It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders reminds America ‘progressive’ means ‘socialist’

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) has clarified a few things and makes some contrasting points.

Maybe he's running for President.

Perhaps a lamb amongst wolves (or a lamb-killer amongst deer-hunters).

Thank You Senator Sanders for the clarifications !!




U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent and self-described socialist from Vermont, inadvertently reminded America “progressive” is just another word for “socialist” with a Dec. 29 Huffington Post op-ed.

In his column, titled “Fight for Our Progressive Vision,” Sanders called for universal health care, increased government redistribution of wealth, limits on political speech, additional government action against “climate change,” $1 trillion in new infrastructure spending and more spending on education.

“At a time when the middle class is disappearing and when millions of families have seen significant declines in their incomes, we will not support more austerity against the elderly, the children and working families,” Sanders wrote. “We will not accept cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition or affordable housing.”


U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders reminds America ‘progressive’ means ‘socialist’



Extra reading:
Bernie Sanders’s Progressive Manifesto





posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


…increased government redistribution of wealth…


Isn't that a given? The biggest socialist program in the modern world was the government bailout of the banks and motor companies in 2008.

How much did you contribute? Your job, savings, the house?


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

It has fallen to me to point this out before, but Americans who have never lived in a true socialism, have no idea what the word means, and should stop conflating what they have, or any of the things being proposed by their nations leaders and candidates for leadership, with socialism, lest they appear foolish to those who DO understand the terminology correctly.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr



What do you call reverse socialism when the few, ie the large banks worldwide benefit from the many citizens of the US?
It is damn frustrating to see the same pattern being reinforced by the recent US fiscal budget that exposes Americans again to the Banksters gambling follies... They just keep sucking up our assets..



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


What's wrong with this principle?


In thought?



You can discuss why it's ineffective if you wish...


But ideologically, what's so bad about it?



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Cause It's Commie!!!!




posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Austerity is a disgusting policy...



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74



Lol, of course, I was fooling myself thinking I'd actually find a debate in that on an American website.


You make a great point



I expect many similar answers with a more serious tone

edit on 8-1-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I consider myself a socialist

Thought I would guess some of the answers from the USAers here.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   


Sanders called for universal health care, increased government redistribution of wealth, limits on political speech, additional government action against “climate change,” $1 trillion in new infrastructure spending and more spending on education.


I am against the Government being involved in health care, increased government, redistribution of wealth, limits on (almost) ANY speech, and any action regarding the 'climate change' tax / power grab. I could agree with SOME infrastructure spending and a greater investment in education.

Basically, I hate most of what progressives / socialists stand for and obviously and am an opponent of Sanders.
edit on 2015/1/8 by Metallicus because: Sp



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Because it's never the community as a while who owns or regulates them. Instead it winds up being a small oligarchy of so-called elites at the top, the political class, who own and operate those things in our best interests. And, because these people are so much wiser, better and sacrifice SOOOOO much in taking such GOOOOD care of the great unwashed masses, they somehow wind up getting the best of everything and never suffering the impacts of their redistributionist policies.

In short, there is not and never will be such a thing as true "socialism" on the face of man's earth.

Or put another way:



"What you simply must understand is that capitalism is not the elimination of sharing, it is the elimination of confiscation. Hear me, it is the elimination of confiscation. Socialism is not the virtue of sharing, it is the practice of confiscation for the purposes of redistribution. Live in fear of any mind that can rationalize this practice. In short, you are free to share YOUR money with anyone you want, but keep your damn hands off mine. All human rights begin with your protections against one method of confiscation or another."



edit on 8-1-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Four more years of people who think they know what socialism is.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: rupertg

Do you live in the US? If so, then you don't really know what it is having not lived it. At best, you know the theory. And if you have lived and don't live here, then why does it bother you that we want no part of it? We aren't where you are. It's our life and our country.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Americans need to shake off the decades of propaganda relating to socialism and communism. 'Socialist' policies aren't all that bad, and i can point to Australia, UK or Canada for some good examples. You can't mention socialism without stirring some Americans up, lol.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
bernie sanders is probably the best candidate that could run in 2016.

he's defiant of TPTB, of the neoliberalist consensus. He's not a blatant hypocrite like Clinton who supported Neolib policies in the past, and probably will in the future.
His appeal is a proactive call for a proactive government, one that actually focuses on solving problems. The tone of which he conveys his words to me sounds like ones of frustration, and indignation at the issues of average americans.

Mostly I'm reassured because he's not from an ivy-league school.

Which isn't to say he's perfect. I imagine he's got things that are questionable in his past, but eh... he's certainly not the worse candidate we've seen yet.. though I picture as 2016 gets closer and closer dirt will be found on him..
edit on 8-1-2015 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

ketsuko,

If you called the ground the sky, and thought you were walking in the clouds, that would be no problem for anyone. But if you call the ground the sky, and you are an air traffic controller, that causes problems.

Your vote is your headset mic, and failure to apply standardised understanding of up and down in this case, will see your country do a flight MH370. That's your call, and quite right too. But if you give a damn how things play out, it would do you well to understand that a standardised and correct apprehension of the definition of socialism, is necessary if the levers which are applied to your nations people by the powerful, are ever to be removed from between the voting blocs in your country.

This is necessary to free your people from oppression by the back door, by a government which spies on you, takes your money and wastes it while failing to provide properly for those whose lives have been turned upside down by its monetary policy in previous years (those folks who are living in cities made of tents and tarpaulin through no fault of their own), and makes enemies of half the world on your behalf.

Up and down are only alike, in that they are two directions on the same axis. Socialism and the system which exists and is being proposed by candidates for election at the moment have the same relationship.

edit on 8-1-2015 by TrueBrit because: Spelling error removed.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: anarchychaos56


What do you call reverse socialism when the few, i.e. the large banks worldwide benefit from the many citizens of the US?

They called it a bailout. But really it was extortion.

"We screwed up. Give us the money NOW, or else…"



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Because it's never the community as a while who owns or regulates them. Instead it winds up being a small oligarchy of so-called elites at the top, the political class, who own and operate those things in our best interests. And, because these people are so much wiser, better and sacrifice SOOOOO much in taking such GOOOOD care of the great unwashed masses, they somehow wind up getting the best of everything and never suffering the impacts of their redistributionist policies.

In short, there is not and never will be such a thing as true "socialism" on the face of man's earth.

Or put another way:



"What you simply must understand is that capitalism is not the elimination of sharing, it is the elimination of confiscation. Hear me, it is the elimination of confiscation. Socialism is not the virtue of sharing, it is the practice of confiscation for the purposes of redistribution. Live in fear of any mind that can rationalize this practice. In short, you are free to share YOUR money with anyone you want, but keep your damn hands off mine. All human rights begin with your protections against one method of confiscation or another."




We have a winner! This is what the sheeple liberals don't understand. They are never going to be part of the small circle of the elite who don't have to live under the grand liberal utopia.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Now correct if I'm wrong, but I never said my government as it is is good. I only said that socialism is NOT the answer as the so-called socialists I see are proposing consolidating ever more power with that same government. If you think that government is bad now, wait until the socialists in this country get down handing it full control to confiscate everything to administer "in my name."

No, socialism is the true sense simply isn't possible, and I prefer to keep my property rights. That way at least, I can choose to share what I have with others as I can afford to share rather than having it confiscated out from me so that me and mine starve.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Liberals never take their own medicine; especially those that are considered part of the elite classes. The common man advocating for socialism must be blind not to see it.

Rich liberals send their kids to private school while working to shut down school choice for the poor.

Liberals support gun control / confiscation for the masses while they get armed security.

The average man is told they need to reduce their carbon foot print, while rich liberals live in 15,000 square foot homes and fly private jets.

Rich liberals will never use government run healthcare they advocate for the commoner. They will get to use their own private doctors.

I can go on and on...

Socialism always results in a small number of elite living like kings and queens while the masses suffer.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join