How Bernie Sanders Tech Volunteers Code the Bern
blogs.wsj.com
blogs.wsj.com
We disrupted the private sector. It's time to go public.
Critical feedback is welcome. I know just walking through a CSV file and using python's HTTPServer is terrible, though. :-)
If anyone knows about setting up full-service bulk mailing with USPS, I'd love some help getting started. It's probably too late for this particular project, but I think this distributed approach to mass mailing potentially has a lot of promise.
[0] http://nysmailing.xyz/ https://github.com/coventry/nysmailing
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Areddit.com+nysmailing...
-Atticus
I like the way he is the only candidate with the guts to oppose illegal immigration, even though it should be obvious to everyone that illegal immigration is wrong and must be stopped. It's especially ridiculous given that almost all liberal candidates support much worse in Israel, while calling Trump a racist for proposing relatively mild measures in the US.
Their 'get involved' form has a checkbox to tell their campaign that you want to volunteer. I couldn't seem to find a better way for you. I can only presume that Mr. Trump has a war chest which negates his need for charitable work contributions.
All developers are welcome if you have an idea and want to work with people on it - come join! https://www.reddit.com/r/CodersForSanders and http://slack.forsanders.com and
So at least some of the work is open source
It's funny really. I've never been political until Bernie Sanders has come along, and I believe all of his policies are practical to implement (yes, universal healthcare and free education is easy, stop spending as much on the military as the next top 10 countries combined). I'm volunteering for his campaign, helping with Coders For Sanders, and am maxing out my campaign contributions.
Perhaps its because I've always leaned a bit to the left, and have reached the end of my rope with conservative crazies.
I think this statement further reinforces the GP's point. Simply "stop funding the military" isn't "easy" - and I doubt it is something that can be done over a 4 year term. Most of the military's budget are salaries, not just soldiers but likely millions of factory workers who produce a wide range of products for the military. While the question of "are the products they produce useful" is grey, the fact is you'd have to start by laying off millions of Americans and likely damaging the many smaller towns that have come to depend that income source. While its simple to just state "defund the military" the truth is much more complex and likely an even greater political minefield. If he does win the election, if he were to pull off that move, I doubt he would have the political strength to keep a trajectory going for a second election.
As much as I believe that free education should be a thing, I believe that is also a minefield. How will schools be funded? Does the government pay the inflated tuitions, or do we solve the student loan problem first? Will we be forced to massively scale back the amount of people who attend 4-year schools (currently around 70% in the US vs. 30% in Germany)?
And then to seemingly do this by "just taxing the rich"? It seems that people forget that the President just doesn't wake up one day and decide what to tax people at - it's in part decided by congress (as well as many of the other issues) - and it just seems unlikely that he'll make good on everything he is promising.
Personally, I believe Bernie to be a sound candidate, but um_ya has a point.
So we get to the crux that a large portion of the US military is a jobs and rural support program. Perhaps we'll start with the albatross that is the Joint Strike Fighter, estimated at costing over a $1 trillion dollars during its lifecycle.
> While its simple to just state "defund the military" the truth is much more complex and likely an even greater political minefield.
The truth isn't complex, but it is a political quagmire. You need someone with a spine to get the work done.
> As much as I believe that free education should be a thing, I believe that is also a minefield. How will schools be funded? Does the government pay the inflated tuitions, or do we solve the student loan problem first? Will we forced to massively scale back the amount of people who attend 4-year schools (currently around 70% in the US vs. 30% in Germany)?
The cost of education has skyrocketed because the US government backs loans you can't default on, therefore schools raise their rates (which is what happens when demand is inelastic, because you've been told all your life you can't get a well-paying job without a degree, and employers can require a degree without financial cost to them). You apply the same premise Medicare does: If your students don't learn, you don't get paid. We then take a page from the Affordable Care Act and require at least 85-90% of tuition funds to go to actual teaching, and not administration, leisure activities/clubs, and other non-core expenses.
> And then to seemingly do this by "just taxing the rich"? It seems that people forget that the President just doesn't wake up one day and decide what to tax people at - it's in part decided by congress (as well as many of the other issues) - and it just seems unlikely that he'll make good on everything he is promising.
Yes. I want a democratic candidate who is willing to call out Congress. Sanders is the only candidate with the character to do this.
> Personally, I believe Bernie to be a sound candidate, but um_ya has a point.
Of course he's a sound candidate. And no, um_ya has no point.
You are right, the issues are mostly political and I'd be ecstatic to see it get done. However, given that after Obama's 8 year legacy we got a massively watered down public healthcare plan - I'd like to see a plan other than "we are going to get free education, everyone else be damned". To me its no different than the GOPs "We are going to make abortions illegal, or we will shut down the government." I just don't see how its "easy" to defund the MI complex in 4 years.
>You apply the same premise Medicare does: If your students don't learn, you don't get paid.
I pulled this out specifically because it made crawl in my seat. We have tried this already, its called No Child Left Behind, and many don't consider it a success. Turns out quantifying "do your students learn" is incredibly difficult to measure, especially at the federal level.
I'm well aware of why tuitions are so high - but another point that isn't addressed is that countries with free education typically have lower college entrance rates (admittedly it might be cultural, trade schools aren't attractive in America). Is it simply cheaper for Germany to send everyone to school? Are American school more expensive because they tend to be more cutting edge? Is that something we want to give up? Maybe at this point in the voting season, all we are getting is soundbites, but thats something I'd like to hear.
In any case, my POV is to enact any of these issues today, will end up requiring many compromises (as did happen to ACA) with state governments, corporations, and citizens. I'd like to what he imagines these compromises to be.
IF military downsizing is done mostly as a way to fund other areas - education and health, for example - there would be corresponding large increases in jobs/employment/industry around those areas, and I suspect it may spread the money around the country geographically a in a bit more balanced fashion.
Cut govt backing of new student loans, guarantee immediate payment of lesser tuition amounts for students, and the market will sort itself out there. If people can primarily just afford community colleges, the larger schools will adjust themselves to whatever the market will bear.
They can cry me a river. Obviously it was to their (and everyone's) disadvantage for them to become economically depending on manufacturing death. They have nobody but themselves to blame.
My home town is one of these, and it's already pretty depressed. We'll all be happier after the pivot to an economy based on building things that aren't destructive and idiotic.
Other than this, I agree with every point you've made.
That's kinda bullshit. If you want to lay blame, lay it on your choice of national government/local government/the military-industrial complex for failing to provide better options/opportunities, but don't blame the little guy who took the only readily-available job so he could feed his family.
And I don't see any point in passing the buck to whatever government claims authority over his landmass. Yes, of course I wish that the government didn't corrupt the economy by making war seem like a viable way to "feed the family," but it's obviously not.
Nobody forced your hypothetical guy to take that job - and even if he's starving, he has no right to exact violence on strangers.
Fine. I'll call you out. Hunger did. Do you have no compassion?
His children are starving. Now what?
Most military contractors make very good money.
Even if, in your hypothetical, he has starving children, I don't see any compassion in telling him to murder other people's children. This just seems like insanity to me.
But in this particular case, I'm talking about Lockheed Martin.
This is unfortunately a big failing of democracy and the political landscape, in my opinion. You have individuals that are voted into political positions under certain "promises", and then have access to a myriad of excuses that they claim prevented them from implementing said promises. Of course, I understand that sometimes there really are stumbling blocks and active measures preventing a plan from being implemented. But can we not draw a line somewhere? And hold political figures accountable for at least trying to implement their promises. Or at least require them to present sound reasons or studies for actually wanting to enact something as law. E.g. "Study on effects of UBI on the well-being of single-parent households"
Additionally, I'm a tad confused about this concept of Democracy (warning, not really confused, just arguing): If the president is elected in a presidential election and represents the majority of the people, why then do we elect a separate set (branch, as they call it), of individuals at a more granular level that could very well "fight" the already-elected president? I'm referring to the congress/senators there. Could the entire problem not be solved by removing the entire "checks-and-balances" concept, and simply hold presidents accountable for their actions (or lack thereof when it comes to promises)? And by accountable, I mean real consequences: prison/large-fines.
Following from that, we don't all believe that we could potentially get a "crazy" or "rogue" president that abuses his power after election? E.g. creating some sort of police-state, starting wars that the public doesn't want or rewriting constitutional-law? Such that we require some sort of "checks-and-balances" entity/branch to keep him/her from doing so.
Anywho, just some random rants from someone that thinks too-logically about politics, because my ideology requires me to.
You're confused. That's not a bug, it's a feature. The whole political philosophy of the US is that no one person gets power that somebody else can't block.
> Could the entire problem not be solved by removing the entire "checks-and-balances" concept, and simply hold presidents accountable for their actions (or lack thereof when it comes to promises)?
The thing you see as a problem could be solved that way, yes. But imagine that the next president is Trump rather than Sanders. Still think it's a good idea?
The public makes bad decisions at the ballot box sometimes. No matter which way you lean politically, you're sure to be able to find examples in the last 20 years. Having Congress able to block some of their most stupid ideas is genius, rather than a flaw.
> that thinks too-logically about politics
There is a reason Justice Oliver Wendell Homes said "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Humans are complex and if you try to define a set of axioms (or special forms) and build up and understanding from that, it is all too easy to follow your line of thought past massively lethal flaws. In your case, there are very good reasons why we don't give the president all of the powers that are currently allocated to congress. It is very very tempting to lay out specific ones for you. Other commenters will surely do that. However, I think that would not help you learn a better way to approach thinking about human power structures and the ways that they can fail. You should start by reading (or listening to audiobooks of) more history. Read broadly, enough that you start to experience the phenomenon described here: http://squid314.livejournal.com/350090.html
If you want some easy-to-digest things to start with, this list of resources videos is pretty good, but has the flaw that it is all from one source: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yocja_N5s1I&list=PLBDA2E52FB... - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E9WU9TGrec&index=1&list=PL8... - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyzi9GNZFMU&index=1&list=PL8...
For understanding the law, these are a good start: - http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/
As an exercise, reading both of these and weighing them is a good one. - http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/libertarianism.html - http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html - http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/18/book-review-the-machine...
But I really can't actually drop a list of sources on you and give you what you need to have the instinct of thinking "What are the ways that this simplified view of things could go terribly terribly wrong." I'm possibly just giving you my biases. I really do hope you go out and read more stories of where things about how humans work, both in real life and in fiction.
This applies to many human institutions beyond the federal government. https://xkcd.com/592/
No one serious is seriously saying that the military shouldn't be funded. What people are saying is that maybe if the DOD actually kept track of where all it's money went, and made national defense a priority over enriching contractors, it could get by with a reduced budget.
Sure they are - at least some elements of it. And they have been for 200 years.
The constitutional specifically prohibits a standing army; one of the biggest jokes in the contemporary political condition is that the USA doesn't have one.
I want the military defunded in its entirety, save the divisions of navy which protect coastal states from attack.
No, it doesn't:
The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
As long as Congress keeps appropriating money for it, we can have a standing army.
Do you consider space-based threats in the realm of the Navy?
I'm esp a fan of Germany's education track, and having worked in crunch-heavy industries having something like a working time directive would be a Good Thing(tm).
It's also because Bernie is one of the first candidates in recent years to build his campaign entirely on a policy platform. If someone asks him a leading question to get him into personal bickering for the sake of a sound bite, he tells them to go away until they have a real question. All he wants to do is debate policy issues.
So anyone can go ahead and disagree with him, but his meta-level goal is a fucking necessity: make politics be about policy again.
It could be considered a joke in that it's unlikely his opponents in Congress would vote for such programs and that they'll ridicule it as you have. However, that does not negate that it is feasible to have such things or even reasonable to expect them.
European countries make up the difference in revenue by having much higher taxation on the middle class. The middle class in Europe doesn't get free healthcare and free education. They pay for it in higher taxation.
So unless the Bern wants a significant VAT tax and increased income taxes on middle income earners, his plans are crazy.
This reminds me of a Canadian election back in the 1990s. The NDP (left wing) wanted to fund more programs by increasing the taxes on the "rich". So someone asked who the "rich" were.
A family of 4 making over $60,000.
At least they were honest!
I don't see how.
>have you considered ...
Yes I have. If such people exist I doubt they make a statistically significant fraction among supporters of such policies. All Sanders supporters I know are both "rich" (i.e. can afford a new BMW or two) and do not believe that "the rich" to be taxed are them. These people are not really dumb so if they thought their own wealth needed redistribution they could figure easier ways to achieve that.
"Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
how are you going to give people free healthcare, free education...
It is not mission impossible like you make it sound to be
How is this any different than developers volunteering their time to a charity or anything else for that nature?
I've done so much "free" work for family and friends, gladly. I struggle to see this any different for those who feel strongly for the Barry Sanders candidacy.
What is the going rate for such developers? Tools, servers, and bandwidth. What is to stop someone from exploiting this as a loophole? Hence, that is the big deal. Dress it up and it is still a pig.
Would a celebrity endorsement be a dressed up pig? The going rate for a Kardashian tweet is absurd. But how would it be "fair" if they were disallowed from tweeting if everyone else could.
I think it's impossibly complex and nuanced, and trying to paint this kind of activism as equal to corporate and individuals buying elections is blatantly disregarding that complexity. There goal is to balance the contributions of individuals and special interest groups in a way that no single party is able to grossly tilt the process in a way that harms it. What that means in the real world is incredibly complicated and to be determined, but I can't see individual volunteering of time and skill as being the same as individuals volunteering millions of dollars.
If I donate the use of my event center for a campaign rally, that counts toward the limits, but not if I help serve coffee at the rally?
Here's the FEC guidelines:
>The donation of office machines, furniture, supplies--anything of value--is an in-kind contribution. The value of the donated item (the usual and normal charge) counts against the contribution limits. A donation of services is also considered an in-kind contribution. For example, if you pay a consultant's fee or a printing bill for services provided to a campaign, you have made an in-kind contribution in the amount of the payment.
>If you sell an item or service to a committee and ask the committee to pay less than the usual and normal charge, you have also made an in-kind contribution to the committee in the amount of the discount.
>Under limited exceptions in the law, you may provide certain goods and services without making a contribution to the committee. These exceptions are volunteering, travel expenses and business services.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml
----
Ah well, at least there are SuperPACs...
EDIT: I can think of some arguments to justify no volunteer contribution limits: it's effectively already capped by the amount of labor you can give in total, and is thus inherently limited.
You can probably find some stories like this, but they will be a tiny minority. There's no way a reasonable and informed person would say it's "usual".
>Personal Services An individual may help candidates and committees by volunteering personal services. For example, you may want to take part in a voter drive or offer your skills to a political committee. Your services are not considered contributions as long as you are not paid by anyone. (If your services are compensated by someone other than the committee itself, the payment is considered a contribution by that person to the committee.) As a volunteer, you may spend unlimited money for normal living expenses.
It's not the same at all. Every human being has an equal 24 hours a day they can spend doing things. If you choose to spend some of those hours helping a cause you care about, more power to you.
In contrast, corporations have hundreds of millions of dollars (more than all but the richest people) to spend on their interests. And a corporation can't "care" about a cause, it can only spend money to advance its interests and try to make more money.
Tools, servers, and bandwidth are all things we cover ourselves. And thankfully we have services like Heroku & Cloudflare that make this easily possible.