Old Bernie is not going to be the Democratic candidate let alone President, so why bother wasting time. Well, it’s disturbing that he can draw crowds of supporters with his naive view of America and its problems. For example, why would anyone vote for a person that says this:
“In my view, the debate we are having today is nothing more than a manufactured crisis which is part of the long-term Republican agenda of trying to cut Social Security,” said Mr. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats. “The Social Security Trust Fund can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 18 years. There is no imminent crisis.”
No imminent crisis? Well maybe not in political terms. Guess what Bernie, just about every American is an eligible American and the Trust has an accumulated liabilities for them. In fact, Social Security can pay 100% of benefits in pay status between now and 2033. The liability in terms of 165 million Americans who are earning a benefit for the future is in the trillions.
Unless things change quickly, after 2033 only 75% – 77% of the earned benefit can be paid by the Trust. I’d say that is a crisis for beneficiaries.
While the liberal (in this case Hippy) mindset goes on its merry way, reality knocks at the door. For years, including the 2015 report, the Trustees of Social Security have been saying this:
The Trustees recommend that lawmakers address the projected trust fund shortfalls in a timely way in order to phase in necessary changes gradually and give workers and beneficiaries time to adjust to them. Implementing changes soon would allow more generations to share in the needed revenue increases or reductions in scheduled benefits. Social Security will play a critical role in the lives of 59 million beneficiaries and 165 million covered workers and their families in 2014. With informed discussion, creative thinking, and timely legislative action, Social Security can continue to protect future generations.
The far left answer to every problem is the same; not “informed discussion or creative thinking,” but raise taxes while making the average American think that means only on somebody else. As overused as it may be, there is still truth in Margaret Thatcher’s “sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
From what I’ve heard Old Bernie is a nice guy and from reading about his background I have no doubt of his sincerity in wanting to help Americans, but all that means nothing if you can’t find real world solutions.
He and like-minded politicians are doing Americans a disservice by taking advantage of gullible people who want quick and easy answers and a scapegoat to blame. In the meantime real world solutions are not pursued or even discussed.
Bernie is a career politician who has no work history in the real world. At age 74 he has a reported total net worth of between $360,000 and $460,000. We’re it not for his government pension he would be in trouble living on $16,000 a year or a lot less if he ever retires.
In typical fashion for a liberal politician he opposes more money for defense and he opposed the Iraq war, but he supported building a new jet fighter with huge cost overruns … it was being built in Vermont😎
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Another example of how American academic elites love Marxists: Angela Davis.
I was in the U.S. Army in 1972 stationed on a listening post on the west bank of the Elbe River on the East/West German order. I recall listening to Angela Davis in her reception speech in East Berlin on the occasion of her acceptance of an honorary doctorate from Karl Marx University. She was celebrated by the police state that was East Germany while she condemned the sins against liberty of “Amerika.”
Ms. Davis was later awarded full professorships at two California state universities. (She is now collecting a generous pension.)
I thought of her while I watched the stunning contemporary German film, “The Lives of Others,” the portrayal of the Stassi controlled police state.
LikeLike
Thinking about the question in the title brings to mind the recent death of Robert Conquest, British author and historian who wrote “The Great Terror” and “Harvest of Sorrow”, histories of Stalinist mass murders and Stalinist forced starvation in the Ukraine respectively. His death brought muted praise at best, among academic/media elites. Why? He dared to expose the intrinsic evil of communism.
Contrast the lavish praise heaped on Eric Hobsbawm, Conquest’s contemporary ( both born in 1917), on his death in 2012. Hobsbawm spent a life time praising Marxism, justifying its “errors” and lauding its accomplishments. He garnered prizes and honorary doctorates throughout his life.
Why are Leftists, socialists and communists still treated with kid gloves by the entrenched academic and intellectual elites? They praise the theory and ignore reality. Bernie Sanders is the latest chapter in this shameful history.
LikeLike
Very interesting. I spent three weeks in Russia a few years ago and a two weeks in the Ukraine and Crimea in 2014 and you can still see the negative impacts of Communism quite clearly both on physical terms and in the people. At one point going down a river there was a steeple sticking out of the water, what was left of an entire town Stalin had flooded with no regard for the people.
LikeLike
Why would anyone support Bernie Sanders for president? You answer your own question in your remarks ….”gullible people” You could ask the same question about “ The Donald” or any of the other candidates who are spouting populist rhetoric. In the case of Bernie, his narrative plays to the wishes of folks who are convinced that capitalism has done them a disservice and that comrade Bernie will somehow rectify their situation. This is a perfectly rational response from the gullible that see the world through the lens of victim-hood. The Trump believers allow themselves to be taken in by his bombast, without any detail, of how he will correct the problems, true or imagined, that they think the country faces.
The election is still far off, let’s hope some less polemic candidates with a real workable plan to solve problems comes to the fore. Polling data seems to indicate that the country is tired of business as usual career politicians and needs a change but be careful what you wish for. If people vote for a candidate based on gender or race (just because they will be the first, or it’s their turn) or only because they are an outsider with a fresh face or a really nice guy but without any executive experience, this can be a really big mistake.
LikeLike
I agree with not supporting status quo politicians, they are useless people who have lived off the taxpayers, but offer no solutions.
LikeLike
I guess there is a faction of people in this country who for some reason do not like people who have become successful. And they feel someone like Bernie will take their money and give it to them, so they can continue to sit on their butts and collect free money. Sanders is someone I have never liked, based on his issues. I am all for free enterprise, build something yourself, work for your family, be responsible and accountable.
LikeLike
I do not understand his supporters or why they support him. Nor anyone else who supports any of the other “status quo” politicians (Clinton, O’Malley, Bush, Rubio, Walker, Christie, etc., etc.) who are all owned by PACs and Lobbyists. We need people with original ideas who face reality and propose a meaningful agenda, even though some of the agenda may be “hard-to-swallow.”
This last part explains why Trump, Florina and Carson are doing well, so far. We do not need lawyers/professional politicians in the white house. Maybe some common sense business expertise is the answer?
LikeLike