the problem is if u ask anyone but the most favorable of favorable economists about sanders plans they basically say "no fucking way we're paying for that, yep nope that wont work, etc" unless you're willing to face major tax increases on maybe not the villain class. Maybe it'll be the people you're trying to help. and maybe in the great movement of the money from the top 1% to everyone else you'll be taking with it some sacrifices of personal liberty for uncertain gain in having a govt spend your money when theyve proven they are not the most skilled at that.
1) Raising the minimum wage slowly tends not to raise prices, but a spike in it might - and a removal of trade agreements near certainly will. maybe it's a little frightening so many are willing to stare down the barrel of having less money to spend on things that are more expensive in the hopes an efficient u.s govt will cause them to break better than even overall, despite the fact "efficient u.s govt" teeters very close to an oxymoron,
2) despite the fact single-payer would require the disbanding of private health insurance companies ("medicare for all") which seems potentially complicated and constitutionally dicey
3) and it's probably not a good sign that bernie cannot well articulate the breakup plan for companies who already have semi-breakup legislation in place much less a field he would be pioneering breakups of in the u.s, ignoring the fact he cannot write legislation and do this via executive fiat.
4) his policies are dubiously feasible and arguably bad; his appeal is to the heart, as when a current u.s voter hears a politician, she hears the same voice (often with the same surname) shes heard before, and bernie is different, he's real and you can trust him that he wants what he says he does - which sounds pretty good when it's going to college for free (simplified but) and having healthcare for everyone and breaking up banks like they are towers of gold-plated legos. but that's why hes called a populist - he's genuine image over realistic policy substance
1) First, I think the better solution would be for requiring localized minimum wage increases over time to the local cost of living (and a better method of calculating cost of living, as well; the current has poor weighting on things like gasoline which causes issues when gasoline drops while necessities like food rise). I ideally disagree as-is with a federal minimum wage, but sadly many states would refuse to offer such protections regardless and a federal minimum wage is currently better than the alternative. The best solution would be strong support for unions in all sectors, but again, unions are evil and un-American and hurt your company (/s) so most corporations are against unionization and go through great extents to prevent it and pro-business/anti-worker politicians use their legislative capabilities to harm unions as well (at will employment and all).
So in spirit, yes, minimum wage needs to be increased, and the current process for increasing minimum wage is atrocious. Do I agree necessarily with $15, or even $15 over 5 years? Not exactly. But the other candidates range from status quo (which is bad) to regressive (which is terrible) on minimum wage, so they aren't suitable.
(Also Sanders is supportive of worker protections and unions, which is related to minimum wage. The same does not hold for the other candidates, who are again either status quo or would rollback protections and promote legislation to target and harm unions further).
2) Single-payer doesn't have to be "efficient", it simply has to be more efficient than the existing system (mandated private insurance). And by all means, it would be. This has been shown in other leading nations with single-payer healthcare. The US can do it, and arguments otherwise (the US is too big/too different) are moot because we (as a collective) are much richer than any other country and have similar systems in place for certain populations already (Medicare, Medicaid) across the country. (In honesty, arguments against single-payer would be like arguments against a national postal system if USPS didn't exist; the size of the country, and the massive, poor rural areas with tiny populations, have more of an impact on USPS than single-payer, yet USPS would ideally be doing well if Congress wasn't trying to legislate it out of existence with absurd requirements to prove a point).
Furthermore, private insurance companies would still exist. (Why wouldn't they?) They would definitely have to reduce their workforce as their services would be worthless for most Americans who can do just fine with single-payer, but holding onto jobs while limiting "progress" (progress in the sense of larger growth of some [currently, or in the future] larger sector at the cost of growth in a [currently, or in the future] smaller sector) is absurd.
That's definitely inefficient. We should be looking into measures to reduce the impact of such disruptions, regardless, because we're approaching the the point where new jobs provided by technology that makes other jobs redundant has been reduced (diminishing returns), and newer technologies (automation of historically human-only tasks) pose great risk to entire sectors. Regardless, specific to single-payer, the federal increases in Medicare would add a great number of job opportunities, offsetting the immediate loss by some margin.
3) Sanders has been rather clear about the importance of legislators and the necessity of electing similar-minded individuals. In honesty, if he were to win, not enough similar-minded individuals would be elected, and most probably voting would fall flat for mid-terms as usual. However, this is not Sander's problem--this is the complex problem of the campaign system, voting process, and voters themselves.
The alternative to strong regulation of the financial sector is the existing system of having the financial sector perversely influence the legislative process, which would be disastrous in the event of another collapse. This existing system is what would happen assuming Congress is obstructionist and Sanders wins, or some other candidate wins (in such as scenario, whether Congress is obstructionist or not does not matter I fear). I wonder why is that never mentioned when criticizing the idea of breaking up banks...?
4) As outlined above, only in small part. In other words, Sanders if a terrible choice... if you want to remain within the status quo. This means neglecting critical infrastructure, neglecting worker protections including wage but also benefits and safety and so on, neglecting gross wealth inequality and poverty, neglecting crime and the regressive legislation and criminal justice system that in much part ensure it, neglecting healthcare and its financial burden on most Americans, neglecting campaign finance and the election process, neglecting the state of education and the artificially-inflated costs and burden of higher education, neglecting the potential dangers of the financial industry...
To be clear, Sanders's idealism and views are aligned (though not to the same degree) as mine, but there are several policies of his I disagree with because I do think there are better alternatives. However, every other candidate is so far removed from my ideals and views they might as well be an election of clones. Clinton, or Trump, or Cruz, or Kasich, or those who dropped out--they would continue in large part the existing policies (neglecting a, b, c, etc as above) that, combined, are most definitely a disaster in the making. Countries of great standing have fallen far because of such idleness--the US would be no different, nor would it be surprising or unheard of.
(Also, I had a hard time reading your post and replying because your post is a giant block.)
