If you faced these two choices, which is preferable:

We learn Trump is a compromised asset of the Russian state dating back to his days laundering money for the Russian Mob & that Putin has Tapes of Trump, Dershowitz, NJ Senator Menendez & Bill Clinton all banging girls under 18...

But we find this out after we get the Tax Cut and Jobs Act passed, Gorsuch & Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, an appropriation for the Wall to be built after the midterms & North Korea turning over nukes...

It remains to be seen what happens to NATO, Russian sanction relief against U.S. interests, etc.

OR 

A Bernie Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez president and vice presidency that is able to enact their agenda & Bernie is just a crazy man and not a Russian asset. 

Since the latter turns us into Venezuela and Cuba and takes the rest of the "free" world down with it, I'll take door #1.

The first option reminds me of Dave Chappelle's netflix sketch about Bill Cosby.  He rapes, but he saves....

You would have to watch it to give that joke justice.   Anyway, I would easily take door #1 over a socialist regime.  I'd take Hillary/Obama/Gore/Biden/Pelosi/Reid/Schumer/Warren/etc over the bernie/ocasio option.

Trump option, all day. 

Trump, regardless of Wall or Nukes

Trump option then impeach him for being a crook and we would have Pence. 

Befter than being Venezuela. 

I guess in that case I go with option #1

#1  now and in 2010

The nuke assumption probably made it too easy as I'm not sure that will actually happen and that would be unquestionably great for humanity. 

Funny. If the situation were reversed and we had a Dem President who was a comprised asset vs. say, a Ron Paul presidency - I believe that United States People would be strong enough to with stand the damage I think would happen if we went back to a gold standard, etc.

I think the fear that the United States would become Venezuela is a little dramatic. Reminder, there was an "Economic Collapse is Inevitable" thread after Obama won in 2012 and here we are #MAGA. 

posted by BoatShoes

I think the fear that the United States would become Venezuela is a little dramatic. 

I don't think the US would be anything like Venezuela. But they actively spout ideas that would raise our taxes enormously. No thanks.

Also, how do you have an economics degree and advocate socialism?  I was wrong to get worked up when Ocasio-Cortez was elected, she is borderline retarded in any interview she has given since.

posted by iclfan2

 I was wrong to get worked up when Ocasio-Cortez was elected, she is borderline retarded in any interview she has given since.

Hearing her talk reminds me of a girl in grad school that had an econ degree from an Ivy League school.....she FAILED micro!   

posted by BoatShoes

I think the fear that the United States would become Venezuela is a little dramatic.

Agreed. That said, so is the idea that Trump is a "compromised Russian asset."

This would be a very bad choice.  Maybe I'd end up like one of those celebs who promises they will move away if such and such happens.  I think I would probably go with Bernie.  I'm not a fan of his and the Queens lady at all.  However I also don't believe them coming into office would equal "Venezuela".  Having a president beholden to Russia could be a disaster on a big scale.  

For those who believe the US could never become (insert) country, do you have a reason?   The only reason I can think of is because of the 2A. 

posted by like_that

For those who believe the US could never become (insert) country, do you have a reason?   The only reason I can think of is because of the 2A. 

In my case, I don't say it could "never" become something.  But for this example, were Bernie elected to office tomorrow, I don't believe that would me our country would turn into Venezuela.  There are too many institutions and foundations of American society (public and private) that a president cannot undue.  He could cause changes for sure.  But our system of checks and balances does not allow carte blanche influence to the president.  Presidents are in a powerful position, no doubt about it.  But they are also limited.  

It is like the discussion of the economy.  Presidents can have influence on the economy in good or bad ways.  But they are not the drivers of it.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

It is like the discussion of the economy.  Presidents can have influence on the economy in good or bad ways.  But they are not the drivers of it.  

Correct, but the hypothetical posed stated "able to enact their agenda".

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

In my case, I don't say it could "never" become something.  But for this example, were Bernie elected to office tomorrow, I don't believe that would me our country would turn into Venezuela.  There are too many institutions and foundations of American society (public and private) that a president cannot undue.  He could cause changes for sure.  But our system of checks and balances does not allow carte blanche influence to the president.  Presidents are in a powerful position, no doubt about it.  But they are also limited.  

 

It is like the discussion of the economy.  Presidents can have influence on the economy in good or bad ways.  But they are not the drivers of it.  

Agreed, if Sanders was elected you are right, but if the country elected enough of these socialist guised as democrats in Congress then it probably is a viable argument (Venezuela) because they would then control 2/3 of the government with just a few years away from controlling the last 1/3 (SCOTUS).

posted by fish82

Agreed. That said, so is the idea that Trump is a "compromised Russian asset."

I agree - the point however is that the posters who replied preferred that extreme scenario over Bernie/Alexandria. 

posted by queencitybuckeye

Correct, but the hypothetical posed stated "able to enact their agenda".

Again - seems like an exaggeration - like Liberals claiming Trump is/will turn ICE into a new Gestapo. 

posted by iclfan2

I don't think the US would be anything like Venezuela. But they actively spout ideas that would raise our taxes enormously. No thanks.

Also, how do you have an economics degree and advocate socialism?  I was wrong to get worked up when Ocasio-Cortez was elected, she is borderline retarded in any interview she has given since.

I don't think "Socialist" really has any objective meaning anymore - same goes for "Fascist", "Conservative" and whatever else. I thought Conservatism was for free trade but Trump has support from 90% of the party that is supposed to be "Conservative". If you ask Bernie Sanders or Cortez to tell you what socialism is they'll tell you something about putting the power in the people's hands and not the 1% or whatever. Does Medicare for All make us socialist while Medicare/Medicaid for most (Our Current system before and after Obamacare really) make us not? Why does Medicare for All make us collapse like Venezuala but Medicare for Most doesn't???

posted by BoatShoes

I don't think "Socialist" really has any objective meaning anymore - same goes for "Fascist", "Conservative" and whatever else. I thought Conservatism was for free trade but Trump has support from 90% of the party that is supposed to be "Conservative". If you ask Bernie Sanders or Cortez to tell you what socialism is they'll tell you something about putting the power in the people's hands and not the 1% or whatever. Does Medicare for All make us socialist while Medicare/Medicaid for most (Our Current system before and after Obamacare really) make us not? Why does Medicare for All make us collapse like Venezuala but Medicare for Most doesn't???

 

Medicare for All costs more than the total wealth of the 1%. Yes it would cause an economic collapse that would make Venezuela and Cuba combined hold our beer.

posted by BoatShoes

I don't think "Socialist" really has any objective meaning anymore - same goes for "Fascist", "Conservative" and whatever else. I thought Conservatism was for free trade but Trump has support from 90% of the party that is supposed to be "Conservative". If you ask Bernie Sanders or Cortez to tell you what socialism is they'll tell you something about putting the power in the people's hands and not the 1% or whatever. Does Medicare for All make us socialist while Medicare/Medicaid for most (Our Current system before and after Obamacare really) make us not? Why does Medicare for All make us collapse like Venezuala but Medicare for Most doesn't???

 

Considering a study at George Mason calculated the cost at over $32 trillion over 10 years (yes, that's trillion with a T) or over $3T/year...I wouldn't say Venezuela would be far off if government spending went that far.

The current system is NOT medicare for most as more people are still on private or employee provided health care and not on government health care.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-population/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

49% on employee based health care

7% bought their own

That's 56% on private

19% on Medicaid

14% on Medicare

2% on other public

That's 35% on public health care

(9% uninsured).

So, how are we already "medicare for most"? Statistics don't back up your asertation. 

posted by BoatShoes

I don't think "Socialist" really has any objective meaning anymore - same goes for "Fascist", "Conservative" and whatever else. I thought Conservatism was for free trade but Trump has support from 90% of the party that is supposed to be "Conservative". If you ask Bernie Sanders or Cortez to tell you what socialism is they'll tell you something about putting the power in the people's hands and not the 1% or whatever. Does Medicare for All make us socialist while Medicare/Medicaid for most (Our Current system before and after Obamacare really) make us not? Why does Medicare for All make us collapse like Venezuala but Medicare for Most doesn't???

 

Uhh that is a conservative value.  The GOP simply doesn't hold conservative values anymore.  You're confusing conservatism vs the current state of the GOP.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Medicare for All costs more than the total wealth of the 1%. Yes it would cause an economic collapse that would make Venezuela and Cuba combine hold our beer.

Also add in their other beliefs of free college and a living wage. Keeping my money in my pockets is my number 1 political care. I don't want "Power" in the hands of the people, who are mostly idiots.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Medicare for All costs more than the total wealth of the 1%. Yes it would cause an economic collapse that would make Venezuela and Cuba combine hold our beer.

Even that study that came from the Conservative Mercatus Center intended to make this point projected Medicare-for-All would cost less for the economy overall - meaning it would use less supply-side resources overall and therefore would not cause an economic collapse - (FWIW I don't even want Medicare for All - Conservatives should have the liberty to use shittier & more expensive health insurance if their distrust of public administration makes them happy to do so). 

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7

• A new report from the libertarian Mercatus Center found that Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for All" plan would cost the federal government an additional $32.6 trillion over 10 years.
• But the Mercatus report also found that the national health expenditure — the total amount spent on healthcare in the US by the federal government, states, businesses, and individuals — would come in below current projections under Sanders' plan.
• So while the price tag for the federal government would increase, the total cost of healthcare would go down, and more than 30 million uninsured Americans would get access to healthcare, according to Mercatus' model.

So credit to those libertarians at Mercatus who are likely morally/philosophically opposed to Medicare For All but still put out a study showing more efficiency for the economy overall. 

So that's my evidence that there wouldn't be an "economic collapse". What is your evidence that there would be an "economic collapse"?

Also from the report:

Provider Payment Reductions

To offset the substantial cost increases created by stimulating additional consumer demand for and utilization of healthcare, the M4A bill would constrain expenditures by subjecting healthcare providers—including hospitals, physicians, and others—to Medicare payment rates.19 Under current law, Medicare reimburses healthcare providers at much lower rates than private health insurance does. In 2014, Medicare hospital payment rates were 62 percent of private insurance payment rates and are currently projected to decline to below 60 percent by the time M4A would be implemented, and to decline further afterward. Medicare physician payment rates were 75 percent of private insurance rates in 2016 and, per the terms of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), are projected to decline sharply in relative terms in future years, also falling below 60 percent within the first full decade of M4A.20

The M4A Act as introduced specifies that provider payment amounts are to be consistent with those paid under current Medicare law.21 The adoption of Medicare payment rates would represent a substantial reduction in provider reimbursements for care provided to everyone now covered by private insurance (though it would also be a temporary increase in physician payments for those now covered by Medicaid, which currently pays physicians at lower rates

This appears to require slashing salaries across the board as spending has to decrease by 40%. I bet that'll incentivize the best and brightest to enter the medical profession.

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf