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.

 

I gave up Ayn Rand for Bernie Sanders

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



The 'war' on poverty has been a raging success hasn't it ?

Seeing how the wealth gap is larger now than it was in the 20's some would say it has been a raging success.


Pitting one class against the other spending over $22 trillion dollars and has nothing to show for it other than there are now more poor,more people dependent upon government for their existence than ever in this nations entire history.

This happens when you allow the wealthy to be able to buy the government.


Oh yeah that Sanders is such a 'winner'.

He's certainly better than Hillary or anyone that is running on the GOP side.




posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

That was damn right hilarious. The money ends up in the same place.


All money starts and ends in the same place, the Banks. However, between that time the rest of us trade it back and forth with each other for goods and services from each other. The less we all have to trade the less functional our economy is. So when it's all in the hands of a few who don't spread it around what good is it???


That is EXACTLY what social programs do.


You were just complaining that social programs "rob the haves and gives to the nots". Now you're saying the opposite??? You're not making sense.


The Sanders doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

House Hold assets @ $ 86 TRILLION dollars. Seems the 99% is doing quite well.

www.usdebtclock.org...


Except it's probably on about 10% of that 99% that have all that. The rest live on what they throw away. Meanwhile, the 1% not mentioned even make that 10% look poor in comparison.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ChiefD




Idolize Obama? Not hardly. He's human has made mistakes, but has done a damn site better job than GWB.


Yes hardly because Sanders is spewing the same rhetoric as Obama.

I have yet to hear one original thought from Sanders I haven't heard the past 7 years.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010




Seeing how the wealth gap is larger now than it was in the 20's some would say it has been a raging success.


That is a misnomer.

Today Americans have bigger homes, more stuff,. more benefits, higher pay than our parents, and grand parents did.




He's certainly better than Hillary or anyone that is running on the GOP side.


Opinions do vary on that.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Apparently a small majority of Americans do actually want the wealthy to be taxed more....so democracy huh??




posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




All money starts and ends in the same place, the Banks. H


No it doesn't.

It starts with the Government who created the federal reserve. That is where the money starts.




However, between that time the rest of us trade it back and forth with each other for goods and services from each other.


However that government, and its puppet the FED prints it out of thin air. To the tunes of TRILLIONS. That devalues the dollar value.




So when it's all in the hands of a few who don't spread it around what good is it???


The few meaning the FED.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: greencmp

That's fine. Limit the size and power of Government if it's needed. But nobody wants too much power in the hands of a few individuals or Corporations either so we should limit them as well.

Taking it away from Government and giving it all to a few Private Interests isn't better, it's worse. Private Interests aren't accountable to anyone or anything. At least Governments are, or are supposed to be and will be unless they get out of control. Private Interests aren't constrained by any such legalities. Just look at NAFTA and TPP and what they are doing there.


Government doesn't own everything (yet, at least) so nothing changes except that many more providers will step up to compete for previously monopolized or over-regulated industries. Anything that is titled to the state can be auctioned off to pay down the debt.

I wish I could better explain it but, I really can't. It is just that simple, monopolies are bad.

That said, the reason monopolies are bad is because they may attempt to charge "monopoly prices". Until then, they appear to be benign.

I have actually wavered on antitrust. In general, the monopolies that have been bad have been state sponsored and/or assisted so it ought not to be necessary in a free market to break them as long as they cannot use force to maintain their market control which is provided by the state.

I will keep antitrust in the quiver among some other potentially valid state actions for the time being.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



Today Americans have bigger homes, more stuff,. more benefits, higher pay than our parents, and grand parents did.

BS. In our grandparents day only one parent needed to work and they were able to pay all their bills and send kids through college and not go into debt. Even now people are working more hours and making less than they were in the 90's.



Opinions do vary on that.

All you have on the right is war mongers and people that suck up to big business. Hillary is trying to be just like them so what is confusing is why she is trying to get the Democratic ticket.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Right. Now we're on the same page. I do believe The Fed is a bank though. It also doesn't belong to the Government either. So, as I said before, it starts and ends with The Banks. Glad to see we're in agreement.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



It starts with the Government who created the federal reserve. That is where the money starts.

Guess you missed the part about the Fed Reserve being a bank huh?


However that government, and its puppet the FED prints it out of thin air. To the tunes of TRILLIONS. That devalues the dollar value.

Wrong the government doesn't control the Fed is they did then don't you think the government could audit them when ever they wanted?


The few meaning the FED.

No more like the Kock, Walton's and Adleson's.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: neo96

Right. Now we're on the same page. I do believe The Fed is a bank though. It also doesn't belong to the Government either. So, as I said before, it starts and ends with The Banks. Glad to see we're in agreement.



Not the banks Sanders is whining about.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Cool, we seem to be in agreement as well. Monopolies are bad, I agree. Government monopolies are included with that. I'm with ya on limiting Government power and control in some areas. But not in areas that would allow for Giant Corporate Power to then take over and rule unchallenged. That would be even worse. That would be almost the same as just handing all the power and money and control over to just one person. The difference being that Corporate Rule is more than one but still not much more than a hand full or so of people giving you an oligarchy.

Basically you can never have too much money or power in the hands of too few people or organizations. As a Libertarian you should also understand that since like you said, " libertarians believe that humans are corruptible and imperfect." I believe that as well which is exactly why power and money and law and accountability, etc. needs to be spread out or one of those imperfect humans are going to get too much to themselves and start a whole mess of problems with it.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I read "Atlas Shrugged" and looked into 'ojectivism' for a bit when I was young - then outgrew it as totaly amoral and unworkable. Not a bad STORY when you take out the lectures.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Personally I think all you Americans put far too much store in the ability of a single person to change your country in an eye blink - even the POTUS.

Certainly that person has a powerful influence, but even GWB's idiocy is still changing your country, and the total descent from vaguely decent to neo-reactionary hate-filled-uncompromising partisan politics has taken much longer than just his 8 years - they were, IMO, merely the icing on the cake of 12ars of Regan/Bush snr - with a Clinton interregnum that didn't fundamentally change the direction of the country.

so that's 20 years total, 28 years elapsed, of the country being led to a position where everyone gets someone else to hate.

Sanders won't change that - even if he is the new messiah and even if the "ship of state" wasn't a lumbering behemoth with more resistance to change of direction than a supertanker at full speed......let alone if any f the CT's are right and it is actually controlled by the NWO who won't let Bernie or Hillary or anyone else take any real changes!!

For what it is worth.....



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: greencmp

Cool, we seem to be in agreement as well. Monopolies are bad, I agree. Government monopolies are included with that. I'm with ya on limiting Government power and control in some areas. But not in areas that would allow for Giant Corporate Power to then take over and rule unchallenged. That would be even worse. That would be almost the same as just handing all the power and money and control over to just one person. The difference being that Corporate Rule is more than one but still not much more than a hand full or so of people giving you an oligarchy.

Basically you can never have too much money or power in the hands of too few people or organizations. As a Libertarian you should also understand that since like you said, " libertarians believe that humans are corruptible and imperfect." I believe that as well which is exactly why power and money and law and accountability, etc. needs to be spread out or one of those imperfect humans are going to get too much to themselves and start a whole mess of problems with it.


Yes, it couldn't be done cold turkey but, it is doable.

Breaking up a monopoly which is one of the only substantial state actions I might consider, is a fairly small task compared to the vast bureaucracy that is constantly growing and expanding and it would be done by the courts anyway.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I read "Atlas Shrugged" and looked into 'ojectivism' for a bit when I was young - then outgrew it as totaly amoral and unworkable. Not a bad STORY when you take out the lectures.



But Ayn Rand and objectivism aren't libertarian which was the premise here.

You can be an objectivist and a libertarian but, they aren't synonymous.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ChiefD




Idolize Obama? Not hardly. He's human has made mistakes, but has done a damn site better job than GWB.


Yes hardly because Sanders is spewing the same rhetoric as Obama.

I have yet to hear one original thought from Sanders I haven't heard the past 7 years.


There's a huge difference between Bernie and Obama. Bernie has been pushing for years everything you hear him say with legislation.

Obama on the other hand, not so much.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
He's a democratic socialist. Bit of a difference between that and a classic socialist...or a progressive socialist, whatever the hell that is.

World's Happiest Countries? Social Democracies



I suspect, like a lot of people who continue to learn throughout their lives, he becomes more socialist the older he gets.

I began thinking that capitalism was the only way - that it had always been that way - hey that's what was taught in school right. Honestly I couldn't imagine a world without the 'greed' and 'self' motivators. Star Trek made me think. I read John Reed, Chairman Mao's little Red Book and others in High School - couldn't get my head around it. But I knew that I was miserable and many people I knew were miserable so kept looking. The movie "The God's Must be Crazy" really gave me a story that I could picture and feel - and a strange little book called "The Peter Pan Bag".

I didn't like the harsh repression of dissent by communist regimes - but I did like the ideals of collectivism.

The last 15 years have convinced me, a long with a lot of others much smarted then I, that captilism with it's imperitive of continutal growth will destroy us all. There are physical limits to the 'resources' we can extract from the planet - there are limits to everything except perhaps imagination. And that is where the work has to start in the imagination - why the heck do you think John Lennon wrote the fracking song....

Addiction to Distractions keeps us from learning, growing and imagining.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I read "Atlas Shrugged" and looked into 'ojectivism' for a bit when I was young - then outgrew it as totaly amoral and unworkable. Not a bad STORY when you take out the lectures.



But Ayn Rand and objectivism aren't libertarian which was the premise here.

You can be an objectivist and a libertarian but, they aren't synonymous.


That's picking at nits. For all intents and purposes, they are the same.

Please educate me on some of the differences. I'm always willing to learn something new.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I read "Atlas Shrugged" and looked into 'ojectivism' for a bit when I was young - then outgrew it as totaly amoral and unworkable. Not a bad STORY when you take out the lectures.



But Ayn Rand and objectivism aren't libertarian which was the premise here.

You can be an objectivist and a libertarian but, they aren't synonymous.


That's picking at nits. For all intents and purposes, they are the same.

Please educate me on some of the differences. I'm always willing to learn something new.


Basically, she specifically argues for a constitutional republic in order to maintain objectivity for law whereas many libertarians believe that anarchy is possible and what works for the market of goods and services as well as ideas should be sufficient for the market of law.




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join