Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders Has a Jobs Plan. It's Called 'Socialism.'

Can't get work? Trim hedges for the government!

|

Bernie Sanders
Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA/Newscom

Hey, there, displaced factory worker! Looking for work? Bernie Sanders has a job for you. How would you like to make $15 an hour cleaning up park trails for your municipal government? What, you say that sounds like something an employee of the city's parks department already does, or is supposed to do? What about repainting school playgrounds? Oh, the unionized school district employees gave you a stern look? Um. Hang on, he'll get back to you.

Sanders has announced a new plan to make sure everybody who is unemployed gets a job. His plan is just to invent a bunch of new government jobs and pay $15 an hour with benefits! Ta-Da! Problem solved.

No, really. That's kind of the plan. According to The Washington Post, which reported the proposal yesterday, Sanders' office doesn't have a cost estimate or any idea how it will be funded yet. Post policy writer Jeff Stein turned to a study by a pack of "left-leaning economists" for the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, who seem to think only good things will happen with the creation of millions of government-funded jobs, and hardly any bad things. Klein notes:

Job guarantee advocates say their plan would drive up wages by significantly increasing competition for workers, ensuring that corporations have to offer more generous salaries and benefits if they want to keep their employees from working for the government.

Of course, they might have to lay off some employees in order to pay for these increased wages and benefits. Or they could increase the speed by which they're automating to get rid of jobs to save money. But that's okay! There's going to be all these government jobs to replace them! Paid for with tax revenue from…from…wait. If everybody goes to work for the government, where will the revenue come from? I'm sure they'll figure out something.

So what sort of government work is there that would provide $15 an hour plus benefits to millions of unemployed Americans? The Levy Economics Institute study provides several examples of how these guaranteed jobs might play out at the local level. Here's one:

A local artist collective employs painters, actors, musicians, and stage hands to run year-round productions for the community. They organize school outreach programs, run summer camps, and offer free art, music, and literacy classes for disadvantaged/special needs youths. They collaborate with local schools in offering art enrichment programs.

You might think to yourself, "These seem like the kinds of jobs that certain people with certain types of interests have been begging for the government to fund for years." Indeed, much of the examples in the Levy study seem like descriptions of programs that certain types of local government-connected people with very particular ideas would like to see the government doing. Their plan leans heavily on the assumption that all these unemployed or underemployed people would happily do the grunt work that aligns with left-leaning environmental and public policy project goals. The report openly uses the Works Progress Administration of the New Deal as a model to support it.

Perhaps you're wondering, "Is there even any widespread demand for these kinds of jobs that aren't already being filled?" That may sound like some sort of reference to marketplace capitalism! But that's not the point! The point is jobs. The study declares:

It separates the offer of employment from the profitability of employment. Projects are created to serve community needs, rather than prioritizing whether the projects are deemed profitable in the narrow sense.

But how does one determine what a community needs while ignoring market responses? Why should taxpayers fund community plays if they have no interest in actually sitting through them? This report makes it very clear that the task falls to local public institutions and job centers, not market demands. That necessarily means it will be driven, much like this report is, by the interests of the people who are in charge of the programs or have the most influence over the programs. That these programs could end up as a corrupt breeding ground for government cronyism and nepotism in who gets assigned for which jobs is utterly absent from the study.

For that matter, can people be fired from these "guaranteed" jobs? I mean, given how hard it is to fire bad teachers or dangerous cops, it's worth wondering whether people who get these jobs will continue to get paid if they fail to show up for their job trimming the hedges of their community skate park or surveying people about their food insecurities. (According to the Post, Sanders' plan calls for something sinisterly called the Division of Progress Investigation to handle discipline.) The study treats these jobs as though they can be created and eliminated as the economy demands, but trends in government worker employment scream "More! More! More!" There will be tremendous pressure and inertia to keep these jobs going once they're filled.

The study estimates that this program could attract as many as 15 million participants. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, 2017 ended with 22.3 million people employed in government sector jobs—that's federal, state, and local all combined. This program would result in about a 50 percent increase in people who work for the government.

Right now cities and states are flirting with (and sometimes embracing) bankruptcy as government employee wage and benefit commitments destroy their budgets. Harvey, a suburb of Chicago, just laid off 18 firefighters and 13 police officers as a result of the state withholding money from the city to pay for its police pension fund. The suburb is $7 million delinquent in payments.

If governments are unable to absorb the financial costs of paying its current employees, how on earth is it going to pay for such a dramatic increase in new government employees? It would have to dramatically increase taxes on the private sector, which would cause them to shed jobs, which would cause those laid off employees to demand one of these "guaranteed" jobs. And so there will be pressure for this program to expand even further, even as governments see a decline in tax revenue.

It's not a surprise to see Sanders embrace such an incomprehensible, economically illiterate employment program and declining to consider the consequences. When he ran for president, he repeatedly called for free college educations based on programs from other countries, without seeming to have any grasp of how those education systems work. He has so many bad economic ideas that Reason Editor at Large Matt Welch put together a top-10 list of them back in May 2016. Check them out here.

NEXT: A Roundup of My Volokh Conspiracy Posts on the Travel Ban

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, gulags do tend to be very labor intensive. In addition to all the typical prison jobs, they’ll need lots of ditch diggers for the mass graves, gas chamber operators, people to work the ovens, etc., etc.

    1. And building canals. Building canals is great work for political undesirables. Also subway systems. Think of the beautiful subways systems that could be built.

      1. Sub-Canals!

        1. Finally! There is a great way how you can work online from your home using your computer and earn in the same time… Only basic internet knowledge needed and fast internet connection…

          Earn as much as $3000 a week… >> http://www.jobs63.com

    2. Gulags haven’t been implemented by the capitalists yet because there’s no profit. However, there is a real community need for them. You’ll understand after spending some time in one.

      1. I hear they offer great opportunities for re-education.

        1. “Free” re-education? Sold! /sarc

      2. Gulags haven’t been implemented by the capitalists yet because there’s no profit.

        ORLY?

        1. Oops. This is a better link.

      3. Debtors Prisons?

    3. Let’s not forget that Bernie got kicked out of a commune for sitting around, philosophizing, and refusing to do any actual work.

      1. Hilarious, if true.

    4. Start winning $90/hourly to work online from your home for couple of hours consistently… Get standard portion on seven days after week start… All you require is a PC, web affiliation and a litte additional time…

      Read more here…….. http://www.profit70.com

  2. According to The Washington Post, which reported the proposal yesterday, Sanders’ office doesn’t have a cost estimate or any idea how it will be funded yet.

    So, no different than any of Bernie’s other proposals then.

    1. I’m sure it will all work itself out

    2. Nitpicking details. Bernie is a man of vision!

    3. So, no different than any of Bernie’s other proposals then.

      This was one thing about Sanders that, IMO, made Trump more appealing* in the same vein as pretty much everything about Clinton.

      People would complain about Trump’s vision being vague and lacking detail without realizing that Bernie’s plans were often just as vague and superficially terrible to boot.

      Not that Bernie wasn’t better on some issues, but the stuff people wanted him to be good on and played up as his strengths were worse than Clinton.

      *NB: I still did not vote for the guy.

      1. Was Bernie better on some issues?

        I suppose a broken clock is right twice a day, so maybe.

        I read an interview with him once that said he didn’t really know the definition of socialism and didn’t study economics. Can’t take the man seriously.

        1. Bernie Sanders is a Marxist buffoon. His sole accomplishment as Senator is getting re-elected.

      2. The difference was that, though Trump’s ideas may have sounded vague, he had a decent track record of getting things done. (I know he had failures, too.) Can anyone name any positive accomplishments of Bernie or Hillary?

    4. This business of how it’s going to be paid for is all just eco-splaining. Stop being such malcontents and get on board already,. All the right people are for it.

      1. I hope that was sarcasm. I’m usually quite fluent but my left ear seems to be failing me a lot these days.

        1. That wasn’t even thinly veiled sarcasm.

  3. Job guarantee advocates say their plan would drive up wages by significantly increasing competition for workers, ensuring that corporations have to offer more generous salaries and benefits if they want to keep their employees from working for the government.

    But these same people will also demand open borders creating a virtually limitless supply of labor. It is not so much that they are wrong, though they are, it is that their plans are not even internally consistent. They have crossed the barrier between being wrong and being insane.

    But how does one determine what a community needs while ignoring market responses? Why should taxpayers fund community plays if they have no interest in actually sitting through them?

    Simple, the community’s needs are whatever the government says they are. Who says you need 15 different choices of deodorant but don’t need a neighborhood puppet theater that performs the people’s art? This is what these lunatics actually believe.

    1. But these same people will also demand open borders creating a virtually limitless supply of labor.

      I don’t know about that. Berntard claimed during the ’16 election that open borders was a Koch brothers plot increase the supply of cheap labor.

      I think the main difference between Berntard’s border wall and Trump’s will be that his will be to keep people from getting out, not from coming in.

      1. Yeah. It was in an interview with Ezra Klein, and Klein was trying to get Bernie to say some woke stuff about being welcoming to immigrants. Bless his heart, though, Bernie absolutely would not.

        1. Bernie really is a no kidding “National Socialist”. That said, I would be shocked if ten percent of his supporters understood that and don’t also support open borders.

          1. His supporters understand even less than he does. They just like the idea of a massive welfare state.

            1. Look, I only want to pay for Xbox games and weed. Everything else is constitutionally guaranteed.

      2. I think the only difference was that instead of making Mexico pay for the wall, Bernie thought it would be a great jobs program.

        1. It would be such a great jobs program, that we would never have to stop building. Just keep making the wall higher and higher.

  4. http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/opi…..perts.html

    The future that milquetoast socialists always provide.

    1. That is behind a paywall. What does it say?

      1. It’s an old article that discusses the Charlie Gard case and the impact of empowering the state to provide and decide for us.

        Also, learn how to use an incognito window

        1. Incognito is a PIA on a mobile device.

          1. Sorry, I mean everything about mobile devices is far superior to anything on a full service. /sarc

  5. Sanders’ plan calls for something sinisterly called the Division of Progress Investigation to handle discipline.

    Jesus Christ. It’s like he deliberately came up with the most Orwellian sounding name possible. The scary part is, he probably didn’t put any thought into it at all, that’s just where his mind went.

    1. It gets better: his plan calls for dividing the US into seventeen different districts to administer his social program.

      He might be the only person to watch the Hunger Games and conclude- “hey, that’s not a bad idea”

      1. “Regional governors have now been given direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line…”

        He probably spooges in his pants whenever he watches Star Wars and Tarkin says that line (assuming the old fossil can still get it up).

        1. Actually, on second thought, he probably never watches Star Wars. Or any other movie. Too bourgeoisie for him.

          1. “talking pictures? I’m my day we had piano accompaniment in the theater. And ushers! Now there’s a jobs program we need to reenact!”

          2. I’m inclined to think that showing him Star Wars might change his mind…except that, undoubtedly. “A New Hope” would be a tragedy to him. He might take some solace in “The Empire Strikes Back”, but everything would come crashing down with “The Return of the Jedi”.

            He strikes me as someone who would just love the Prequels, though…

          3. You just have to tell him it was an independent film.

          4. It’s funny how the most bourgeois people always fancy themselves as being the most anti-bourgeoisie

    2. According to the WaPo: “The plan suggests creating a Division of Progress Investigation to “take disciplinary action if needed,” leaving authority to the head of the Labor Department.”

      The Labor Department already has armed agents, so enforcement won’t be a problem in the camps.

      1. And some say the Second Amendment needs to be repealed. This is why.

  6. A local artist collective employs painters, actors, musicians, and stage hands to run year-round productions for the community.

    And what about the people who do that stuff for a living now? It’s not an easy way to make a buck as it is; now Bernie wants to force them to compete with slave labor?

    1. That quote shows how so much of the support for socialism is just anger at the fact there is no such thing as a free lunch. Many socialists are so because they honestly can’t understand why everyone should not be able to be whatever they want in life without having to worry about paying the bills. They really are that immature and stupid.

      1. You can image-search Google using “depression era wpa art” to see the best of the craptastic, soviet-style art that we’d get from the local artist collectives.

        It’s not all entirely devoid of artistic merit, but the best of WPA art is overwhelmingly bad.

        You know that the images that show up on a Google search are the very pinnacle of WPA art. The rest of it must be really, really bad.

        1. Social realism for the win. Government supported art is almost universally horrible and not just because it is nearly always political. Relieving artists of the need to appeal to a buying public enables their worst and most self-indulgent instincts.

          1. Dead cat displays on order.

        2. No fan of the idea of the WPA, but I will say this – they had to show up, sober, had to work, had to behave, and were forced to send most of their check to their family.

          Now we just cut out the middle man, send them a check and and EBT card they can use to buy porn, smokes, and booze.

          1. You lost me after porn. That shit is free.

        3. The best WPA art is the stuff that never needed WPA funding in the first place. Like the Marx Brothers movies. They would have been produced and made a shit load of money regardless if FDR funded them or not. Sheesh.

  7. I wonder what Bernie’s opinion of workfare is?

    1. He’s probably opposed to it. Apparently workfare is degrading.

  8. His plan is just to invent a bunch of new government jobs and pay $15 an hour with benefits! Ta-Da! Problem solved.

    Sanders’ office doesn’t have a cost estimate

    The study estimates that this program could attract as many as 15 million participants

    Lets, see, quick, back of the envelope calculation:

    15,000,000 workers X $15/hr X 40 hrs/week X 52 weeks/year = $468 Billion/year. And that’s just for the hourly wages.

    1. This is a pretty disingenuous calculation. You forgot to carry the socialist magic quotient.

      1. And he didn’t even include the economic multiplied, which means this actually saves money.

    2. The Dotard just doubled the deficit to over $1 trillion. What’s another $468 billion?

      (sarcasm intended)

      1. After Obama doubled the debt in 8 years, what difference does it make? But hey, Obama made up for it by having the worst recovery in American history. Stagflation and historically low labor force participation makes it all worthwhile I guess.

        1. After Obama doubled the debt in 8 years

          Yes, thanks to the trillion dollar deficits your GOP left him + the worst economy since the Great Depression + 750,000 jobs lost per month.

          Why didn’t we just snap out of it in a few months????

          1. Poor Obama, man just couldn’t catch a break. And it was not like he was elected to solve problems or anything. Oh well, he is just stuck being remembered as a failure. Life sucks sometimes I guess.

            1. He did solve the problem though. Perhaps not as quickly and robustly as you cynically demand of him as your party deliberately stymied his every action?

              What’s sad about you is that the best case scenario is that you’re aware of this evil cynicism and think that’s a fine way to go through life. I don’t think you’re stupid enough to actually believe half the crap you pretend to.

              1. Today it was revealed that 14 states now have all time low unemployment rates. And Trump is going to take credit for it. HAHAHAHAAHA

                Poor Obama. Trump will be remembered for having the best economy since Reagan. LOLOLOL

                1. Was the Reagan economy really due to Carter deregulation though?

                  1. No. It was due to Regan cutting taxes and getting Paul Volker to raise interest rates and stop inflation.

              2. Solved the problem? No, the problem persisted until well after he lost control of Congress and became a lame duck and had spending reductions forced on him. Low oil and natural gas prices deserve more credit too, ironically given Obama’s war on those industries.

                1. You forgot the much derided here policies signed by Bush to stem the money crisis caused by long poor money management by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

              3. Tony, he didn’t solve shot, except in your progressive fan fiction scribbling.

          2. “”Yes, thanks to the trillion dollar deficits your GOP left him +””

            The last two years that Bush was in office the Dems held both houses of Congress. Give them some thanks too.

            1. Moral of the story is both sides love spending taxpayer money. They just have different items that want to spend it on.

              1. That and Congress not the President controls the budget. When the Republicans took back the Congress in 2011, the budget deficit magically went down.

            2. Yes, because Democrats are a shitty opposition party.

              Bush (Hank Paulson) in 2008 “We need $700 billion to loan banks and save our economy!!!!!”

              Democrats “Okay! Sounds good. What choice do we have since we are in the shitter anyway?”

              1. “”Bush (Hank Paulson) in 2008 “We need $700 billion to loan banks and save our economy!!!!!”””

                Yep, and the Dems that controlled both houses of Congress gave it to them.

                Dems in 2009, we need a Trillion dollars to build infrastructure and save our economy!!!

                and the Dems that controlled both houses of Congress gave it to them.

              2. They controlled Congress you half wit. TARP got passed because the Democrats wanted it. And Obama voted for it and once he was President ensured that it continued and that no one was ever prosecuted for the biggest financial fraud in history. Obama was President Goldman Sachs you lying sack of shit. Do you think Eric Holder makes millions from Wall Street today because of his good looks?

                Just go away.

                1. John, you are a revisionist idiot.

                  Hank Paulson saw the economy melting down and thought every bank would go under and then he sprang TARP on Congress to buy all the bad loans – TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM.

                  Later it got changed to loans – that were all repaid.

                  1. They were not all repaid. All TARP did was ensure that important people didn’t go broke even though they deserve to and ensure that the problems that lead to the collapse were not fixed. And no bank collapse in history did not result in anyone going to jail for fraud until that one. And that is because Wall Street owned Obama and Holder. More than anything, Obama was about stealing.

                    1. Losing money on shitty MBS is not a crime, you Bernie – Liz Warren sounding bank griefer.

                    2. Lying to your shareholders and the SEC about losing that money and your actual financial position, sure as hell is a crime. And that is what they all did.

                    3. ^This

                  2. PB, stop lying and apologize to John, and everyone else here while you’re at it. Everyone has had enough of your dishonest progressive shit.

                    You are evil, and enjoy being evil. Just admit what you are.

              3. TARP was about as bi-partisan as they come. Proving once again, that both sides of the aisle are moronic. But you guys should keep up your little tribal battles.

                The amendment was approved by a 74?25 vote, and the entire bill was also passed by the same margin, 74?25 (R: 34-15, D: 40-10, including Lieberman and Sanders)

                1. Leo, people like Buttplug and John will never learn. They both base their morality at least partly on group loyalty.

                  1. Chipper,

                    I never once said the Republicans were not also responsible for TARP. It was totaly bipartisan and I never said otherwise.

                    Stop lying you miserable piece of shit. Seriously, how dare you lecture me about something I didn’t say. You are a bigger dickhead than shreek. Do me a favor and shut the fuck up and since all you can do is lie.

                2. Leo Kovalensky II

                  I never once said the Republicans were not also responsible for TARP. Never once. So take your tribal battles and snark and shove it up your ass sideways you smug worthless fuck.

                3. Leo and Chip,

                  I can’t state strongly enough how much both of you should go fuck yourselves. I never once said the Republicans didn’t vote for TARP. Why do you think I did other than just that you are nasty lying fucks who are too stupid to make any actual point beyond “you are a tribalist”. Stop lying.;

                  1. John, you lying asswipe.

                    They controlled Congress you half wit. TARP got passed because the Democrats wanted it

                    You may as well said the GOP had nothing to do with TARP by blaming only Dems.

                    1. They controlled Congress you half wit. TARP got passed because the Democrats wanted it

                      They controlled congress. they could have stopped it. The fact that Republicans wanted it too is beside the point since they were in the minority.

                      Go lie on some other sight. You are too stupid to even lie properly.

                    2. PB , again John is telling the truth and you are laying communist piece of shit. People like you should legitimately be executed as traitors and existential enemies of our constitutional republic.

                      Marxists have no right to exist

                  2. Wow, looks like we struck a chord.

                    John, you are one of the biggest partisan hacks on this commentariat. That doesn’t make you wrong all the time, but it does cause you to say things like…
                    “TARP got passed because the Democrats wanted it.”

                    The link above shows 34 out of 49 Senate Republicans (69%) voted for TARP. The House could have killed the bill, but 91 Republicans voted for it as well. Oh and it was signed by GW Bush.

                    1. TARP got passed because the Democrats wanted it. And where did I ever say that the Rs didn’t want it too? We were talking about Shreek pretending Obama had nothing to do with TARP. I never denied the Republicans supported TARP as well. And didn’t deny it here. You just assumed I did because you are a fucking asshole who wanted to take a cheap shot. You may think I am a partisan hack but you actually are a fucking asshole who won’t even back down when someone gives you the argument. You are right. TARP was bipartisan. There. I never denied that and have now said it explicitly for the second time. But hey, don’t let that stop you from claiming I believe otherwise. Doing that would prevent you from being a lying smug asshole and that apparently is your only move. Maybe someday you can learn another one. Until then, go fuck yourself.

                    2. The link above shows 34 out of 49 Senate Republicans (69%) voted for TARP. The House could have killed the bill, but 91 Republicans voted for it as well. Oh and it was signed by GW Bush.

                      And just to make it clear. I don’t deny that and have made that point in other places numerous times. But whatever you do, don’t let that change your impression that I somehow think TARP was an entirely Democratic creation. No. you wouldn’t want to actually know my opinion on something. Better to just imagine what you want it to be. That way you can be a smug prick without letting reality get in the way.

                      Again, go fuck yourself.

                    3. Leo,

                      You are an asshole. And trust me, I am one myself so I speak with authority.

                    4. Leo,

                      Do you honestly think I don’t remember who was President when TARP was passed? Forgive me but I assumed everyone wasn’t shreek and the fact that it was passed under Bush meant that it went without saying that the Republicans were also responsible. A fucking Republican President signed it. Do you really think I didn’t know that? How the hell can you not understand what I was saying? You fucking smug prick. How dare you lecture me on shit I likely know more about than you do.

                    5. hat doesn’t make you wrong all the time, but it does cause you to say things like…

                      That really infuriates me. You can’t even honestly portray what I am saying. What makes you think you have any idea when I am right or wrong? Come back and try again when you understand my position.

                    6. John acknowledged all that. What is your problem Leo?

          3. Senator Obama supported and voted for those trillion dollar deficit.

            1. Are Republicans responsible for anything in your mind?

              1. Why would that be a proper response to this true statement?

              2. Obama was fully on board with what the government class decided to do about the banking crisis. That does not absolve the GOP of their part in it, but Obama was not handed anything he was not an advocate of.

                1. It wasn’t the policy he or Democrats would have passed if they had absolute governing control, so stop trying to blame them for it all. At least get beyond pure partisan hackery.

                  1. So you’re saying it would have been even worse had Republicans not been a dampener on what Obama and the Democrats wanted to do?

                  2. Funny given your last comment. Apparently Obama isn’t responsible for anything he wouldn’t have done if he were dictator of the world.

                    And what would he have done? Outlaw usury? Nationalize the banks? Something probably far worse than mere bailouts, that’s certain.

                  3. You’re not capable of anything other than extreme partisanship Tony. Ever. You are a huge hypocrite.

                    Now go drink your Drano.

          4. Yeah, Bush has a lot to answer for too. But Obama could have stopped shoveling money into a giant hole in the ground if he’d wanted to.

            1. It was bipartisan all the way around.

      2. I believe it was a two year budget so spread the deficit over two years, and it had bi-partisan support.

    3. Where’s the benefits? Why don’t they get benefits?

    4. But all that income will be taxed, so it will pay for itself…

  9. What job has Bernie Sanders ever had?

    1. It is my understanding he has never had one. He literally is the old guy at the laundromat who yells at the dryers about the evils of capitalism. The guy has never worked a day in his life.

      1. The man was kicked out of a commune for being too lazy. Dirty hippies thought Sanders was too lazy. My. God.

        1. I have heard that. That really is pretty epic when you think about it.

          1. If you’ve ever been to a commune, it’s something you really have to try to achieve.

            1. Communes that tolerate any laziness at all fall apart pretty quickly. Keeping a commune going is hard work.

              1. Not as hard as the work done by the proles in the commune. Compared to them, the Party members and enforcers have it easy.

                1. I’m not talking about state socialism at all, which is always some form or another of dictatorship. I’m talking about the 12-hippies-on-a-farm style of commune. If only 11 of those hippies do all of the work, you better believe they’re all gonna end up moving back to Portland by this time next year, and probably never speak to each other again.

                  1. To be fair, the concept is relatively new. It’s hard to keep up with things as recent as 1833.

                2. “Some animals are more equal than others.”

                3. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

          2. Here’s a Daily Wire article. Reason also covered it.

            https://tinyurl.com/ybvern7z

            Has to shorten the URL to meet Reason’s posting requirements.

      2. Bernie’s very first job was mayor of Burlington when he was 40 years old.

        1. Did his parents kick him out or did they pass away?

          1. It’s like hearing about Trust Fund Tony’s future

          2. I believe they kicked him out after college, and then he spent the next couple decades mooching off of acquaintances and fellow travelers.

            1. Ha!

              Then he discovered the best way to mooch is off the taxpayers, and ran for office.

              1. He tried to pick up odd jobs as a carpenter for a few years; one of his close friends at the time described the results as “shitty.” He was also, as Just Say’n mentioned, kicked out of a commune because he just wanted to talk about socialism and refused to do any work.

                1. So, Senator wss his dream job.

                  Though a nightmare for productive people.

      3. He literally is the old guy at the laundromat who yells at the dryers about the evils of capitalism.

        WHY DO YOU NEED MORE THAN 1 BRAND OF LAUNDRY DETERGENT WHEN THERE ARE CHILDREN LITERALLY STARVING IN THE STREETS?!!

        1. Bleach!!

          You damn elitist!!

          1. Bleach is the people’s cleaner, you bougie piece of shit.

            1. For that comment I will raise your ration of bleach from a cup a week to three cups a month

              1. That’s funny right there.

  10. Sanders’ office doesn’t have a cost estimate or any idea how it will be funded yet.

    Sanders’ “office” is a burnout named Josh who’s, like, pretty sure it’ll work out fine, man.

    1. “You don’t get it man: ‘socialism’, brah. I mean I don’t get what you’re not seeing here.” He said as he stroked his patchy beard. He twisted a few hairs between his fingers as he continued. “There’s like a lot of money and stuff on Wall Street. If we just like take that money, which has been stolen from the people, we can pay for college, food, housing, drinks, and other stuff, brah.” His eyes became more intense as he said: “Only capitalist pigs who exploit the system are opposed to this stuff. And that’s pretty racist, brah. There’s no racism in socialism. Only capitalism creates that crap.” After explaining his position, Josh took one last drag of his cigarette and said with smoke exiting his mouth: “Read a book sometime, OK. I don’t have time to explain this basic shit to you, brah.”

      1. Josh isn’t that confrontational, and you’d better believe that’s not tobacco in that cigarette.

      2. It’s like you were spying on Tony’s last date.

        1. Which hand did he use?

          1. Strange hand. It was Tuesday after all.

  11. But remember, Republicans have been revealed as the party of fiscal irresponsibility.

    THE.

    PARTY.

    1. No sane person will ever believe that lie again.

      Clinton and Obama (with some prodding from Congress) lowered the deficit significantly and DUMBYA + TRUMPTY are fiscal train wrecks.

      I am for and always have been for gridlock.

      1. Sadly, modern ‘gridlock’ is only spending trillions more adding to the debt.

      2. Your ability to sense irony is apparently as underdeveloped as your ability to comprehend fiscal trends and history.

        1. I was agreeing with you. You are the slow one.

          1. Judging from your other comments, I got you, spot on, and my 2nd post stands.

            1. He still doesn’t get it…

      3. I’m guessing you actually want Democrats to win all three branches of government so they can implement your beloved libertarian policies of increased regulation, socialized medicine, bank bailouts/nationalization, higher taxes, and whatnot.

  12. You know something, while we all understand that private sector jobs are superior to public sector jobs for many reasons, we have too many fucking bums on welfare in this country, and since we’re giving them money anyway we may as well make them get their big fat asses off the ratty old couch and actually do something useful.

    Of course it would be best if these assholes like Bolshevik Bernie stopped implementing policies that kill jobs in the private sector in the first place, but we can’t have everything.

    1. The problem there is that a lot of them probably aren’t very good at doing anything useful. If you can’t get a job in the current job market, you need to examine your own self.

      1. Perhaps some of them could be put to work teaching Bernie how to use certain basic household objects, like a comb or an ironing board for example.

        1. People like Bernie shouldn’t be allowed to steal the oxygen around them.

  13. This may surprise some of you Peanuts but I believe Bernie-bros are even dumber than Trumptards.

    1. Since you are a delusional idiot, nothing ever surprises us. Nothing.

      1. John, that was PBs attempt to say he too is a libertarian. Stupid as it may have been, that is the best you’ll get.

  14. Dat alt-text tho

    1. Shackleford’s always had pretty solid alt-text game.

  15. People have a right to a secure retirement, quality medical care, a well-paying job, and reparations for past injustice.

    1. The US government can easily strengthen social security, provide quality health care to all, guarantee a $15/hr job, and pay reparations to people of color. Social justice demands it. The rich have over $25 TRILLION in their tax-avoiding IRA and 401k accounts. Those accounts were intended to be for retirement, not tax dodges for the rich: the government should nationalize that all of that money now in exchange for a modest guaranteed pension at age 67. Certainly our wise and benevolent government, led by comrade President Sanders, would use this $25 trillion better than the greedy, rich, white people who dodging taxes in IRA and 401k accounts. And, certainly, comrade President Sanders would stop all of the stupid crony capitalism bailouts and the military spending on insane wars. (Look at how well President Obama did; he stopped the cronyism and bailouts and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Comrade President Sanders would even do better.) In the interest of equality, the government should also impose common sense estate taxes that would prevent intergenerational transfers of extreme wealth. If the nationalization of retirement accounts, cost savings, and confiscatory estate taxes aren’t enough to fund our good comrade’s plan, the government could just print some more money and confiscate some more wealth from the 1%.

      This is easy. We need only repeal the capitalist laws of economics.

      1. ^THIS IS WHAT SOCIALIST SHITHEADS ACTUALLY BELIEVE^

        1. If you don’t think a Net Worth Tax is coming when Social Security goes tits up, you haven’t been paying attention.

      2. I really wish you people would stop telling them they could just raid 401k early. That they could effectively double tax that money will not be lost on them if you keep highlighting it.

    2. According to a link on Instapundit a few days ago, the Progs are apparently all in on reparations. Beyond the fact that it would do the recipients absolutely no good, can you imagine the amount of resentment and race hatred that would result from such a thing? It would destroy race relations in this country for at least a century.

      1. Yeah, reparations. You wingnuts will believe any bullshit as long as another fucking crazy writes it.

        See Alex Jones.

        1. No, Perez did call for reparations at a meeting with big donors. This is not some conspiracy

          1. John said “all in”.

            All in means total commitment and not some donor or party hack.

            1. I said Progressives, diphsit not Democrats. Try reading.

              1. You said “all in” and all you’ve got is a fundraising news letter.

                1. All in means they support it, which they do. It wasn’t just one donor, there is a laundry list of big Prog organizations at that dinner.

                  Stop lying.

                  1. PB always divides result by intention. Even regressives can divide by zero.

                  2. A lot of prominent dems were there. Including Terry McAullife, Tom Perez, and a number of dem congressmen.

        2. http://freebeacon.com/politics…..parations/

          A wealthy Democratic donor club plotting the future of the liberal movement hopes to be fighting for reparations by 2022, according to a document obtained by the Washington Free Beacon from the Democracy Alliance’s spring conference this week in Atlanta.

          The desire was stated in the invitation for a Monday reception during the annual spring gathering, which was attended by top Democratic Party officials such as DNC chairman Tom Perez, former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, and Reps. Raul Grijalva (Ariz.) and Mark Pocan (Wis.).

          The reception, “Way to Win: 2022 Victory Party,” was presented as a look forward at what’s possible if Democrats can be effective in coming elections.

          “It’s 2022 and we are celebrating policy victories across the nation: Medicare for All and Free College, and next on the agenda is Reparations,” the group projected, according to an invitation to the event.

          1. The Democracy Alliance is the left’s biggest donor club and has been embraced in recent years by party leadership. Its donor conferences have featured appearances by Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi and prominent Democratic senators such as Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Kamala Harris (Calif.).

            The “2022 Victory Party” event was cohosted by a number of prominent liberal groups such as Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the Collective PAC?a collection of entities with a mission to build “black political power”?and the Women Donors Action Network, which seeks to leverage the power of progressive women donors.

            The Solidaire Network, a group of wealthy liberal donors who foster protest and direct action, was also involved with the event. The Solidaire Network joined forces with two other liberal groups to form a “resistance” fund that combats “immediate threats” to “immigrants, women, Muslim and Arab-American communities, black people, LGBTQ communities, and all people of color” and push back against Republicans.

            1. The Center for Popular Democracy, a New York-based progressive advocacy group, was also a cohost. The Center for Popular Democracy’s sister organization, the Center for Popular Democracy Action Fund, leads a massive $80 million anti-Trump network that spans across 32 states.

              Rep. Keith Ellison, the deputy chair of the DNC, last year publicly threw his support behind the network.

              “This national network, led by working class people of color and immigrants, will supply the power and the fight we need to resist the Trump administration’s all-out assault on American values,” Ellison said. “I look forward to standing with CPD Action’s leaders in the streets and in Congress to win real progressive change.”

              1. The “2022 Victory Party” event was cohosted by a number of prominent liberal groups such as Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the Collective PAC … the Women Donors Action Network…

                The Solidaire Network…

                The Center for Popular Democracy … The Center for Popular Democracy’s sister organization, the Center for Popular Democracy Action Fund[*]…

                Yet it’s only EVUL rich RethugliKKKan donor groups who are a “threat to democracy” or some such horseshit (them and Russian trolls).

                * SPLITTERS!

                1. The thought we were the Popular Front.

          2. Why not? Every former slave can come to DC and receive $10 million! Problem solved!

          3. “It’s 2022 and we are celebrating policy victories across the nation: Medicare for All and Free College, and next on the agenda is Reparations,”

            “We’ll have those niggers voting Democrat for another 100 years!”

            1. This guy gets it.

              1. LBJ is why I feel bad to call myself Texan.

          4. Notice how PB and Tony make themselves scarce when they can’t push their lies anymore.

        3. Go fuck yourself you lying sack of shit.

        4. Reparations was the hottest topic in DC just before 9/11 killed it.

          It took a little longer than I expected, but I knew it would be back in style.

          1. Good news/bad news.

            Good news is you get a mule and your 40 acres. Bad news is the acreage is in the ANWR. Feel free to homestead it. Hope your mule survives the winter.

            1. Pray for global warming, and watch out for Inuit motorcycle gangs.

              1. What does Quickbooks have to do with this? Oh. Inuit. Carry on.

            2. And polar bears. They gotta eat somehow, Your mule and most of your children will be a noble sacrifice for the cause.

              1. Of course, post-warming hybridization will have resulted in the absorption of the polar bear population into that of northbound grizzlies. A polar bear’s obligate carnivorism and long distance swimming skills, combined with a grizzly’s bloodhound-like sense of smell and ability to outrun a horse.

      2. Neither side of my family was even living in America when slavery was legal.

        1. Or during the Civil Rights Movement.

          I should be exempted

          1. I’m sure we’ll have to have sort of DNA test to see if you have African genes, because of course the 40 acres and a mule can only go to black people. So you may be exempt if you have a drop of Africa in you.

            After all, if we’re going to have a racist government grab and give, we gotta be fair about it.

            1. I’m sure we’ll have to have sort of DNA test to see if you have African genes

              Since the earliest hominids developed in Africa, doesn’t everyone technically have some “African genes”?

              1. Not me, but I don’t want to talk about it.

            2. Someone’s been watching the final season of Portlandia.

          2. All that means is your ancestors are still slave owners.

        2. Mine was. We either owned slaves or at least fought for the Confederacy. But it’s not really about fixing the past so much as making the present a better and more just place. Not that the idea will ever be politically feasible.

          1. So have you given up most of your worldy possessions to give to the NAACP?

            Not interested in paying it back and paying your fair share?

            1. I’m pretty content reaping the benefits of my white privilege, and I don’t expect anyone to think differently.

              1. Well, expect to pay enough so that it offsets that “white privilege.”

                The good news is at least you assholes won’t be able to harangue anyone about white privilege.

              2. We gaze at your white privilege and weep.

          2. No, I just think rich kids like you that are perpetually complaining should be forced to pay for reparations. Donate your trust fund, Trust Fund Tony

            1. I don’t get what’s morally objectionable to you about having a trust fund.

              1. Yes, that is one of your many blindspots.

              2. I don’t find anything wrong with it, i just think we should tax it at 200% if it is your trust fund. Simply because intentions.

        3. If you’re like me, you’ll just refuse to take the reparations payments. Sure, as a white guy I appreciate the efforts blacks might be willing to make to demonstrate their appreciation for the fact that their ancestors’ slave status afforded them the luxury of being born African-American rather than plain old African-African, but I can’t really take any credit for it. I suppose they can always take the option of going “back” to Africa, a place they’ve never been, but I’m sure they’ve seen pictures of the place and understand that however unfairly treated they think they are here, living in a place where “Eat shit and die” is an aphorism rather than an expletive is much worse.

      3. Beyond the fact that it would do the recipients absolutely no good, can you imagine the amount of resentment and race hatred that would result from such a thing? It would destroy race relations in this country for at least a century.

        Let’s not kid ourselves John, depending on who’s at the helm and how it was implemented it wouldn’t destroy race relations. I would lay down a box of 5.56 ammo that says there are at least a few sitting politicians that would say some of this money is owed to the descendants of immigrant families we, as a country, have split up as well as any and all immigrants wrongly exported. People who look back on what Lincoln did and don’t just think, “That was a good idea!” but even, “If only he’d killed more White Southerners.”

      4. Dave Chappelle on the likely consequences of reparations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRZN7IzvCVs

        Giving people money is not the way to get rid of poverty. Too many poor people are poor because they aren’t good at dealing with money.

        1. If giving people money got them out of poverty, we would have solved poverty a very long time ago.

          1. It’s why it’s such a hard problem, because that very fact is exceptionally counter-intuitive, that the solution to poverty is not money.

            A somewhat formative book for me called Parliament of Whores wrote about this well.

            1. The best example that proves that is how so many professional athletes end up bankrupt. They make tens of millions of dollars and end up just as poor as they were when they started. The reason is that they never really escaped poverty. They just had a great paycheck and some good times for a while. Poverty is a moral problem not a monetary one.

              1. Poverty is a moral problem

                A moral, cultural and/or intelligence problem, I’d say. Something like 15% of people have IQs below 85. That’s barely functional in a complicated modern society. It’s kind of shocking.

                1. I remind my set of highly schooled and skilled engineers all the time that we are designing systems for people without IQs above 120. It’s hard for us to understand how they see the world (or don’t see it).

  16. What scares me is that this plan is probably going to get considerable traction with millennials.

    1. “Free tide pods for everyone!”

      1. That wouldn’t be as funny if it weren’t true.

    2. Not when they get the bil.

  17. Thank you Hillary and the DNC for stopping Bernie from winning the nomination. Seriously

    1. I kinda wanted to see him win just so the hard core Bernie fans would be disappointed when he couldn’t get any of his socialist agenda through Congress.

      1. They would just resort to violence to enact his agenda, just like every socialist before him. Socialists are, by definition, murderers.

        1. A job is a right. They said so.

    2. Yeah, he could have won.

      Trump is a con man and liar but Bernie would have been worse.

      1. You’re feverish if you thought Sanders could have won.

        1. Yeah, I’m not sure where this “Bernie would’ve won” shit is coming from. Given his long history of saying stupid commie bullshit*, I highly doubt anyone except for the ‘tards who voted for him in the Dem primary would’ve voted for him.

          *The “no one needs 23 brands of deodorant” remark, his previous support of the Nicaraguan government’s crackdown on press freedom in the ’80s, his defense of bread lines being more fair because under capitalism the rich horde all the food or some such nonsense, etc. And that’s just 3 examples off the top of my head.

          1. I said Bernie COULD have won.

            Given the sorry ass candidate the GOP put up it is possible. After all I heard Hillary was the worst candidate ever and she got 3 million more votes than Trump and lost three states she needed for electoral victory by around 90,000 votes.

            As a protectionist like Trump he could have saved PA and WI.

            1. The “Bernie would’ve won” shit I was referring to was a popular post 2016 election meme, not your specific comment.

              Yeah, technically, Bernie could have one. Strictly speaking, anyone could have won. The question is how likely would it have been? I still think full on socialism is a much tougher sell for most voters than the average “Bern victim” thinks.

  18. I really didn’t think he would ever go full-blown Socialism. I thought he just liked the word to inspire young naive idiots. Nope. He’s gone full socialist.

    1. “Gone?” Dude, Bernie’s been a full-blown legit socialist since the ’60s.

      1. Bernie is a commie. He has always been a commie, ever since he was old enough to realize that he was unwilling to earn an honest living.

        -jcr

    2. That’s all he’s ever been.

      Well, maybe ‘communist’ might work better

  19. A local artist collective employs painters, actors, musicians, and stage hands to run year-round productions for the community. They organize school outreach programs, run summer camps, and offer free art, music, and literacy classes for disadvantaged/special needs youths. They collaborate with local schools in offering art enrichment programs

    That’s called “theater.” And outside of Broadway, theaters never, ever make money, ever. My family owned a professional theater for six decades. It never made a profit (we made money off people coming to eat at our restaurant first).

  20. “The report openly uses the Works Progress Administration of the New Deal as a model to support it.”

    I guess nobody bothered to tell them that the WPA was an abject failure and did nothing to end the Great Depression.

    1. I guess nobody bothered to tell them that the WPA was an abject failure and did nothing to end the Great Depression.

      Ending the Great Depression wasn’t the point. The government was handing out money to people in order for them not to starve and not to riot. The question is whether it is better to just hand out the money with no strings attached or make people work for it. Arguably, it was better for the recipients to have the semblance of a job in order to receive the money, meaning that after the Great Depression, these recipients could return to regular paid labor.

  21. “That these programs could end up as a corrupt breeding ground for government cronyism and nepotism in who gets assigned for which jobs is utterly absent from the study.”

    Feature, not bug.

  22. “The point is jobs.”

    Meet us halfway people. No democratically accountable government is going to ignore an unemployment problem. You may think the best possible world is one in which 25% of the population is occasionally out of work due to large swings in the business cycle that you’d do nothing to temper, but that’s just a recipe for the population hating you and your beliefs. (An essential libertarian conundrum.)

    So government will always have jobs as their own end in mind. That’s the very excuse given for cutting corporate taxes, right? So corporations will for some reason defy demand and hire more people out of charity? I’m glad we all agree that’s a total bullshit lie meant to justify something most people don’t want, but Bernie isn’t proposing anything that isn’t standard government action, he’s just being less roundabout.

    1. That’s the very excuse given for cutting corporate taxes, right? So corporations will for some reason defy demand and hire more people out of charity?

      You really don’t understand the connection between investment and employment do you? Sometimes I forget just how poorly educated you actually are.

      1. We already have evidence that the Trump tax cut went to stock buybacks and did not magically increase demand for workers. Totally worth the trillion dollars in borrowed money to you, I’m sure. He does have an (R) after his name.

        1. This is so economically illiterate, I’m embarrassed for you

          1. As thorough a rebuttal as John’s.

            I’m willing to learn why giving already flush corporations extra cash makes demand for labor go up.

            1. It doesn’t. That is a GOP lie just like corporations suffered under a 35% tax rate (the effective tax rate was 24%).

              But the point of tax cuts is to let the person/entity that earned the money keep it.

              See – you get honesty from me. No GOP lies.

              1. That is economic illiteracy. All corporate taxes are paid by individuals, workers, or shareholders, depending on the elasticity of the product. The notion that only shareholders have benefited from corporate tax cuts is ludicrous. Multiple companies have announced bonuses or increases in starting wages. And the effective rate is a meaningless concept, as a company’s liability changes with its profitability. This is just so much stupid. It’s econ 101 concepts that you are arguing against. Bernie Sanders economics

                1. The effective rate is not meaningless. It is the real rate they pay.

                  You are way off base there.

                  Theoretical statutory rates are meaningless if you don’t pay it.

        2. Trump’s tax cut gave me a 2% raise. Not a lot, but I will take it.

          1. I got an extra $100 a month.

            Of course I’m not hold my breath, we’ll see how it works out at tax time next year.

        3. We already have evidence that the Trump tax cut went to stock buybacks and did not magically increase demand for workers.

          And you’re using your magical back-to-the-future economic analysis for that?

          It takes years to create new jobs through investments. And, yes, stock buybacks also result in new investments.

      2. CBO director – 80% of Trump tax cut benefits will go to foreigners by 2026.

        http://www.newsweek.com/republ…..cbo-884129

        MAGA!

        1. By 2026? I thought you told us Team Blue retakes congress in 2018, impeaches Trump, Pence steps aside because Pence, and then Nancy Pelosi appoints Hillary President. Tax cuts reversed by March 31, 2019.

        2. So you hate foreigners now?

        3. Thanks for showing that you aren’t just a socialist, you are a national socialist, PB!

          And, no, these aren’t “benefits”, they are reduction of damages and theft. And we reduce those damages and theft precisely in order to attract more investment from anybody, including foreigners.

    2. There is no unemployment problem today are even recently.

      There was from 2008-2010.

      You might get somewhere if you say there is a wage problem.

      1. I suppose the wage issue is part of Bernie’s plan, but the point is all governments Republican and Democratic concern themselves with employment. It’s just that we have a particularly stupid one right now.

        1. Employment by government, paid for by money taken by force, is not the same as employment by businesses that rely on people voluntarily buying their stuff.

          Not that I would expect you to see the distinction between jobs paid for by money taken by force, and jobs paid for by money that isn’t taken by force.

          1. YAWN.

            If we can’t have government then we can’t have markets either. So figure out how to deal with taxation being okay.

            1. As I said, you can’t comprehend the difference between jobs paid for by money taken by force, and jobs paid for by that very same money only voluntarily.

              Businesses create value. They create wealth. The money they use to employ people grows the pie.

              Government creates nothing. It destroys wealth. The money it uses to employ people shrinks the pie.

              1. Governments create nothing. Okay. What about highways? Might those have some effect on an economy’s productivity? Or was that just one giant folly?

                1. Highways are made by businesses that are paid by money taken by force. Government creates nothing. It takes. It gives what it has taken. But it creates nothing.

                  1. Nothing actually creates anything (see the first law of thermodynamics). What both markets and governments do is allocate existing resources. Some of that is best left to market mechanisms, but some is best left to direct action by governments. And you can’t have one without the other.

                    1. “Nothing actually creates anything (see the first law of thermodynamics).”

                      I laughed at how stupid this makes you look.

                    2. The argument is that private enterprises create things that governments are incapable of, somehow. The rhetoric really seems to be that “producers” create wealth ex nihilo. Because if you describe it simply as shifting resources around to make them more productive for humans, you’d have to admit that governments are perfectly capable of this as well.

                    3. No, I think the argument is that you made yourself look like an imbecile by discussing something you’re ignorant of.

                    4. Tony, you couldn’t be more wrong. Turning raw ingredients into something useful is creating wealth. Be it ore or corn.
                      All government does is move wealth around. Wealth that someone else created.

                      Homes are wealth. Cars are wealth. Food is wealth. Services are wealth.

                      Private enterprise creates these things.

                      All government does is take. It can’t give what it didn’t take, and it can’t take unless someone else creates.

                      The economy is not a zero sum game. The pie grows.

                      Government is a zero sum game. All it does is shuffle resources that someone else made.

            2. If we can’t have government then we can’t have markets either. So figure out how to deal with taxation being okay.

              Governments are not needed for markets. They aren’t even helpful for markets.

    3. You realize, of course, that Bernie’s plan means that your parents will no longer be able to pay your rent. They might even tax your trust fund.

      1. I don’t get what’s morally objectionable to you about having a trust fund.

        1. There’s nothing morally objectionable to having a trust fund. It just means that you have a great big target on your back, that’s very tempting to the very people you support.

          That, and trust fund babies aren’t exactly the sharpest sticks in the box when it comes to understanding economic and political issues.

    4. No democratically accountable government is going to ignore an unemployment problem.

      LOL they do everything in their power to make it worse. I guess that’s a form of “not ignoring”.

      1. And the unemployment rate in the US is one of the lowest in the industrialized world and has been so since the 80’s. Not true for socialist Europe

        1. The good thing about socialist Europe is that if you don’t have a job you still get free healthcare, whereas in this country healthcare is the primary reason people go bankrupt.

          1. How do they get the doctors in Europe to work for free?

            1. Turns out a healthcare system is most efficient when it’s paid for by a pool of taxpayers in a sort of universal insurance model. You can object to it morally, but you have to admit it kind of makes sense.

              1. And just where is this ideal model working out so well?

                1. Every civilized country on earth except the US, whose lack of a proper healthcare system calls its status as civilized into question.

                  1. Every civilized country on earth except the US

                    Having lived in several of those civilized countries, I can tell you from first hand experience that you are full of shit and don’t know what you’re talking about.

              2. Not even true. Effecincy is a result of profits. Profits are the price we pay for efficiency. Universal insurance doesn’t have profits, and is rife with waste.

                1. Profits can also come from selling people procedures and pills they don’t need.

                  1. By changing the subject you concede that I am right. Thanks.

                    1. So you argue that the United States, with the freest healthcare market in the world, should also have the most efficient one? Or do you have some bullshit excuse for why that’s obviously not the case?

                    2. No, he was arguing that you changed the subject because you can’t refute him.

                    3. I didn’t change the subject. I explained why the private healthcare market is actually more wasteful than a government-run model.

                    4. “I didn’t change the subject”

                      You’re entitled to believe whatever you want on that subject, but the text is right there to be read.

                    5. Only if you define waste as profit.

                    6. Actually, Tony, the *real* reason why the United States health care system is the least efficient one, is because so much of it is wrapped up in a little expense called “Research and Development”. The United States also has the most innovative health care system in the world.

                      I have personal experience with British health care, and know someone who has personal experience with German health care. Neither system is nearly as efficient as you lead us to believe; furthermore, neither of them are all that innovative, either.

                    7. How are we defining efficient here?

                    8. the United States, with the freest healthcare market in the world

                      Oh good lord, no.

                      The U.S. system is very similar to the systems used in France and Switzerland, with both having one underlying significant difference from the U.S. ? more free-market mechanisms to maintain costs, including consumer choice, price transparency, fewer regulations and consistent cost-sharing (copays of 10 to 40 percent) to discourage overuse of services.

                  2. Profits can also come from selling people procedures and pills they don’t need.

                    True. Half of US spending is in public-run single payer systems, and they are even worse offenders in that regard than US private insurers.

                    We should adopt one of the European models (like Switzerland or Germany). But that’s not what Bernie and others are proposing. What they are proposing is giving everybody luxurious high end health plans and finance it through redistribution, and that is simply impossible.

          2. Do you know what bankrupt means? It means the people who go bankrupt don’t have to pay their debts. It means they get free healthcare.

            1. Yeah, but then they can’t get a mortgage or a car loan for like 2 whole years! It’s not fair!

              1. So fair would be for people to become for-real destitute as a result of the random occurrence of medical problems? Or I suppose they could simply choose between destitution and death. Fairness!

                1. Life isn’t fair. Libertarians recognize this fact. We see that you can have fairness or justice. But not both. We choose justice. You choose fairness.

                  1. Pay your taxes, life isn’t fair.

                    1. You think that government’s power to tax invalidates every principle of truth, justice, and the American way.
                      It doesn’t. Truth is still truth. Justice is still justice. Governments routinely violate these principles, but that doesn’t make them wrong.

                      I get it. You hate truth. You hate justice.

                      We all understand.

                    2. You just said you justify your system on the premise that life isn’t fair. Okay, so life isn’t fair. Pay your taxes and shut up.

                    3. He said it’s based on what is just. Theft is neither fair nor just.

                    4. Nobody’s talking about theft.

                    5. Please tell us how taxation differs from theft.

                    6. Well, they’re just words, but presumably you think theft is an impermissible thing. So if taxes are impermissible, the only permissible form of society is anarchy. And anarchy is dumb and nobody wants it. So it’s not that taxes can’t be defined as theft, it’s that why would you want to?

                    7. So your argument has shifted from “taxation isn’t theft” to “taxation is theft that I like”.

                    8. They’re just words.

                    9. Of course taxation is theft that he likes. Tony loves force. As long as he likes the results. He hates cops, but hasn’t met a tax or a government program he didn’t like. The cognitive dissonance is deafening.

                    10. Taxes are more like extortion or a protection racket than outright theft (though income tax withholding come close).

                      “Nice piece of property you have there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.”

                2. Or I suppose they could simply choose between destitution and death. Fairness!

                  The way this works in rational societies is that you get private health insurance in order to avoid the possibility of having to choose between destitution and death.

          3. whereas in this country healthcare is the primary reason people go bankrupt.

            No, that’s not true at all. The study from which this idiotic talking point sprouted actually said that of people who declared bankruptcy, a majority of them had some healthcare debt. That would include somebody who had an outstanding $5 balance from their dentist and a million dollar underwater mortgage.

          4. people go bankrupt

            And thereby get free healthcare, or something close to it.

            1. Beyond the fact that as Jordan points out that figure is a complete lie, even if it were true, the entire point of bankruptcy is to allow people to get out from under debts they can’t pay. So, the “fact” even if true is just evidence that the bankruptcy system is working as it should.

    5. So your continued argument is that government is better able to keep its pulse on the information of the market than the market itself and not be in a state of continual reaction to stale static. Even your Keynesian friends are starting to agree that FDR and Hoover would’ve been better for the economy by stating the fuck it of it.

      Read some Hayek sometime. I know it doesn’t grab your heart strings like Krugman, but it is slower reading.

    6. I find it funny that you are convinced that individuals and corporations would be unable to secure jobs in a libertarian society, when individuals and corporations are generally left alone.

      First, I would observe that government intervention during the 1930s did little to nothing to secure a low unemployment rate. If anything, we were already recovering, until Hoover stepped in and tried to “fix” things, and Roosevelt took over and doubled down on stupid.

      Second, all those Socialist paradises in Europe seem to be pretty consistent with considering 15% to be a “normal” unemployment rate, whereas sad, pathetic, Capitalistic (at least in name) USA considers 10% to be an “unusually high” unemployment rate.

      It makes me think that, if France et al really had jobs in mind, they might get pretty far if they’d just deregulate a bit, lower their taxes, and let individuals and corporations do what they are inclined to do.

  23. Idiocy

  24. It’s shocking to me that anyone with an IQ over 85 would propose such a thing or treat it seriously if he heard it proposed.

  25. It separates the offer of employment from the profitability of employment. Projects are created to serve community needs, rather than prioritizing whether the projects are deemed profitable in the narrow sense.

    Hmmm, so what would “profitable in the non-narrow sense” be? Sounds suspiciously like a euphemism for “for your own good”.

    1. Sounds suspiciously like a euphemism for “for your own good”.

      That is exactly what it is. In fact, I am not even sure you can call it a euphemism. That is exactly what he is saying.

    2. Projects are created to serve community needs, rather than prioritizing whether the projects are deemed profitable in the narrow sense.

      No chance of corruption here. None at all.

    3. How profitable a good or service can be is the market measure of how needed it is. If a good or service is not profitable then it probably is something that is not needed or much wanted, just something someone thinks other people should need. So yes, you are exactly right.

    4. You know it is junk economics when the value side of the equation is nullified.

  26. Road to Hell, good intentions.

    1. Aside from the dictionary, Samuel Johnson’s best.

  27. We will never reach peak Bernie. Ever.

  28. What America needs is a new Works Progress Administration… that is after the lengthy environmental review and racial equity guidelines have been applied.

  29. This WaPo comment sums up the left’s economic views:

    “These people will spend that money in consumption and the currency will keep circulating in the economy.”

    This is the same idea behind the minimum wage increases: “If we raise the minimum wage, these people will spend it and stimulate the economy!”

    No, it doesn’t…the increase in wages is offset by the lower income of business owners, so it’s a wash.

    This is intermediate microeconomics (at best) and most people simply don’t get it.

    1. The idea is that the wealthier actors circulate less money because they have the luxury of saving some of it.

      1. You do realize banks loan the money you deposit in them? They don’t keep it as cash in the vault. Money is always in circulation you moron.

        1. But the wealthy do keep some cash in a vault. This hoarding is what makes giving them more money less economically productive than giving poor people money, who immediately spend it.

          1. If wealthy people keep cash in a vault, then they are bearing the cost of doing so in terms of foregone interest income. People have different time preferences for consumption and if they are hoarding cash it must be the case that they prefer future consumption to present consumption.

            The total amount spent doesn’t necessarily change, just the timing.

            1. What they spend it on also matters. Back when wealth inequality was even more pronounced than it was today, the wealthy spent money on things like pyramids and other useless doodads. In America no doubt the oversized yacht industry is doing great. But pyramids and yachts are rather niche markets.

              1. Pyramids were made by rulers. They were monuments of taxation. Of conscription. Yachts are made by voluntary workers who use their wages to raise their families. If rich people didn’t buy yachts, yacht builders would need to find new work.

                The comparison between pyramids and yachts is somewhere between ignorant and dishonest.

                1. Government just took money from my grandchildren and gave it to wealthy people so they could buy more yachts. How is that fundamentally different?

                  1. Not taking is giving.

                  2. You have grandchildren? Huh.
                    The more you know…

                    1. Let me be clear, I do not have grandchildren nor am I old enough to have them except if I had knocked someone before I was done with puberty and then my kid did the same. I have cats.

                    2. I have cats.

                      We know you’re gay, constantly throwing it in our face doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong on these economic points.

                  3. Ah yes. When government takes, but doesn’t take so much that rich people can buy nice things, that us the same as those rich people stealing from children who haven’t been born.

                    Exactly the same thing. If you are mentally ill.

              2. So basically it boils down to you wanting to decide where and how much money everybody gets to spend.

                You’re a desperate control freak.

              3. What they spend it on also matters. Back when wealth inequality was even more pronounced than it was today, the wealthy spent money on things like pyramids and other useless doodads.

                By “useless doodads”, you mean empty street cars, high speed trains to nowhere and and unused bike lanes?

                1. Never said government couldn’t do stupid things. It’s why we have elections.

                  1. It’s why we have elections.

                    But they’re all tainted.

                    1. The one that delivered this particularly stupid government was, and that should actually make us feel better about ourselves. We didn’t cause this catastrophe, nefarious foreign agents did!

                    2. You mean domestic racist sexists did.

                    3. Tony, elections have been tainted for decades. All those empty street cars and high speed trains to nowhere, and all those stupid unused bike lanes (heck, just a few months ago, my local city put a bike lane right next to a bike path, and now both have approximately the same amount of traffic: nearly zero users) didn’t pop up overnight when Trump took office.

          2. Wealth and money are not the same thing.

            1. Okay, give me all your money then tell me how wealthy you feel.

              1. Sell everything you own except the clothes on your back and a suitcase for your money. Sleep on a park bench with all your money. Tell me how wealthy you feel.

                1. Fairly wealthy, I’d have a shit ton of cash!

                  1. So, you don’t know what wealth is.

                    1. Is it the warm feeling in your heart of having what you need in life?

                    2. I do get that cash is but one form of asset, you know.

              2. Give me all your benefits and tell me how wealthy you feel.

          3. *Giving* them more money???

            You dishonest POS. It’s “letting them keep more of their money” you commie.

            1. Yet more logic that necessarily leads to the conclusion “taxation is impermissible, thus anarchy is the only just form of society.” If something is taken as a tax, it’s no longer your money.

              1. Then who does it belong to.

                1. The US treasury and by extension the people.

                  1. So, it is still my money then.

                    1. Exactly, so stop worrying.

                    2. You dishonest POS. If the treasury owns it, allows me to utilize it, then penalizes me for having it, WTF is the point? You dodged his legitimate question with nonsense. You even went to the mass extreme of all taxation is impermissible. Most here would say taxation is permissible if there is justifiable and representatable means presented. You went to the tax version of Godwin’s law. So fuck off.

          4. FFS. Circulating the same dollars repeatedly is not wealth and doesn’t contribute to growth. If anything, that is a reduction in wealth as there is a cost to circulating.

            As you already ignored, the “hoarding” is also crucial to lending as the lending must be backed by dollars the bank holds. This is simple shit, man.

      2. Saving it where? Under their mattresses?

        People save via several instrument: savings accounts, IRA’s, etc.

        Do you think this money is not circulated?

        Even in a simple Keynesian model, savings equals investment, i.e. the money saved is lent out or invested in companies.

    2. The whole thing boils down to a long-winded rationalization for believing there is such a thing as a free lunch. Imagine a 10 year old raging at his parents about why he can’t have the toy he wants because his parents claim they can’t afford it and you have the mentality of the leftist. They are people who just never grew up.

      1. Yeah the adults in the room are those who still can’t wrap their minds around gay people getting married.

        1. No Tony, they understand that you want to call something marriage. What adults don’t understand is why you think you have to have the government bless off on it and force everyone to pretend along with you. No one cares about your perversions Tony. And no adult sees why you need government sanction for them.

          1. Because the constitution guarantees us equal rights, and if you don’t like that then you can go fuck yourself.

            1. It doesn’t guarantee you the right to government sanction. No one owes you acceptance.

              1. If there’s a government sanction for straight people then there has to be for gay people too. Why do you hate the constitution?

                1. Another sterling bit of logic Tony. Let’s try some variations, shall we?

                  “If there’s a government sanction for old people there has to be for young people too.”

                  “If there’s a government sanction for minorities there has to be for white people too.”

                  “If there’s a government sanction for women there has to be for men too.”

                  1. Oh crap, I just commented in a John vs. Tony thread.

                    Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I’m a… fraid.

                    1. My thoughts and prayers are with you, the Jerk.

                  2. You can treat people unequally under the law, but you have to have a good reason for doing so. What’s the good reason with respect to marriage?

                    1. Your arms must be huge from moving those goalposts all day.

                    2. I didn’t make the law.

                    3. What’s the good reason with respect to marriage?

                      Gay people were the last population in America not soiled by marriage. Now, there’s no one left.

                  3. Another sterling bit of logic Tony. Let’s try some variations, shall we?
                    “If there’s a government sanction for old people there has to be for young people too.”
                    “If there’s a government sanction for minorities there has to be for white people too.”
                    “If there’s a government sanction for women there has to be for men too.”

                    Well, as a libertarian, I firmly believe that the government should not make distinctions based on age, race, or sex. Why do you believe such distinctions are ever justified?

              2. No one owes you acceptance.

                No, nobody owes anyone acceptance. If you believe that Christianity teaches you to judge whether other people are acting sinfully and ostracize them, then that’s what you ought to do. I think you misunderstand Christian teachings, but that’s why we have free will and get to make our own choices. And chances are that your gay priest or your gay nurse will still treat you with kindness and compassion when you’re sick and in need of their care.

                In any case, as an ideological matter, from a libertarian point of view, there shouldn’t be government sanction or subsidization of marriage at all. But from a US Constitutional point of view, if government sanctions and subsidizes something, it should do so for all Americans, not a subset.

            2. Strictly speaking, two people of the same sex cannot have sexual intercourse with each other. How exactly are they equivalent to an opposite sex couple who can?

              1. Well we certainly give it the old college try.

              2. Strictly speaking, two people of the same sex cannot have sexual intercourse with each other.

                That’s sounds like an awfully strict way of speaking.

        2. Yeah the adults in the room are those who still can’t wrap their minds around gay people getting married.

          In their defense, the conflation of sexual preference, sex, and marriage is pretty childish.

          1. Yes what does sex have to do with marriage…

            1. Nothing. Clearly someone’s never been married.

              1. Personally against the practice, so John can take comfort that I shall not be polluting his pure Christian mind with my own choices that have nothing to do with him.

        3. Seriously? You defend one undefendable position by deflecting to an unrelated argument where most people here would agree? You’re a bigger idiot then previously thought.

  30. They can trim down Amtrak cars to fit the Miami hub.

  31. BERNIE 2020: GIMMEE! GIMMEE! GIMMEE!

    1. You got it. Virtually every leftist march ever can be boiled down to one simple minded narrative. What do we want? Free stuff! When do we want it? Now!
      Trouble is… there’s no free lunch.

  32. Aww, look at Bernie go with the new-fangled ideas!

    He took a page right out of FDR’s New Deal and proposed something like the WPA to battle the Great Depression and get all those idled workers out of the Hoovervilles and back to swinging a pick axe or sweating over a spade.

    What’s next, Bernie? Why not propose a plan to get a fancy new radio in every American living room, so that folks can thrill to the latest adventures of The Shadow and enjoy the swinging tunes of Benny Goodman?

    I’d like to buy one of them radios myself, but I’m actually saving up for a Packard so I can take my gal out on the town!

    1. It’s funny how giving things to people can make them forget you imprisoned people just because of their nationality.

      1. Golly! Well I don’t know about that, mister. But I’m pretty sure the president must’ve decided those Japs were hinky. And I trust our leaders!

  33. Well, well. Pure sovietism. There’s a little quote from Moscow on the Hudson [if I remember right]: “They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work”.

  34. Sanders also no longer uses gasoline in his car. He simply hooks a tow-rope to his trailer hitch, walks around front and ties it to the front bumper = whallaaa! free energy by redistributing inertia.

  35. It’s the old joke. A guy looks out his window and sees two guys on the side of the road. The guy in front digs a hole the guy behind fills it in. Dig a hole fill it in dig a hole fill it in. Finally the guy at the window goes outside and asks them what they’re doing. The first guy says ‘we’re part of a three man crew installing fence posts’. So he asks him what’s going wrong here and the second guy tells him “oh the fence post guy called in sick today”

  36. Votes bought with taxpayer money don’t cost the campaign a dime!

  37. What the fuck does a geriatric commie rat bastard know about employment? He’s never done an honest day’s work in his entire miserable, sniveling life.

    -jcr

  38. My Buddy’s mom makes $77 hourly on the computer . She has been laid off for five months but last month her check was $18713 just working on the computer for a few hours. try this web-site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Jobpost3.tk

    1. Did you tell Bernie about this? We should just get unemployed folks on this STAT!

  39. “Of course, they might have to lay off some employees in order to pay for these increased wages and benefits. Or they could increase the speed by which they’re automating to get rid of jobs to save money. But that’s okay! There’s going to be all these government jobs to replace them! Paid for with tax revenue from?from?wait. If everybody goes to work for the government, where will the revenue come from? I’m sure they’ll figure out something.”

    It’s troll science.
    Like plugging a power strip into itself to create infinite power LOL.

    http://trollscience.com/troll/view/37

  40. Idiocy. $15 and the the benefits? Healthcare/ insurance – whatever it’s called now. FICA, Federal and state unemployment tax?

  41. Projects are created to serve community needs

    So free blowjobs and lapdances then?

  42. I liked a comment I saw elsewhere online: “Just what the US needs. A jobs plan from a guy so lazy he got kicked out of a hippie commune.”

  43. The Democratic platform already calls for treating Energy like methedrine or firearms. This goes back to Buckminster Fuller’s concept of energy slaves. By shutting down everything except the power generation Puerto Rico had before the hurricane, The Political State will get rid of those horrid energy slaves that take jobs away from real feeling peepulz. It’s kinda like raising tariffs to stop evil foreigners from selling us stuff cheaper than what the DemoGOP Murrican Gooniun monopoly charges.

  44. The US desperately needs for Bernie and the socialists to have free run over the country and our economy for about 25 years, one generation. If that isn’t enough to generate a full scale rebellion, a revolt against socialism once and for all, then the country deserves what they get. Twenty-five years ago Venezuela was an economically healthy, thriving nation, the richest on the entire continent. Look at it today. That’s what 25 years of unconstrained socialism creates. The American people need to experience that. Then they need to vote.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.