes law in CA for example, that will be like pissing in the wind. By 2022 due to the increase in rent costs, that will eat whatever increase people got. At other periods of history the same arguments have been made and every time they prove to be wrong. In fact, for San Diego, just to 11:50 an hour, currently prop I, would mean a 250 million stimulus to the local economy.
There are oodles of studies but these increases tend to stimulate the economy, and actually create jobs.
2) Fracking: Banning fracking would be an easy solution, as would eliminating nuclear power. But if we do that, we do not currently have the supply of clean renewables to satisfy our energy needs. We would therefore have to either burn more coal for the time being (a worse option for the environment), massively reduce our energy needs (unlikely), or return to buying gas and oil from other countries (which is both costly, and supports unfriendly regimes). The end result is that, until clean power sources scale, we would face large price increases in energy costs that lower and middle class families can't afford. Has Bernie thought through the effects of a complete ban on fracking?
Ok to quote the people from San Diego 350.org, if we do not get off those it will be academic. By the way, solar rooftop is part of the solution never really emphasized. Fracking is also causing moderate quakes already due to the creation of instability in the land, and polluting water supplies you and I need to live. I am positive that banning it, would accelerate the development of the proper technology, or the deployment of it. Like many other sources of energies, most of what is still on the ground will have to remain on the ground... and you are right on one thing, it will require a Manhattan project level of research to get the new energies to replace fossil technologies, We are already pretty far gone with climate change to keep dancing around it.
3) College: Free tuition sounds good, I'll admit. But for starters, the plan relies on Republican states to chip in 30% of the cost. That won't happen, as we have seen with the Medicaid buy-in. Furthermore, that plan does nothing to address the costs of room/board, fees, and other ancillary costs that colleges can continue to raise at will to make up the difference. The quality of education would be questionable with millions of new students flooding into the system, and there has not been much talk of how to keep those tuition costs from rising exponentially when the government is paying the bill. This plan would require large tax increases at the state level to cover their share of the cost. Does Bernie have answers for any of these issues? And why did he build a plan that relies on Republicans to opt-in, when the ACA proves they won't?
Free college has been actual policy in the US before... see CA before Reagan. Sanders plans to do it the same way European nations currently fund it. NO not by taxing you, but taxing fast trades in Wall Street. The tax is minimal per trade, but there are millions of these trades a year. As to the quality of education, if you think private education is better, I have a bridge to sell you. At a policy level we are already seeing brain flight a real thing, due to kids not being able to afford American education. Many of those kids will chose to stay over there, and not come to the US. and you know what? I cannot blame them for it.
And I just gave you the consequences. What you posed was from a very status quo, right wing kind of analysis.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think people forget how college entry is severely restricted in nations where it is free.....
bettyellen
Apr 2016
#3
Improving public education and Bernie's plan are not mutually exclusive. Both are needed.
Armstead
Apr 2016
#30
We are smart enough to figure out every one of those. I have more faith in America
Armstead
Apr 2016
#50
"If a kid doesn't set goals and work to meet them, it is not society's job to force them."
bettyellen
Apr 2016
#51
1. Minimum wage. There's no reason NYC shouldn't be able to raise their minimum wage to $20.50 ...
Scuba
Apr 2016
#8
Because he knows and his supporters know that for his political revolution to be ...
Scuba
Apr 2016
#14
Success relies on us. If we go into a deal already retreating we will not go far enough to move them.
The Wielding Truth
Apr 2016
#26
I'm not sure what your point is, if you have one, but seems to me that one should be able to ...
Scuba
Apr 2016
#55
The figures should show the one-bedroom housing wage rather than the two-bedroom housing wage
oberliner
Apr 2016
#56
"Clean energy renewables"? Tell that to the people with wells contaminated by fracking.
Binkie The Clown
Apr 2016
#13
Yep. We must be smart enough to be able to use renewables. Not in 20 years but now.
The Wielding Truth
Apr 2016
#28
The composition of congress is immaterial to the goals and principles POTUS holds and articulates.
lumberjack_jeff
Apr 2016
#39
Hillary has campaigned as the pragmatic, incremental candidate. She can work with this congress.
lumberjack_jeff
Apr 2016
#45
I would consider it a success if he can move the terms of the discussion.
lumberjack_jeff
Apr 2016
#57
So the DNC supports these things if what we're talking about is not actually getting these things?nt
JCanete
Apr 2016
#58
Don't want this to be neglected, because appreciate your attempt to discuss issues......
Armstead
Apr 2016
#31
Nothing any Democrat ever proposes will get anywhere unless there are such changes
Armstead
Apr 2016
#48
Not a suppporter of either candidate... my vote is my business, but you want to discuss policy sure
nadinbrzezinski
Apr 2016
#36