After 50 Years Of Failed Predictions, Science Is In Crisis

[Hoodat]

I also think there are uses for the government when it comes to discovery.

What is your basis for thinking this?  Likewise, what is your basis for thinking that humans cause global warming?   I ask because you seem to have made up your mind about both of these things without having any evidence to support it.  Have you ever considered that you may have made a logical mistake?

[Dexter]

What is your basis for thinking this? 

I've explained why I believe that probably half a dozen times.

Likewise, what is your basis for thinking that humans cause global warming?   I ask because you seem to have made up your mind about both of these things without having any evidence to support it.  Have you ever considered that you may have made a logical mistake?

My stance on AGW is that I'm not a climate scientist. I'm not educated enough to have a position I'm comfortable with arguing for.

[Smokin Joe]

I will give you another one - The Freakin Spotted Owl. On the basis of ginned up 'science' the logging industry was stripped from the West.

What would make one think that the fed doesn't do exactly the same thing throughout the sciences?

Just consider the deleterious effects if the attempt to 'prove' fraccing was harmful to groundwater had been successful. The science was so bad on that the USGS (a government agency) refused to use data from the wells that had been drilled.

[roamer_1]

Just consider the deleterious effects if the attempt to 'prove' fraccing was harmful to groundwater had been successful. The science was so bad on that the USGS (a government agency) refused to use data from the wells that had been drilled.

But OMG, how they tried. And you can bet money, it will come up again.

[Hoodat]

I've explained why I believe that probably half a dozen times.

I have seen you repeat the premise a half dozen times.  But I have yet to see the evidence of success.

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

I went to college for 6 years. During that time I learned that I know a whole lot less than I once thought. I lack the ability to expertly examine and interpret things outside of my field of expertise. I am not a climate scientist. To me blowing off their opinions would be similar to blowing off the opinions of my physician. They could be wrong, but they have a certain weight behind their words because they do know more about these things than anybody else.

What is a "climate scientist"?  Much of the model building and interpretation is done by Data Scientists  I was interested enough to start an MS in Data Science.  I'll be done in March. 

So far, I know that it takes a lot of experience and finesse to build and interpret models.  And, the model is only useful when you have reliable data to put into it AND you have good target variables to use for model training and testing.

Usually, that's a BIG problem.

[Cyber Liberty]

Putting aside the profit motive for a moment, one should also consider the non-governmental non-profit agency which has also provided numerous technological advances - human stem cell research being one of them.  The non-governmental researchers have come up with over 70 cures that have been developed through adult stem cells.  And they have done so without any support or prodding from the government.

Compare that to government efforts where government has spent and spent and spent with one political objective in mind - to come up with a cure using embryonic stem cells.  And in that endeavor, they have come up empty.  Failure after failure after failure from government-driven research.  Success after success after success from the private sector. 

Extra step:  Why did the government researchers strive for a cure using embryonic stem cells, rejecting the adult cells?  Because they wanted an industrial use for the embryonic cells to justify (to the remaining people on the fence) the killing of millions of babies in abortions.

When a government is in charge, science will be bent to serve the warped desires of the state. 

Fer Chissakes.

[Oceander]

I've explained why I believe that probably half a dozen times.

My stance on AGW is that I'm not a climate scientist. I'm not educated enough to have a position I'm comfortable with arguing for.

So you simply defer to your betters?  And how do you determine who your betters are?

[Dexter]

So you simply defer to your betters?  And how do you determine who your betters are?

I at least consider what people more educated than me are saying about their field of expertise. You work in law, right? I'd consider your words weighty in a discussion about the law.

[Hoodat]

I at least consider what people more educated than me are saying about their field of expertise.

I happen to be more educated than Bernie Sanders in the field of economics.  Yet I don't see you willing to abandon the economic policy he advocates.  Go figure.

[Dexter]

I happen to be more educated than Bernie Sanders in the field of economics.  Yet I don't see you willing to abandon the economic policy he advocates.  Go figure.

You're making a mistake in assuming I want to do everything Bernie says. I just happen to think he's a good guy. Also I'm more than willing to consider the things you say to me about economics. I might not see it your way when you're done, but I'll respectfully listen and honestly consider the things you've said.

[Hoodat]

There's that old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  But in this case, we have 100 years of history to fall back on.  And in that history, the economic philosophy that Sanders advocates has led to the deaths of over 100 million people.

I don't characterize people who continue to advocate such a heinous philosophy in the face of overwhelming evidence  as "good".  So we can agree to disagree on that one.

Personally, I prefer capitalism, wealth creation, and full stomachs over a system that can't even produce enough food to feed its people.

[Dexter]

Personally, I prefer capitalism

So does Bernie according to his public positions. He wants us to emulate the Scandinavian countries. They are capitalist. If you're calling Bernie a literal communist/socialist you either have to believe he's lying about his positions or you're simply uninformed about them. He has never advocated for the removal of the private sector, which is a mandatory part of communism/socialism. These labels get so abused that people barely know what's what anymore.

[Oceander]

So does Bernie according to his public positions. He wants us to emulate the Scandinavian countries. They are capitalist. If you're calling Bernie a literal communist/socialist you either have to believe he's lying about his positions or you're simply uninformed about them. He has never advocated for the removal of the private sector, which is a mandatory part of communism/socialism. These labels get so abused that people barely know what's what anymore.

You say you’re not smart enough to take a position on AGW because you didn’t study climate science.  The same goes for political science, too. 

Bernie Sanders is in favor of capitalism the same way that Lenin was in favor of capitalism:  a stepping stone to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Dexter]

You say you’re not smart enough to take a position on AGW because you didn’t study climate science.  The same goes for political science, too. 

Bernie Sanders is in favor of capitalism the same way that Lenin was in favor of capitalism:  a stepping stone to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I said I'm not educated enough to take a position on AGW. There's a difference.

You've made it clear that you're in the "Bernie is lying about what he actually wants." camp. You think he doesn't actually want to emulate the Scandinavian countries apparently. I see no reason to assume he's lying about what he wants.

[Hoodat]

So does Bernie according to his public positions.

Making "the rich" pay for everything (which is Bernie's public position) is NOT capitalism.

He wants us to emulate the Scandinavian countries.

So he wants 141 million Americans to get rid of their cars so that we can be more like Sweden?

If you're calling Bernie a literal communist/socialist you either have to believe he's lying about his positions or you're simply uninformed about them.

I call him a literal communist/socialist because he advocates communist/socialist policies.

“What being a socialist means is … that you hold out … a vision of society where poverty is absolutely unnecessary, where international relations are not based on greed … but on cooperation … where human beings can own the means of production and work together rather than having to work as semi-slaves to other people who can hire and fire.”

-Bernie Sanders, 1988

He has never advocated for the removal of the private sector, which is a mandatory part of communism/socialism.

What do you think 'Medicare for all' does?

[Dexter]

Making "the rich" pay for everything (which is Bernie's public position) is NOT capitalism.


So he wants 141 million Americans to get rid of their cars so that we can be more like Sweden?


I call him a literal communist/socialist because he advocates communist/socialist policies.


What do you think 'Medicare for all' does?

I'm not going to be able to convince you that Bernie is not advocating for literal communism/socialism with his public political positions so I'm not going to continue trying.

[Hoodat]

I'm not going to be able to convince you that Bernie is not advocating for literal communism/socialism with his public political positions so I'm not going to continue trying.

Bernie isn't advocating for the 'bad' socialism.  He is advocating for the 'good' socialism, just like every other leftist walking down the pike.  The only problem here is that socialism ignores human nature.  It assumes that people will produce for everyone else just as hard as they produce for themselves.  It assumes that people will take risks, suffer hardship, just to create something that will benefit humanity without reward.  And it assumes that there would never be a need to surround our borders with razor wire and concrete just to keep people from leaving.

As I said before, there is already a lengthy historical record for what Bernie Sanders advocates.  From the killing fields of Cambodia to Mao's Great Leap Forward, to the National Socialists of Germany, to the hyper-inflation of Robert Mugabe, to the failure at Jamestown in 1609, to the Euro-model which consistently lags behind the US, waiting patiently for the next American technological breakthrough to carry it through another decade, socialism is an utter failure, no matter how nice the person is advocating it.

So yet again, I ask you.  What happens when "the rich" decide they no longer want to create any more wealth.  Who's going to pay for all the free stuff then?

[GrouchoTex]

Obama foolishly wasted money in the wrong places, and what's worse is he managed to turn people like you off to the possibility that the government can do useful things.

This has been going on long before Obama.
My earliest memories, when I started to pay attention, was around the time of LBJ.
History has taught me it goes back as far as Wilson, and even to Teddy Roosevelt.
There are probably older examples than this, if I were to go back and take a closer look.

[GrouchoTex]

So does Bernie according to his public positions. He wants us to emulate the Scandinavian countries. They are capitalist. If you're calling Bernie a literal communist/socialist you either have to believe he's lying about his positions or you're simply uninformed about them. He has never advocated for the removal of the private sector, which is a mandatory part of communism/socialism. These labels get so abused that people barely know what's what anymore.

See the documentary "Sweden: Lessons for America?", by Johan Norberg.
It isn't what you would expect to see.
They've learned Socialism's lessons the hard way.
Ikea? They left Sweden, they couldn't make it there.
Have you seen a Saab lately?
Also, bear in mind that the population of Sweden is only 9.95 million as of 2017.
No, Scandinavian socialism is wrong, even for the Scandinavians.
It is something you won't hear on CNN.
This hour long documentary has been on PBS, and is played in private screenings around the US.

[Dexter]

See the documentary "Sweden: Lessons for America?", by Johan Norberg.
It isn't what you would expect to see.
They've learned Socialism's lessons the hard way.
Ikea? They left Sweden, they couldn't make it there.
Have you seen a Saab lately?
Also, bear in mind that the population of Sweden is only 9.95 million as of 2017.
No, Scandinavian socialism is wrong, even for the Scandinavians.
It is something you won't hear on CNN.
This hour long documentary has been on PBS, and is played in private screenings around the US.

Have you ever talked to people from Sweden about their country and how they feel about it? The vast majority of them love Sweden. Compare that to here where almost everybody is unhappy with the government. The only thing they've really had an issue with recently is the ridiculous decision to let a huge amount of poor people that don't speak the language into the country.

[Cyber Liberty]

This has been going on long before Obama.
My earliest memories, when I started to pay attention, was around the time of LBJ.
History has taught me it goes back as far as Wilson, and even to Teddy Roosevelt.
There are probably older examples than this, if I were to go back and take a closer look.

It goes back further for me too.  I had just used Obastard as a case in point, not "the one who turned me off my natural love of government."

[GrouchoTex]

Have you ever talked to people from Sweden about their country and how they feel about it? The vast majority of them love Sweden. Compare that to here where almost everybody is unhappy with the government.

The documentary wasn't made by an American, it was made by a Swede.
You can love your country, yet not trust its Federal government.
I think that would describe most people on this forum.
We've had a mistrust of the state all the way back to King George.
It's not a bad thing.
I think it is healthy to be skeptical.

[GrouchoTex]

It goes back further for me too.  I had just used Obastard as a case in point, not "the one who turned me off my natural love of government."

 

[Dexter]

The documentary wasn't made by an American, it was made by a Swede.
You can love your country, yet not trust its Federal government.
I think that would describe most people on this forum.
We've had a mistrust of the state all the way back to King George.
It's not a bad thing.
I think it is healthy to be skeptical.

They have different priorities than we do. I haven't seen that documentary but I have talked to hundreds of Swedes, and I've spent time in their country and within their culture. I promise you they will never stop doing everything they can to elevate the average Swede. Their level of nationalism and pride is truly astounding and commendable.

[GrouchoTex]

They have different priorities than we do. I haven't seen that documentary but I have talked to hundreds of Swedes, and I've spent time in their country and within their culture. I promise you they will never stop doing everything they can to elevate the average Swede. Their level of nationalism and pride is truly astounding and commendable.

You're moving the goalpost.
I can show you evidence where the Swedes, once very wealthy, got to the point to were that had to dial back the Socialist programs they'd enacted in order to remain solvent, and you change the subject to national pride.
Are we talking about economic sustainability of love of country?
Make up your mind.

[Dexter]

You're moving the goalpost.
I can show you evidence where the Swedes, once very wealthy, got to the point to were that had to dial back the Socialist programs they'd enacted in order to remain solvent, and you change the subject to national pride.
Are we talking about economic sustainability of love of country?
Make up your mind.

They love their country and its economic priorities. My fiance's mom is actually quite wealthy and she has no issue with her tax rate. She loves that there are no homeless in Sweden and that people that need help get help. Maybe at some point they had to dial something back (can you be specific?) but they'll never reverse course on their social priorities. Swedes would think you're nuts if you went over there and started talking about dismantling their healthcare system and social safety nets.

Your post is trying to give the impression that their way isn't working, but that's not really true. I'm sure they've had to make adjustments, but yeah, they're not changing the way they do things because they love how they do things and it is working (other than the immigration screw up). It's the same or a similar story in other Scandinavian countries.

[Hoodat]

They love their country and its economic priorities. My fiance's mom is actually quite wealthy and she has no issue with her tax rate.

That would be because there is no tax on wealth.  "The rich" don't get taxed.  It is the people working hard to become rich who get taxed.  So keep that in mind the next time you hear someone such as yourself repeating that same lie about taxing the rich to pay for your free stuff.  It is income that gets taxed - not wealth.

Which brings us back again to the same question.  What happens to Bernie's plan when "the rich" decide that their incentive to work has been taken away through exorbitant taxation, and they decide to stay home and enjoy the wealth they have already accumulated?  What then?  Who's going to pay for your 'free stuff' when that happens?

It's not a difficult question.  Yet for some reason you continue to avoid it.

[Cyber Liberty]

That would be because there is no tax on wealth.  "The rich" don't get taxed.  It is the people working hard to become rich who get taxed.  So keep that in mind the next time you hear someone such as yourself repeating that same lie about taxing the rich to pay for your free stuff.  It is income that gets taxed - not wealth.

Which brings us back again to the same question.  What happens to Bernie's plan when "the rich" decide that their incentive to work has been taken away through exorbitant taxation, and they decide to stay home and enjoy the wealth they have already accumulated?  What then?  Who's going to pay for your 'free stuff' when that happens?

It's not a difficult question.  Yet for some reason you continue to avoid it.

I imagine the Socialists will just go to their tried and true system of extracting blood from the wealth turnip:  Inflate the living crap out of the currency until accumulated wealth is rendered worthless.

[Hoodat]

Dexter,  I am guessing that you recently finished college, and that you are now facing a sizeable student loan debt that is charging 6.78% interest.  If this is the case, you have my sympathy.  And you also have someone who argued bitterly against those government bureaucrats who took over the student loan industry in order to "help" students.  (Bernie Sanders was one of them).  Just to give you a full picture, the interest on my student loans which were incurred before Obama took office were a paltry 2.32%.  This was due to a competitive market where many lenders were competing for my business.  Now that Big Brother Socialism has taken over, students are stuck with a government monopoly that sets the rate at 6.78%.  Furthermore, that same government must now incur more debt because it now has to come up with the funds for your college instead of leaving it up to the banks.

So yes, I would be bitter too.  But socialism is at fault here.  Socialism is to blame.  So ask yourself, would you prefer the free market 2.32% rate that I paid?  Or do you prefer the 6.78% rate that socialism dictates?

[Dexter]

That would be because there is no tax on wealth.  "The rich" don't get taxed.  It is the people working hard to become rich who get taxed.  So keep that in mind the next time you hear someone such as yourself repeating that same lie about taxing the rich to pay for your free stuff.  It is income that gets taxed - not wealth.

Which brings us back again to the same question.  What happens to Bernie's plan when "the rich" decide that their incentive to work has been taken away through exorbitant taxation, and they decide to stay home and enjoy the wealth they have already accumulated?  What then?  Who's going to pay for your 'free stuff' when that happens?

It's not a difficult question.  Yet for some reason you continue to avoid it.

She's not that wealthy, and I guess I used the word "wealth" wrong because I wasn't thinking about it. She makes good money but she works damn hard for it.

[Dexter]

It's not a difficult question.  Yet for some reason you continue to avoid it.

Driven people aren't going to stop being driven because of a higher tax rate. I don't answer the question because I already answered it and I just disagree with what's implied.

[Hoodat]

I imagine the Socialists will just go to their tried and true system of extracting blood from the wealth turnip:  Inflate the living crap out of the currency until accumulated wealth is rendered worthless.

This is true.  However, the truly wealthy have various means of protecting the value of their wealth that are not available to the rest of us.  So in the end, the wealthy remain wealthy while those of us working our butts off to save and get ahead end up getting screwed.  It is a middle class tax increase that Congress never voted for.

Of course in the end, the socialists will eventually go after the wealth (provided that there are safeguards in place to protect their own).  Good little socialists like the fresh NY Congresswoman will be able to complain about how they weren't able to collect their $180,000 salaries months before they actually started working while at the same time championing the proletariat by artificially driving up the costs of their education and health care.

[Hoodat]

Driven people aren't going to stop being driven because of a higher tax rate. I don't answer the question because I already answered it and I just disagree with what's implied.

Let's think about this for a moment.  Are you really saying that people will continue to work even if their tax rate is 100%?

[Dexter]

Are you really saying that people will continue to work even if their tax rate is 100%?

Are you really saying you think the tax rate in Sweden will ever be 100%? Are you really saying Bernie wants the tax rate to be 100%? You're making unrealistic assumptions.

[GrouchoTex]

They love their country and its economic priorities. My fiance's mom is actually quite wealthy and she has no issue with her tax rate. She loves that there are no homeless in Sweden and that people that need help get help. Maybe at some point they had to dial something back (can you be specific?) but they'll never reverse course on their social priorities. Swedes would think you're nuts if you went over there and started talking about dismantling their healthcare system and social safety nets.

Your post is trying to give the impression that their way isn't working, but that's not really true. I'm sure they've had to make adjustments, but yeah, they're not changing the way they do things because they love how they do things and it is working (other than the immigration screw up). It's the same or a similar story in other Scandinavian countries.

Their 2 tax methods are a flat income (not wealth) tax and a VAT (consumption) tax.
This is new, and wasn't the case as before.
Bernie's type of tax the wealthy scheme did not work, and it had to change.
That way did not work and I am correct about this.

Why do you keep saying I am talking about dismantling their healthcare, etc....?

[GrouchoTex]

Are you really saying you think the tax rate in Sweden will ever be 100%? Are you really saying Bernie wants the tax rate to be 100%? You're making unrealistic assumptions.

I am saying that before, Sweden actually had tax at a rate of 104%!
Yes, 104%, this is not a typo.
There is a Swedish children's author, who was been a proponent of their previous attempt at Socialism, who wrote an article about how they could not sustain this.
She was one of those who was tax at 104%.

[Hoodat]

Are you really saying you think the tax rate in Sweden will ever be 100%? Are you really saying Bernie wants the tax rate to be 100%? You're making unrealistic assumptions.

Unrealistic assumptions?  YOU are the one saying that "Driven people aren't going to stop being driven because of a higher tax rate".  So based on that, why wouldn't Sweden raise its tax rate to 100%?  According to you, they would continue to work.  Right?

[Dexter]

Why do you keep saying I am talking about dismantling their healthcare, etc....?

In the end that's all Bernie and his crowd are really asking for. They want a national healthcare system and they want a public option for college. I really don't think they'd be too picky about how that was made possible. If Republicans came to the table and said "Well it won't work this way, but maybe if we etc etc." they'd be ecstatic.

[Dexter]

Unrealistic assumptions?  YOU are the one saying that "Driven people aren't going to stop being driven because of a higher tax rate".  So based on that, why wouldn't Sweden raise its tax rate to 100%?  According to you, they would continue to work.  Right?

You took my statement to an extreme that is unrealistic. I never said driven people won't stop be driven if they have no opportunities to elevate themselves as individuals. They won't raise it to 100% because that would be absurd and it wouldn't work. Nobody is talking about raising the tax rate to 100%. I don't feel like you're arguing honestly. You know that's not what I'm talking about.

[Hoodat]

In the end that's all Bernie and his crowd are really asking for. They want a national healthcare system

I take it that there will be some sort of medical set-aside for Bernie and his ilk similar to what they had for Communist Party members in the USSR, and that Bernie won't have to wait 11 months for an MRI like the rest of us.

[Dexter]

I take it that there will be some sort of medical set-aside for Bernie and his ilk similar to what they had for Communist Party members in the USSR, and that Bernie won't have to wait 11 months for an MRI like the rest of us.

There are still private doctors in Europe for people with more money. Also there are horror stories in every medical system if you're willing to look for them. Nothing works perfectly, but European healthcare is absolutely not as low quality as a lot of conservatives think. They are very healthy and there is a high approval rating when it comes to healthcare.

[Dexter]

I am saying that before, Sweden actually had tax at a rate of 104%!
Yes, 104%, this is not a typo.

Can you show me a reliable source? I've never heard that.

[Hoodat]

You took my statement to an extreme that is unrealistic. I never said driven people won't stop be driven if they have no opportunities to elevate themselves as individuals.

This is my exact point.  If you take away their ability to elevate themselves as individuals, they will stop creating wealth.

They won't raise it to 100% because that would be absurd and it wouldn't work.

They won't raise it to 100% because they know that they will collect zero revenue with a rate that high - something which you are hesitant to admit.

Nobody is talking about raising the tax rate to 100%. I don't feel like you're arguing honestly. You know that's not what I'm talking about.

OK, then how about 95%?  If you raise it to 95%, will every single one of these same driven people continue to work just as hard as they would if the rate was only 5%?

My point is that if you take away the incentive to work, people will stop working.  I mentioned yesterday one of the major flaws of socialist ideology.  Socialists argue that man has an inherent need to work.  This premise is absolutely false.  Man does not have an inherent need to work.  Man has an inherent need to be rewarded for his work.  Which is why capitalism is such a huge success at creating wealth while socialism is an abject failure.

[Hoodat]

There are still private doctors in Europe for people with more money.

So what is there for those of us without more money, and who now have even less of it because our taxes just went up?

[Dexter]

This is my exact point.  If you take away their ability to elevate themselves as individuals, they will stop creating wealth.


They won't raise it to 100% because they know that they will collect zero revenue with a rate that high - something which you are hesitant to admit.


OK, then how about 95%?  If you raise it to 95%, will every single one of these same driven people continue to work just as hard as they would if the rate was only 5%?

My point is that if you take away the incentive to work, people will stop working.  I mentioned yesterday one of the major flaws of socialist ideology.  Socialists argue that man has an inherent need to work.  This premise is absolutely false.  Man does not have an inherent need to work.  Man has an inherent need to be rewarded for his work.  Which is why capitalism is such a huge success at creating wealth while socialism is an abject failure.

The incentive to work has not been removed in capitalist Sweden. Bernie and his followers are ignorant about immigration, but other than that all they're asking for is a public option for college and healthcare. They don't want to destroy capitalism and bring on totalitarian socialism. They don't want to lose their ability to buy homes and private property. Of the minority of people on the left that say they want to end capitalism, 99% of those are children speaking from a position of ignorance. They lack the ability to properly articulate what they're asking for. Literal socialism doesn't work, and anybody with a brain knows that.

[Dexter]

So what is there for those of us without more money, and who now have even less of it because our taxes just went up?

Their public healthcare system is pretty good despite what you might read from right leaning information outlets. There are always horror stories and people that slip through the cracks in every system. It happens here too. If their public healthcare option was that bad it wouldn't have a 90% or higher approval rating in a lot of European countries.

[GrouchoTex]

Can you show me a reliable source? I've never heard that.

It is in an essay written by Istrid Lindgren, author of Pippi Longstockings.
It is also referenced in the documentary that I had mentioned earlier.
Slight correction:
102%, not 104%.

[Sanguine]

You're making a mistake in assuming I want to do everything Bernie says. I just happen to think he's a good guy. Also I'm more than willing to consider the things you say to me about economics. I might not see it your way when you're done, but I'll respectfully listen and honestly consider the things you've said.

Bernie Sanders a good guy?  The guy whose first regular paycheck was when he got elected to public office?  The guy who wrote violent porn for publication?  Whose wife just went to trial over a scam land deal?  (She did get acquitted in what most would say should have been a slam-dunk conviction.)  The guy who has gotten rich as a public servant?  That guy?  What is it you like about him?

[Hoodat]

The incentive to work has not been removed in capitalist Sweden.

For many, it has.  Quite a few have done the math and figured that there is a much greater incentive to do what they do in the United States instead of doing it in Sweden.  So those individuals no longer contribute to the "free stuff" fund.

Sure, there are a number of people who continue to work despite a 61% tax rate.  But that number would be much higher if that rate were only 25%.  Your goal should be to maximize tax revenue.  Yet you seem completely oblivious to the elasticity of tax rates, and equally oblivious to the fact that there is a revenue ceiling relative to GDP.

Bernie and his followers .  .  . all they're asking for is a public option for college and healthcare.

Right now, the US is not able to pay for all the 'free stuff' that we are currently giving away.  Think about this for a moment.  Every single dollar paid in personal income taxes does not cover the amount of money given out to other citizens residents as direct cash payments.  So the government prints up new dollars to cover the difference, thus stealing wealth from anyone holding dollars.  And this is all happening at a time where federal tax revenues are at an all-time high.  Knowing that, how do you propose we pay for even more 'free stuff'?

They don't want to destroy capitalism and bring on totalitarian socialism.

Actually, they do want socialism, but they want capitalists to pay for it.

Of the minority of people on the left that say they want to end capitalism, 99% of those are children speaking from a position of ignorance. They lack the ability to properly articulate what they're asking for.

And Bernie Sanders is their champion.

Literal socialism doesn't work, and anybody with a brain knows that.

Then explain it to me.  Explain why socialism doesn't work.  Because if you really believed that, you wouldn't be calling for government monopolization of the health care industry - the same type of monopolization that has drastically driven up the cost of acquiring student loans.