Bernie Sanders Would Hurt America If Elected

I appreciate Pro’s thorough and erudite response. First, I must cast doubt on the objectivity of the large majority Pro’s sources. Pro is fond of citing a litany of Libertarian and Conservative think tank groups to justify his arguments. He cites the Mises Institute three times, the Heritage foundation five times, and offers one citation each for the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. These think tanks offer a strong ideological bent, and given their political connections to politicians who share their ideas, it is really not surprising these institutions rarely publish anything contradicting their founding ideology. The Cato Institute was founded by the billionaire Charles Koch, who frequently donates millions to Republican candidates, and features numerous CEO’s in its highest ranks. Somehow, I doubt the Cato Institute is an objective source of information about economics. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, along with the American Enterprise Institute, both co-hosted a Republican debate back in 2012. Similarly, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity is designed to promote a flat-tax policy. It is difficult to uncouple the “research” conducted at these think tank institutions from the tank’s obvious ideological biases and political connections. Researchers are supposed to let the evidence determine their conclusions, not the other way around. For this reason, it is quite troublesome these institutions identify as Libertarian, Conservative, or Austrian. When producing objective economic research, there is no need to identify as any political ideology, other than to identify the “research” being conducted as aimed for a specific policy goal. Due to my belief that Pro's sources are not reliable, I will not exert the Herculean amount of energy required to rebut his shotgun-like points, instead focusing on the general issues surrounding this debate. I will, however, answer the few citations he made to objective, academic sources. First, he cites Suarez as arguing the 1% owned more wealth in the 90s than they do today. Even if this was true, it's irrelevant. Sanders is upset that, regardless of how the 90s may have really been, the 1% still own a disproprotionate amount of wealth in the present, and most economic forecasts indicate the disproportionalities will grow in the future . Pro cites the fairly non-partisian Brookings Institute and another source as saying increasing taxes won't have a large impact on income inequality. This is also a non-sequitir, since the study considers the effect of a single policy decision in isolation, not the effects if Bernie Sanders' entire platform was implemented. In other words, even if I granted it as true (I don't) that increasing taxes doesn't make equality, I could say "Ok, but increasing taxes, banning the box, free health care, and free college together will." It’s worth noting Pro often misrepresents Sanders or the research he cites against Sanders. Pro points out Sanders wants to raise taxes on corporations, but must not be aware that corporate tax rates are lower in the Nordic countries Sanders wants us to follow. Sanders is being misconstrued, as his policy on raising taxes on corporations entails ending deferments on offshore subsidies, closing foreign tax credit loopholes, and ending various other loopholes related to tax havens and foreign taxes, not raising corporate tax rates (http://tinyurl.com...). Also, Pro thinks his study proves that we will have the worst income inequality in the world if we raise taxes (along with Israel), but his source was actually indicating we have some of the world's worst inequality right now. Pro’s characterization of Sanders’ policy in this respect is as accurate as the assertion Sanders wants to raise the top tax rate to 90%. Pro flounders when comparing American health care to Sanders’ proposal. Specifically, Sanders wants the United States to follow the NHS model in the UK. Pro points to narrow aspects of our healthcare system which are better than those found in European countries. In general, however, the picture is quite clear. The United States ranks nineteen places below the UK according to the World Health Organization’s health care rankings (http://tinyurl.com...). This is incredibly ironic considering we actually spend the most money on health care in the world (http://tinyurl.com...). Our current healthcare system is like Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign: it spends the most money and basically comes in last place every time. I would hardly consider this absurd condition to be superior to European countries. Additionally, Pro’s framework suffers from a lack of scope. Pro elects to harp on the economic dimensions behind Sanders’ candidacy, specifically, his ideas on tax rates. However, he does not consider the full extent of Sanders’ vision. None of the Republican party accepts the urgency of climate change. While Clinton states her belief in climate change, her ability to act on the issue is overshadowed by Sanders’ long-standing consistent progressive record. Due to his overt sincerity and passion, Sanders is uniquely positioned to address the issue of climate change. The same reasoning holds true for Wall Street reform. A non-existent issue in the Republican race, Wall Street reform has been uniquely championed by Sanders, who has demonstrated a consistent and passionate refusal to be influenced by Wall Street. Again, he is in a unique position to address this issue, given his staunch position and refusal to take millions from financial corporations. Sanders would also cut our bloated military budget, an issue both progressives and anti-spending Libertarians might agree on. By focusing solely on specific economic issues, Pro’s framework overlooks other, important aspects of a Sanders presidency which could make him beneficial to the country on balance. Pro continues to expound on an anarchist vision of our society, where the government ought to be abolished because it’s an unethical institution. As I worried earlier, this is starting to become something of a kritik. It’s quite the kritik to enter a debate about who should preside over a government and then proceed to argue we shouldn’t have a government at all. Critically, his moral analysis tends to make assumptions which are left unjustified. Pro continues to insist that because taxation is upheld by force, it must be wrong. Pro has yet to justify this pacifistic moral principle, or found it on a solid moral ontology. He only keeps repeating himself. Until he gives us a reason to think violence is inherently wrong, his argument must stay firmly stuck on the ground. Pro challenges me to answer some questions found on one of his sources, but I must decline, otherwise it would be fair for me to insist Pro answers a series of questions on any link I provide.I'll send the debate back to Pro, now.