Dont get me wrong though, i wish they could be more specific during debates,but lets not be delusional, they can't say much in a 30 secondes statement. This has to do with the template used for debates. A lot of issues to talk about, and very little time, so they have to be terse.

if you want specifics, you can check their program, or the numerous video clips online.
How is that for specifics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a04qKUvTKtE

There are 3 frickin candidates on the Democratic debate stage. They have plenty of time to talk and give examples. Don't bring up that bs of no time to talk lol. If anyone has the right to complain about not being able to be specific its the Republicans.

- reckless speculation
- bribing of politicians
- enflating drugs prices

1) Reckless speculation - you do realize that the stock market in of itself is speculation right? What factors or definition are you using for the term reckless? When people deposit money in major institutions they do so knowing that their money is being used by said banking institution to invest in stocks or other financial services. Its a contractual financial exchange. The real problem with the 2008 financial crash is that big banking institutions did not have sufficient real-asset holdings to cover the losses, which is why they needed a bailout. In the last 8 years of Obama the big banks have gotten bigger and the small banking sector has been essentially destroyed. Obama's regulation of the financial sector through Dodd-Frank was to blame...and not in any way political favoritism.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/02/12/Spectacular-Way-Too-Big-Failure-Dodd-Frank

2) Bribing of politicians - I'm confused by this one. Do you mean explicit corruption through bribery or are you using a euphemism to say "legal political donations". Corporations are allowed to employ lobbyists and fund super pacs. That's all completely legal and businesses other than pharmaceutical companies and wall street do it (energy sector, car manufacturers, silicon valley, etc).

3) Inflating drug prices - "According to the International Federation of Health Plans, Americans pay anywhere from two to six times more than the rest of the world for brand name prescription drugs. Most Americans feel that drug companies are putting profits before anything else. A recent poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 72% of Americans think drug costs are unreasonable and want drug companies to release information on how they set prices. In other countries, the health system is simpler, there aren't as many organizations trying to buy drugs, so those groups can exert greater purchasing power and that can lower costs. The United Kingdom's National Health Service, for example, purchases drugs for the entire country's supply, known as a formulary. But in the United States, we have individual insurance groups, hospitals and plans that buy for their individual consumers. Plans and groups negotiate their own prices with the pharmaceuticals, resulting in a unregulated variety of pricing." http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/health/us-pays-more-for-drugs/

Inflated drug prices in the US are a reflection of our healthcare system and is not (for the most part) a reflection of the greed of pharmaceutical company executives.

Edited 1/18/2016 21:11:06

There are 3 frickin candidates on the Democratic debate stage. They have plenty of time to talk and give examples.

They are asked a question, and they get 30sec to answer. Then next question

In this configuration, the can give a few examples, but the most important thing is to talk about the actual issues. Lingering into a detailed examples would be a political mistake. Who cares about the exact price of a drug sold by whatever specific company. All you need to know is that american pay 3+ times the price for the exact same drug than in other countries. And by the way, Bernie did get specific sometime, when it makes sens. He talked about Goldman Sachs, the Koch brothers, ExxonMobile (maybe not in this debate, but he has talked about it).


1) irresponsible, reckless means just that. They gamble money they can't afford to lose (well they can, at the expense of the average american). And they can do that because the market is not regulated,and they do it because they can, and because they know that there won't be any consequences. I am not an economist so i won't pretend i am, but this kind of speculation also leads to an inflation of the prices for essential goods, because the good aren't actually traded, they just trade virtual goods wich don't reflect the real value of actual goods (pure speculation),wich leads to an inflation on the actual price you get at the grocery store or at the gas pump. So the average american end up paying for the banks greedy gambling. (I don't claim to understand it well, but a number of study have shown that)

edit: Also, the big problem is that the big banks have absobed the little ones, so much so that a handful of banks possess almost all of the americans' capital. And if one of these banks fall, then the rest fall with it. Wich would not happen if the banks were smaller but in greater number. This is why Bernie Sanderns and O'Malley are calling for a modern Glass-Steagall Act, to make sure that the 2008 crisis can't happen again. Unlike Hillary who gets millions in donations by these big banks and therefore won't do a thing to solve the problem.

2) Man i hope you are being stuborn on purpose. Donations by lobby IS bribery, legal bribery, but still bribery. Do you think you can argue against that?

3)

Inflated drug prices in the US are a reflection of our healthcare system and is not (for the most part) a reflection of the greed of pharmaceutical company executives.

The healthcare system is that way BECAUSE of the greed of pharmaceutical company.
-> "Plans and groups negotiate their own prices with the pharmaceuticals, resulting in a unregulated variety of pricing"
Isn't that clear enough?
Watch the video i linked in a previous post, Bernie Sanders adresses this question very well

Edited 1/18/2016 22:10:37

They are asked a question, and they get 30sec to answer.

They get 1 minute to answer each question and 30 seconds to rebuttal. Read the rules.

Koch brothers

Great liberal double standard. When the Koch brothers donate money they're evil corporate cronies who are trying to buy an election. But you almost never hear about George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Paul Singer, Thomas Steyer, and Robert Mercer giving millions of dollars to fund Democratic super pacs. Thomas Steyer single-handedly donated 73 million in ONE year to Democratic super pacs. So let me get this right: when Republicans get donations from billionaires its horrible and evil, but when Democrats get donations from billionaires its honorable? Give me a break. Every person in every party is funded by the rich. If Sanders is the Democratic nominee you think he's going to run without the money brought in by the DNC? Fat chance.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/10/24/revenge-of-the-democrats/

They gamble money they can't afford to lose (well they can, at the expense of the average american). And they can do that because the market is not regulated,and they do it because they can, and because they know that there won't be any consequences.

You didn't answer my previous question. Do you not agree that when an individual puts money in a bank they are signing a contract that gives permission to the bank to use its money to invest in financial services? Its all based on contractual law. If consumers don't want their money "recklessly" (this is too vague of a term you are using to be specific) speculated, then they have the right and option not to have their money held by said institutional bank. There is always a risk in the financial sector. Democrats would love to convince people they can get rid of market risk by regulating more and breaking up the banks....but its just not true, and you know that.

Also, the big problem is that the big banks have absobed the little ones, so much so that a handful of banks possess almost all of the americans' capital.

Did you actually read the first article I linked to you?? The reason the big banks bought out the small banks is because of Dodd-Frank which was instituted by Barack Obama and the Democrats after the 2008 financial collapse. If you're angry at the big banks getting bigger, be angry at Obama and his law.

healthcare system is that way BECAUSE of the greed of pharmaceutical company.

lol what? Pharmaceutical companies don't make laws the last time I checked. Congress and the federal government created the healthcare system and regulates it. Also if you're worried about increasing drug prices you should be more worried about Obamacare. According to the CBO, drug prices will rise under Obamacare. Don't you hate it when the facts don't match your ideology?
http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=213965

Edited 1/18/2016 22:50:52

So let me get this right: when Republicans get donations from billionaires its horrible and evil, but when Democrats get donations from billionaires its honorable?

As usual, you get it wrong again
Damn, it is as if we are speaking a different language. I'm tired of responding to false accusation, all the more when i have said exactly the contrary a few post earlier ON THE SAME THREAD. And what do you think I was refering to, when i talked about Goldman Sach, IN THE SAME SENTENCE as the Koch Brothers?????

This is getting fucking annoying, i give up

your only contributing to the liberal sterotype

As usual, you get it wrong again
Damn, it is as if we are speaking a different language. I'm tired of responding to false accusation, all the more when i have said exactly the contrary a few post earlier ON THE SAME THREAD. And what do you think I was refering to, when i talked about Goldman Sach, IN THE SAME SENTENCE as the Koch Brothers?????

This is getting fucking annoying, i give up

When I respond to these kinds of threads, I don't primarily do it for the sake of convincing the people I'm responding to. You're right, that gets tired FAST when the other party seems determined to misinterpret or distort everything you say.

Instead, my primary motivation is simply to hold up the ridiculous for public scrutiny. Someone makes a false accusation? I don't respond to the actual accusation, I just hold it up and show how cheap and dirty and ridiculous it is. Instead of, "Hey, that's not true! I actually did the opposite!", I go, "Hey everyone, look at this jackass false accusation! Isn't it absurd?! That's what you have to resort to when you have no actual argument, I guess. ;-)"

When you think of the interactions that way, it helps a lot for maintaining motivation, in my experience. Instead of being a drag, it can actually be pretty fun! :-)

Edited 1/19/2016 01:08:05

At least I bother to answer his questions and points instead of blatantly dodging every question, article, fact, figure, or point made to the reverse. Literally I think people will see the obvious flaws in Hitchslap's argumentation to the point of which he is simply defending points that are either not-true, too vague, or completely unfounded.

He couldn't even admit that Dodd-Frank was the primary regulatory law that led to the growth of big banks since 2008 and the collapse of small community banks. If he can't even acknowledge that a primarily Democratic law created part of the financial monopolizing that Democrats today are railing against then there's nothing more to discuss. His ideology is blinding him to the facts at hand...which is alright as long as he doesn't get to vote in a US election :)

And the funniest thing about Hitchslap's argument? He thinks the Pharmaceutical Companies created and passed the laws that established our healthcare system instead of the government lol!

Edited 1/19/2016 01:26:09

Well said Jai! I believe the executives responsible for the Recession in 08 should have gone to jail (that reminds me of the Big Short; great movie, I suggest watching it), but blaming "the banks" is silly. Finance is a key part of our economy, and we could hardly live without it. But if we just stuck people in jail if they lie and didn't insure banks so they could do whatever the hell they want, we would be fine. Government actions, specifically bailouts, are the indirect cause of the Recession. If you say people would be risky anyway and squander people's money, well, my other idea of actually PUTTING PEOPLE IN JAIL would deter that. Win-win.

The bailout plan along with not handing out criminal sentences to those responsible in essence gave big banks the green light to continue doing more of the same...that is monopolizing. However the solution is not to destroy the financial services sector or small banks (who were victims of the 208 financial crisis). Sure Wall Street is in large part trading with worthless paper assets that are not backed up by any real hard-value commodities, but those trades generate huge sums of money for the economy: "In 2014, finance and insurance represented 7.2 percent (or $1.26 trillion) of U.S. gross domestic product." That's close to 7X the amount produced by US agriculture.

http://selectusa.commerce.gov/industry-snapshots/financial-services-industry-united-states

When I respond to these kinds of threads, I don't primarily do it for the sake of convincing the people I'm responding to. You're right, that gets tired FAST when the other party seems determined to misinterpret or distort everything you say.

It's especially annoying when almost everyone does it to the point where it becomes the norm.

Instead, my primary motivation is simply to hold up the ridiculous for public scrutiny. Someone makes a false accusation? I don't respond to the actual accusation, I just hold it up and show how cheap and dirty and ridiculous it is. Instead of, "Hey, that's not true! I actually did the opposite!", I go, "Hey everyone, look at this jackass false accusation! Isn't it absurd?! That's what you have to resort to when you have no actual argument, I guess. ;-)"

Ugh. Stuff like this is why I rarely argue on the forum anymore. It's almost nothing but mud-slinging, posturing, and arrogant assumption of the high ground. Usually from the same people repeatedly. It's really tiresome to argue with those who are already convinced they're right and that their position is inherently superior.

Ugh. Stuff like this is why I rarely argue on the forum anymore. It's almost nothing but mud-slinging, posturing, and arrogant assumption of the high ground. Usually from the same people repeatedly. It's really tiresome to argue with those who are already convinced they're right and that their position is inherently superior.

You misunderstand. I respond to things like false accusations with this kind of display.

I respond to actual arguments with actual counter arguments and evidence. False accusations are not actual arguments. They do not deserve any such response.

Question: How do you respond to false accusations against yourself? Do you treat them as legitimate arguments?

Literally I think people will see the obvious flaws in Hitchslap's argumentation

If that's true, then why do you make false accusations against him? You've done it to me, too, on several occasions. If you really, 'literally' believe that "people will see the obvious flaws in Hitchslap's argumentation", then why don't you just leave it at that? Why do you take the 'low ground' and 'sling mud' (to borrow Eklipse's characterizations)? Why do you have to Trump it up?

Do you really, 'literally' believe that? I have my doubts.

Edited 1/19/2016 05:03:20

How do you respond to false accusations against yourself? Do you treat them as legitimate arguments?

Sure I treat them as a minor point of argumentation and will try to address it in the best way possible given the limited ability to project ethos into an online forum debate.

Why do you take the 'low ground' and 'sling mud' (to borrow Eklipse's characterizations)? Why do you have to Trump it up?

Point to me or quote me where I did this and I'll look at what I said again. Until you do so I have no idea what you pinpointed as me "slinging mud". Please always provide the exact sentences I used that prompted you to respond in the subsequent post. Thanks.

I don't have tile to adress everything now, but Jai do you even read my last post? You don't see the strawman here, actually worse than a strawman. Just analyze your acusation and compare it to what i repetedly said throughout the thread

Hitchslap I read the last post you made and then read mine.

The only thing where I admit I committed a strawman (but it was on purpose) was with the Koch Brothers tirade I went into. I picked up on that just out of frustration with what I hear from Democratic Politicians often. I apologize if I sounded as if you was blaming you for the liberal double standard on political donations from Billionaires. That's my bad...I was really blaming the media not you. I use forum posts to comment on larger societal issues that may not be directly involved in the 1-on-1 argument we were having.

However on the other stuff I don't see where I went wrong. I corrected you on the time that the candidates get to speak for, I clarified why Banks are inherently allowed to spend people's money in trading in financial services, and I explained that Pharmaceutical companies don't create the healthcare system (the government does). Besides the Koch Brothers thing was there anywhere you felt I was accusing you?

Alright, in the following post i will try to break down your rhetoric as a whole and analyze it in details
I'll also adress all the remaining points i didn't adress previously.

This is the last time i do that though, in the future i would really like that we focus on one point at a time, wich i think is better for everyone involved, and wich allows to get to the bottom of things instead of drifting to something i refer to as the "Kent Hovind Strategy". Wich basically consist in saying as much bullshit as you can, so that your interlocutor spend all his time and effort trying to disprove the never ending bullshit, swinging the debate away from the actual issues, and forces him to give up when being overloaded with bullshit arguments, blank statements and lies. (we are not there yet, but i've been there with other people on this forum, and i pledged to myself to never again waste my time like this)

edit: tipo

Edited 1/20/2016 00:04:05

The only thing where I admit I committed a strawman (but it was on purpose) was with the Koch Brothers tirade I went into

Ok, so you admit to misrepresenting my views, on purpose (wich makes it worse). How can we have an honest conversation when you don't have any respect for your interlocutor?

I was really blaming the media not you

While it might have been your intention, there is absolutely no reason to think that it was the case, from the way you framed it. There was no doubt here that this was a direct response to me. I don't see the point in just rambling about your stereotypes of what a democrat is, with no regard whatsoever for the actual point your interlocutor is making.

-->But anyway, i'm still glad that you recognized that, it is to your credit, so that now we can move forward. I'm just asking you to please refrain from doing that again, if we are going to continue this conversation or any other. I actually try hard not do misrepresent people's view, and i try to understand exactly what they mean, so that when i make a point, it is actually relevent to the conversation. However, if you ever catch me doing a strawman, or making an incorrect statement, please do correct me, and i will gladly admit it.

============================THE RHETORIC==========================

Besides the Koch Brothers thing was there anywhere you felt I was accusing you?

There is a few other things though, that i take issue with, in the way you put things.

--- 1) ---
-->The first one, i already mentionned it, was when you where trying to frame the democrats for attacking every person working in the pharmaceutical industry and the banks. This is obviously not true, and i think that this was again a strawman from you. But this was kind of a "fair" strawman, that i think you don't believe in yourself, and you made it to kind of over emphasize on your initial argument, wich started as a legitimate argument. So no big deal.

--- 2) ---

There are 1645 billionaires in the world? Are all included in your list of billionaires without morals?? My guess is yes because you hate everyone and everything that stinks of making more than $250,000 a year right?

-->Here what we have was an obvious adhominem attack. There isn't a thing in what i have said that could lead you to think that "I hate everyone making more that $250k a year". Their isn't a thing in what i said that would indicate that i hate people on the basis of how much thay make. The only criticism i've made was on what they DO with their money, and what they DO to get even more.

--- 3) ---
-->This one is a little trickier. Its not an adhominem, and its not a strawman per say, or at least not an obvious one, wich makes it tricky because it is a narrative that builds up throughout all you posts. So let me break it down.

The general idea here is to infer that your opponent believes "X" , with "X" being an obviously false statement. And you do that combining a range of strategies.
- One strategy is to point out that your opponent didn't answer a question, when there was actually no question to answer. This make it seem like your opponent is dodgy, has something to hide, or is losing an argument
- Another Strategy is to assign meaningless labels to your opponent, so that you can argue against what you think this label stand for, instead of engaging in your opponent's actual arguments.
- Wich leads to the last part of the strategy, wich is to demand that your opponent admits that "Z" is true, making it seems like your opponent actually think that "Z" is NOT true, when nothing indicate that he does. You create a false "issue" based on wrong premises, designed to discredit your opponent.

===========================EXAMPLES=================================

Lets illustrate this with a few examples from what you wrote:

--- a)imaginary questions ---

You didn't answer my previous question. Do you not agree that when an individual puts money in a bank they are signing a contract that gives permission to the bank to use its money to invest in financial services?

--> there was no question. You made a statement, wich i chose not to comment because i don't issue with it. I could take issue with it, because while the statement is true, i think that it is misleading. But it would lead to another debate, and like i say i don't like to deal with multiple unrelated arguments at the same time, i think that it is counter productive. But since you insist, i will make a comment on it at the end of this post.

--- b)labels ---

You're defense of socialism is brave but blatant

--> You stick the label socialist to my back, as if it meant anything. That way you can attack me on your idea of what socialism mean instead of what i say. I think this is why you accuse me of hating rich people, because you probably think that socialists hate rich people.(its the best explanation i can come up with for the ad-hominem)

--> Throughout your all of your post, you also infer that i am a Democrat, or that i support anything the democrats do. Another label you want to stick to me, so that by arguing against any democrat, you make it look like you are arguing against me (wich leads to point c) ). That way when you criticize Obama, you think you have a point, and that way you can invoke the "liberal double standard", another label for wich you had to misrepresent my views in order to be able to stick to me.
Also note that this is stupid, since i'm not even american, nor do i live in america. I'm just a french guy interested in american politics, and i like discussing political issues, whatever they may be and wherever they come from.


--- c) Demands ---
demands that i admit something i never took issue with, and for wich there is no basis to think that i do

So I mentioned that having a few Big Banks holding all the economy of a country was a problem, to wich you responded that Obama made this worse

In the last 8 years of Obama the big banks have gotten bigger and the small banking sector has been essentially destroyed. Obama's regulation of the financial sector through Dodd-Frank was to blame...and not in any way political favoritism.

--> i didn't comment on that, because i have no reason to do so. I actually don't know every details of american politics, but i have no reason to believe that your statement is false, nor does it affect me or my argument in the least if it is true. You are just shifting the issue to be able to rant about Obama. Obama allowed the banks to get bigger...well then Obama did a shitty job a preventing the Banks to get bigger. Now what? Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a worthless statement, it was interesting and informative, but it is a non-issue in the discussion we were having. As far as i know, it wasn't a discussion about Obama's record.

He couldn't even admit that Dodd-Frank was the primary regulatory law that led to the growth of big banks since 2008 and the collapse of small community banks. If he can't even acknowledge that a primarily Democratic law created part of the financial monopolizing that Democrats today are railing against then there's nothing more to discuss. His ideology is blinding him to the facts at hand...which is alright as long as he doesn't get to vote in a US election :)

-->And there we go, the final fallacy. You demand that i admit to something that is irrelevant in the discussion, and that i have no reason to contradict. But just by saying that, you think that you are winning points. Again, you might fool some people (not the smartest cookies in the jar), or you might fool people that weren't really paying attention, but you certainly don't fool me.
And actually me "admitting" to that would even be a wrong thing to do on my part, since i don't know enough about it to make an informed judgement yet.


-->Now do i think that you used all these fallacies on purpose, as an demoniac strategy that you actually thought through? Of course not
Being intellectually honest is hard. Thinking critically is hard. Trying to be objective is hard. It is easier to stay inside your biased echo chamber. It is easier to resort to fallacies, misrepresentations and lies rather than to stay on point.

==========================THE ISSUES===============================

Now lets adress the actual issues:

1)

When people deposit money in major institutions they do so knowing that their money is being used by said banking institution to invest in stocks or other financial services. Its a contractual financial exchange.

If consumers don't want their money "recklessly" speculated, then they have the right and option not to have their money held by said institutional bank

Oh really? What are the options? I'm not saying you are wrong, i'm just confused about how the whole thing would work.
Where would they put their money, under a matress? Is there anything you CAN do without a bank account? Do you ask your employer to pay you in cash? What do you tell your landlord? Can you even rent a house?
Maybe you are right, maybe you can live without a bank account in the US, but please do explain, i'm interested. What i know is you can't do anything without a bank account in France.

2)

And the funniest thing about Hitchslap's argument? He thinks the Pharmaceutical Companies created and passed the laws that established our healthcare system instead of the government lol!

Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars in political lobbying. Why do you think that is? Legislators passes the laws, sure. And how are legislators elected? Who is financing their campain? (Am i being too subtle or do you see where i'm going with this?)

edit: tipo

Edited 1/19/2016 23:50:40

Wow you went all out on that post. Must have taken you quite some time. I apologize but like the Republicans at Debates I don't have that much time to formulate a response to every sentence, so I'll just keep it to the issues and a few qualms I had with what you wrote.

1) The only criticism i've made was on what they DO with their money, and what they DO to get even more.

Okay so we've established there are 1645 billionaires (some of whom probably have used immoral or unscrupulous means to get and maintain that wealth). We can also recall that you targeted your criticism of banks and pharmaceuticals to the "billionaires without morals". This verbal criticism of the wealthy is based on actions (as you claim). However, (as you know) morality is a relative term depending on the culture, context, and individual's perception. I object to the use of blanket catch-all-phrases such as "billionaires without morals" without concrete supplementing examples. This (although not the intention of the person who said it) can be misconstrued to represent that large wealth in and of itself is immoral and subject to criticism by society at large. Now you state that Bernie provided several examples - Exxon-Mobile, Goldman-Sachs, Koch Brothers - however I need to understand in what ways these were mentioned by Bernie (or by Hillary if you are referring to what she said). Bernie simply saying Koch Brothers giving millions in political donations is disingenuous on his part, since he knows fully well it occurs in both ideological directions. The same goes with banking institutions. You can't criticize banking institutions without acknowledging the benefits they provide in terms of employment and national wealth creation. That's like Donald Trump criticizing illegal immigrants without acknowledging the real labor value they provide to industries such as agriculture. If the whole crux of your (and or Bernie's) argument is anger at what the rich DO with their money then concrete examples have to be made on WHAT those actions actually are. In terms of the Democratic debate that this original thread was about...I heard very very little on WHAT these "billionaires without morals" who are made out to be evil actually did (this was my original argument).

2) Obama allowed the banks to get bigger...well then Obama did a shitty job a preventing the Banks to get bigger. Now what?

I'm sad to see you thought I was lying about Dodd-Frank allowing bigger banks to buy out smaller ones. If you can't accept my word at face value I again reference the link provided earlier which is also supported by other articles you can google (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/02/12/Spectacular-Way-Too-Big-Failure-Dodd-Frank). Now you ask what does this have to do with the original argument presented by the Democrats, which is that the banks are too large and too powerful and must be broken up. The entire point of bringing up Dodd-Frank and Obama's regulation of the banking sector is that it was supported by Democrats in Congress, including Bernie Sanders. So here's the problem: Democrats pass Dodd-Frank to regulate banks after 2008, Dodd-Frank ends up allowing big banks to get bigger after 2008, Democrats (and Bernie) complain that the banks are too big even though they helped them get bigger, and now Democrats want to fix the problem they helped to create by breaking up banks. There is a hypocrisy to the way Democrats are dealing with the issue of big banks because they fail to admit their land-mark legislation paved the way for bigger banks, a fact supported by a Harvard Study linked. (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/publications/awp/awp37)

3) Where would they put their money, under a matress? Is there anything you CAN do without a bank account? Do you ask your employer to pay you in cash? What do you tell your landlord? Can you even rent a house?

Disclaimer - I have a rudimentary understanding of Macro and Microeconomics. I think my logic on this is consistent, but someone with more knowledge on economics may interject. A bank is a financial institution that offers many financial services - loans, savings account, checking account, mortgages, credit cards, CDs, retirement accounts - all of which has a certain amount of risk. What's the risk? The primary risk is the tradeoff between inflation and interest. If interest rates are lower than inflation, you lose money annually by keeping your money with the bank. If interest rates are higher than inflation, you gain money annually. Now everyone puts their money into the bank (knowingly or unknowingly) that their money is being used by the bank to invest in other institutions and assets and financial services. Now this is considered a safe practice because the federal government assures everyone's bank accounts up to $250,000. You shouldn't keep money under a mattress because 1) most employers can't pay in cash and 2) its impractical. This is the point though - consumers have to take a risk when they put their money in a bank and let the bank use it. Now you're thinking that this is unfair because it puts consumers at the mercy of banks who could lose all their money but not have any consequences because the government will bail them out. But I never argued that the 2008 Bailout was right. In fact I stand on the opposite - they shouldn't have gotten a bailout (strict capitalism says you let the markets rise and fall without government intervention) and executives should have gone to jail. But the reason executives should go to jail is probably not for the reason you are thinking. In the years before 2008 banks were giving loans and mortgages to anyone, even those with poor credit or poor finances, because they were able to bundle and sell those bad loans to other financial institutions. This was the single largest source of corruption, but it was also the consumer's fault for getting into loans and mortgages they know they couldn't afford. The blame was a two way street - both consumers and banking executives made mistakes. The only difference is you can't arrest millions of Americans pursuing or making poor financial decisions - you can blame the banks for enabling them to do so. Democrats have to accept that the market inherently has a lot of risk and that no amount of regulation will eliminate that risk. Meanwhile, Republicans have to admit that 2008 financial crash was due in significant part due to wall street corruption.

4) Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars in political lobbying. Why do you think that is? Legislators passes the laws, sure.

This is a tricky argument you make. On one hand its logical to assume that if person A donates millions to politician B, that politician B will create law C wanted by person A. However this is not a black and white matter since a multitude of variables go into the creation and passage of a law - party ideology, election year pressure, constituent pressure to pursue certain laws, opposing lobbyists and super pacs who want you to create a law D that is fundamentally opposite to law C.

Yes pharmacy companies spend millions in lobbying. But do you know what a lot of that is for? Getting rid of FDA regulations (this have very little to do with the actual structure of the HealthCare system) and passing laws that provide incentives for drug companies to conduct R&D for new drugs. Another big thing that I think I mentioned but you forgot to comment on is that drug prices have risen under ObamaCare. If you remember, that legislation was passed by Obama and the Democrats (Sanders supported it!!) to increase the number of people with insurance coverage. This was a law that 1) changed the healthcare system and 2) was supported by the Pharmacy Industry with $80 billion. So now Democrats are angry that drugs are more expensive even though they were the ones who helped to exacerbate it? And to top that off they refuse to repeal the law which helped to increase drug prices. This is hypocritical at its face no?

Links - http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=213965, http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/24/obamacare-to-blame-for-soaring-drug-costs-aei.html, http://www.wsj.com/articles/big-pharmas-obamacare-reward-1423180690

Lastly, I take issue with your claim that political donation and lobbying = corruption. I have money. I can give it to any super pac, any political campaign, any politician, any interest group that will lobby for a certain activity...in short almost anybody. This is true political freedom. Under the constitution I have the right to my property and can do anything with it as long as it harms no one. Money that I earned is my private property and I can use it however I see fit...including donating to politicians and super pacs if I so choose. Let's say that your point that lobbying and political donations are immoral is correct. Should we ban everything that is immoral (real question by the way)? Alcohol consumption and marijuana (I would argue) are both immoral products for people to use, but I don't think they should be made illegal. If your argument is that politicians shouldn't be bought by corporations and rich people then maybe you should instead be criticizing Americans for not electing moral candidates who would refuse political donations instead of targeting businesses and billionaires. By the way I don't think Bernie fits this description because if he becomes the Democratic nominee he will accept the money raised by the Democratic National Committee, which gets donations from rich people and super pacs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86A0mqtWB-I


Watch around the 2:25 mark. Yes, Sanders spends most of the time talking about the Koch Brothers, but when he is asked directly about Soros and Steyers, he instantly replies that his criticism applies to them too. I agree with Sanders on this. Citizens United created a ridiculous system. Both sides, Democrat and Republican, have been forced to adhere to the views of Soros, Steyers, the Koch Brothers, Adelson, and more. Candidates, at this point, have almost become unable to express their own views, because their views might not bring in the money. The net result is that individual politicians are being increasingly forced into rigid party lines, while parties are being increasingly forced towards the agendas of their wealthiest benefactors.