We're also in a country where a lot of people don't want to have to work and they want the gubmint to take care of them...
There, maybe that helps 0:0 You'd be surprised. Taxing the rich is a popular thing to shout if you're into tub thumping and rabble rousing but it just raises so many more questions. "The rich should pay their fair share" is all well and good but fleshing out the detail is a bit trickier. For example, who are "the rich" and what is "their fair share"? It's easy to use that kind of meme to mean nothing more than "people with more than me should pay more so I can pay less", which is ironic given such memes are typically thrown around along with criticisms of "the rich" for being greedy and/or selfish. If companies face higher taxes they'll look for ways to avoid paying. If they can't avoid paying they'll raise their prices to cover the extra costs. If that happens you might decide you can make your old TV last an extra year rather than replacing it now but you still need heating oil/food/gas/etc. In many ways consistency is a good thing on the basis that Sanders may be the closest thing to an honest politician we've seen for a while. The trouble is consistency isn't useful if something is consistently bad. You're welcome
I don't get a vote but if I did I'd really struggle to decide how to choose between those two. I'd probably write in Donald Duck on the basis he'd probably do a better job than both of them put together. I think the problem is that if the law says you have to be born in the US then you have to be born in the US. The rule might be stupid but until it's repealed it stands. If it had turned out Obama was born in Kenya (and we're so far into his second term now that it would probably make little difference if he stood up and handed over documentation proving he was) then he shouldn't have been allowed to be President at all. The same rule would have to apply equally to Cruz unless it were repealed before then. It is interesting how people on either side of the political divide howl when The Other Guy does something wrong but are quick to dismiss it when Their Guy does the exact same thing. It seems to come back to tribal politics, where you vote R or D because you always did and your parents always did and their parents always did. Another thing I'd like to see in the voting booths would be that you choose your candidate, then one of their high profile politics from a list that features some of their policies and a selection of offerings from other candidates. If you vote for a candidate and can't name one of their highest profile politics your vote isn't counted. Hopefully that would reduce the tribal voters and also the people who vote based on "it's about time we had a black President" or "I don't want no (racial slur) in the White House".
It is worrying when a large portion of the population figures that they can just vote themselves an increased share of someone else's paycheck. One financial truth is that the only way one man can receive something without working for it is if another man works for it without receiving it. It's interesting to see the mindset that says someone is inherently entitled to a share of what someone else produces.
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville "I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Tocqueville: Democracy in America “When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume 2
The largest and most self aware generation since the boomers is now old enough to vote, and unlike the generations that labelled them apathetic, they are actually prepared to vote. Simultaneously the largest conservative block of voters also happens to be the least amenable to rational discourse. Thus, there is a scant few intellectual hedges against the supposed evils of socialism. The conservative voting block, most vocally composed of the religious right, is content to ridicule with gibbering idiocy rather than engage on principles. So its easy enough for a like minded politician (because I believe Sanders believes his own message) to get voters when he ... 1) Actually listens to them. 2) Speaks to their concerns. 3) Refuses the to engage in the mudslinging game.
I think problems with ideas like "the supposed evils of socialism" is that it all depends on how much socialism is on the table. In urban areas it's natural to look to share resources simply because things are more efficient that way. It's far more efficient to put 100 people on the train into a busy urban center than to put 100 people in their own private vehicle. Of course in urban centers there is the population density to make that sort of thing more viable, whereas out in rural locations there just aren't enough people to make public transport viable. Where governments fund something "for the common good" (and I use quotes because concepts like "the common good" are themselves somewhat vague), should that be considered socialism or not? If a little bit of public money saved a lot of public problem (e.g. a subsidy for a train operating company to keep ticket prices low enough to encourage people out of cars, thereby reducing traffic congestion in an urban center) is that a good thing or a bad thing? The answer would largely depend on whether you're the person expected to fund it while not gaining from it, or the person who gets to have a couple of beers after work because you can take the train home and not have to drive. Likewise should it be considered "socialist" for the government to fund preventative medicine? Some would say it should but working with the basic concept that untreated minor conditions have a nasty habit of becoming untreatable major conditions it makes more sense to treat someone early on rather than expecting them to endure it until they visit an emergency room because it has become critical. The question is how to balance the concept of a bit of compassion with an expectation that every headache and sniffle should be treated and Someone Else should get the bill for it all. In fairness I think there are those who favor gibbering idiocy on both sides, it's just that when the gibbering idiocy comes from religious groups it tends to be right-wing idiocy. That said there are a few left-wing religious idiots too. It does make a refreshing change for a politician to actually listen to people and discuss issues rather than making everything personal. Sadly it doesn't change the merits or otherwise of their positions.
One other thought. If I rob Peter to pay Paul I can be sure if Paul's support. Substitute "rob" for "tax" and it's easy to see why people with no skin in the game having the same voting rights as those with skin in the game causes problems sooner or later.
I'm constantly plagued by this notion or hunch that the standard of living enjoyed by Americans is on the chopping block, as if an overdue comeuppance or as in a presumed entitlement that has outgrown its means. It's one thing to suffer the rattlings of out-of-touch political candidates, ideologues, and demagogues, but quite another to hear it from the average citizens surrounding me.
Comparing the UK to the US, and the UK isn't exactly a third world banana republic, it seems that in the UK there are choices and options to an increasing extent but in the US it's an almost bewildering extent. You don't go and buy a coffee any more, there are endless options regarding size, how much coffee, how much milk, how much fat in the milk, whether to add cream or creamers or flavored syrup or a bunch of other stuff. You can't go to the store and buy toothpaste, there are several dozen different varieties of toothpaste to choose from. I also find it quite remarkable how many people prefer to pay extra so Someone Else does the work, even when "the work" is nothing more serious than peeling an orange or shredding some cheese. A friend of mine works in a grocery store and he's often expressed amazement at the way people, particularly young people (college kids primarily) waste their money. They could buy a box of oranges for $5 but instead they buy one pre-peeled orange in a plastic box for $4. The box of oranges is from the same store, so it's not as if they don't know about the place across town that's so much cheaper. They could buy a pomegranate for about $5, or the same $5 gets them the seeds from about 1/4 of a pomegranate. But hey, they save the time it takes to peel the thing. I suspect the lifestyle that's based on relentless waste is going to get reined in. It's one thing for billionaire playboys to throw around their wealth but when you get people who complain about how expensive things are when they are choosing the most expensive way of buying things (especially when they then complain they don't have enough to get by) it's easy to see how something has to give. The concept that Americans as a whole somehow deserve to be slapped hard seems silly to me, but the idea that everything has to be exactly how I want it, when I want it, seems to be more prevalent this side of the Atlantic.
A bit of a derail, while the Netherlands and the UK are not exactly the same places, there are apparently lots of offerings in grocery stores of essentially ready-made meals which are quite popular. They are reportedly better quality than your Swanson fare. My point is I don't think the convenience factor is a particularly US thing (I include Canada with the US simply because the shared market means we got most of the same things). Also, our societies continue to push for more and more productivity from the people, hence family times are extremely stretched and cooking a proper meal is becoming more difficult, especially for those that are attempting to work two jobs and raise a family.
Ready-made grocery store food here (hello, M&S) is quality, but I've never seen a pre-peeled orange...