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.

 

Bernie Sanders: Tonight's GOP debaters don't care about working people

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Answer

Maybe. They always have some kind of plan. Bernie still has quite a battle against Hillary tho. Plus she's not above playing dirty politics either and who knows what she'll do to hamstring him.

It seems that Rand is having a rough time of things so far. One minute he's doing good and the next minute the GOP seems to not like the guy anymore. I don't think he falls in line well enough for them to trust him as their lead man. They're looking for a real "yes man" kind of guy. The kind that just does what they're told, takes the media and public backlash and keeps right on going towing the line. There are some areas where Rand just wouldn't do that.


That's exactly why they'll belittle Trump no matter how popular he is with voters.

They manipulate public opinion by pretending that a particular candidate isn't a real option. If they make him out to be a joke and the media follows suit, people start to believe it.




posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I do not see the issue as complicated at all, at least not on the ground level. No ACA = no instantaneous quadrupling+ of premiums and deductables. The ACA is actually a textbook perfect example of why the free market cannot be institutionally futzed with without becoming a mess.

Bottom line, Bernie Sanders voted in favor of the policy which cost the American worker an inexcusable amount of their income and he should be brought directly to heel for it.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

You totally nailed it on both of those last two posts. I wouldn't add to or change anything you said there as it's exactly right.

What's funny is belittling Trump so far seems to actually work in his favor. There are just so many angles to the Trump political theater right now it's difficult to pin it down exactly. But it is entertaining at least.

The thing with Trump is that he is controllable also. Just not in the same way they control other politicians. You can't just buy him like normal and that is what is making it so difficult for those who control the candidates normally. Controlling Trump requires a different method all together and if they don't figure out what it is soon he may just steal all the thunder from the GOP all together.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I think he's been quite clear about his stance on ACA so far. Like I said earlier, he sees it as a step in the right direction toward the ultimate goal of Universal Single Pay System like other countries have already. He doesn't agree with the way ACA was put in practice but he also sees it as only a temporary stepping stone.




“But while I am glad the Supreme Court upheld the law, in my view, the only long-term solution to America’s health care crisis is a Medicare-for-all single-payer system.”

He based his position on what he called “two very simple premises”: that health care must be recognized as “a right, not a privilege,” and that a national system would “provide care for every single American in the most cost-effective way possible.”

“Tragically,” Bernie said, “the United States fails in both areas.”

“The health insurance lobbyists and big pharmaceutical companies make “national health care” sound scary. It’s not.

“In fact, a large single-payer system already exists in the United States. It’s called Medicare and the people enrolled give it high marks. More importantly, it has succeeded in providing near-universal coverage to Americans over age 65 in a very cost-effective manner.

“It’s time to expand that program to all Americans.”
Supreme Court Allows Health Care Law. Now Let’s Have Medicare for All.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I understand. My point is, when those working class Americans get into the voting booth and have to weigh "good intentions" vs "Look at what this is costing me," the wallet will usually win.

We've tested National Healthcare and have found the water to be bitterly cold. It's now time to dry off our little footsies and go sit in the sun we were in before passing that asinine Act. Sanders isn't going to even remotely come close to doing that and, let's be brutally honest, once something is determined to be a big mistake, those responsible for it need to have their leashes snapped back and not be given a chance to screw us all again.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Step in the right direction? What direction is that? Creating a federally mandated industry that siphons money from our pocket (and provides additional tax revenue for them)?

The only winners are a 3% segment of America, and the Department of the Treasury. A "step in the right direction" might be something more akin to reducing costs in other areas (im looking at you, DoD) to expand Medicare coverage. With how much legislation was written, and how big a pain in the ass it has been for anyone who owns a business, why the hell didn't they just go all the way?

The process absolutely does not have to be anywhere near as painful as it is. And history will remember Obama as a buffoon that makes Harrison and Buchanan look like Kennedy by comparison.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

We've tested National Healthcare and have found the water to be bitterly cold.


But we haven't tested it at all. What we have isn't National Heathcare at all. It's some sort of mandated tax for the insurance companies that has heathcare attached to it so there is at least the illusion of representation for taxation. Or something along those lines. It's a hybrid of our old system and a national system but it's neither.

It's ObamaCare. Whatever that means. What we had wasn't working either for a lot of people. Now it again works for some but not others. Just in a different way and for different people.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

A step in the direction of an actual National Health Care System is what I mean. That is the "right" direction according to Sanders anyway. His goal is a full National Health Care. Not what we have now which is an Insurance Mandated system with lots of problems. But it's one step closer to a National Health Care System like other countries already have.

Does that make more sense.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



A "step in the right direction" might be something more akin to reducing costs in other areas (im looking at you, DoD) to expand Medicare coverage.


That isn't a 'step in the right direction'.

Expand it ?

There are ALREADY over 50 million Americans on medicare. Which is far too many.

Singularly or together with that other government ran 'healthcare' medicaid.

Makes the US government the largest healthcare provider in the country.

Which the US government should not be in the 'business' of healthcare period.

For a step in the 'right' direction would be the US government getting out of the healthcare 'business' altogether.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I know what he meant. I just think its completely ludicrous. There really are no steps in the right direction short of just expanding who gets the free healthcare a little at a time, while funding it from a different pocket (like i said...DoD is nice and fat).

What has happened is a nation already buckling under the weight of joblessness and income disparity has been forced to purchase a product that they may or may not want. And those of us who already had it have seen our costs increase dramatically.

If getting screwed is a step in the right direction, lord knows im scared to death of what the next step brings.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

We have tested it. What do you think the VA is except for nationalized health care for our veterans?

If we can't take care of them in a timely and efficient manner, then what makes you think making that system national and required for everyone will work out well? Unless, of course, it's simply that once everyone is forced into the same standard of care no one will have any basis of comparison so no one will notice that all our care has gone to crap.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




We have tested it. What do you think the VA is except for nationalized health care for our veterans?


Yeah we have 'tested' it.

There are 3 poisons to choose from.

The VA.medicare,medicaid.

All are wondrous to see in action.

Especially the medicare surtax on capitol gains, after employees, and employers are all taxed to pay for the program, and still has revenue shortfalls.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Why would any Republican not care about working people ?

How else will big businesses make money.

Even the Koch Brothers have over 100,000 employees, quite a few in unions too !




posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: mOjOm

We have tested it. What do you think the VA is except for nationalized health care for our veterans?

If we can't take care of them in a timely and efficient manner, then what makes you think making that system national and required for everyone will work out well? Unless, of course, it's simply that once everyone is forced into the same standard of care no one will have any basis of comparison so no one will notice that all our care has gone to crap.



With healthcare, like most things, you have 2 options: free or high quality. You can't get both.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: ColeYounger

If you look back to Bill Clinton's time in office you will see the same thing in regards to income inequality getting worse.

So there are really only two possible reasons for this. First one being that democratic policies are somewhat naive. They are intended to help the poor and middle class, but are in fact doing the opposite and helping the rich.

Or there is a more sinister situation in which democrats really don't care about the poor/middle class, and manipulate their base into voting for modern day slavery.



Or there is the third reason.

Both Establishment Parties are Globalists.

See the Bilberberg Group gatherings where Political and Corporate Heads gathered to build their globalist utopia where nations and parties no longer matter to them.

Like George Bush on the same team said, a New World Order, where the world runs through the rule of law rather than the rule of the jungle.

The catch is that it is their rules, not ours.

Anyone that disagrees with their rules is following the rule of the jungle. LOL


NAFTA, TPP, GATT , China Trade and so on is all part of the NWO.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger
“They want to give more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires at a time when the rich are getting much richer,” Sanders said.


News flash Bernie: In the last 4-5 years, the wealthiest 2-3 percent have gotten richer than any previous time.
Any time in the history of America.
With a democrat in the white house.


Exactly...thank beejeezus Bernie is an independent.




posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: beezzer



To the topic, how much should government "care" about working people?


The topic is how the candidates themselves do not care about working people, not government.

They should care as they represent us, but they do not.


How should they "care"?


How about being Nationalists rather than Globalists first Beezer?
It is it our job to spread our nations wealth and know how to other countries?

The Big Corporations via the TPP want protective measures for themselves, but on the world stage, they want workers to have to no protections.

Capitalist based Competition for the world workers and Collusion and Corruption for the rulers.

The majority of countries practice protectionist measures for their economies including China via tariffs and other policies and the Constitution even calls for it where this country comes first.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: beezzer



How should they "care"?


By representing our best interests, or serving the will of the people, in their duties as representatives.

It is not their job to represent any interest other than the people's.


Exactly!

The first job of politicians in accordance with the Constitution is the best interests of this country and its people:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

NAFTA, WTO, GATT and the TPP have all violated the welfare clause where the bests interests of the citizens of this country comes first.



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: beezzer
Why don't the democrats debate?


Because a lot of people on the Left look for substance and voting records, rather than a dog and pony show where the candidates puff out their chest and lie to each other to show the audience who's man enough to lead the nation.


Boy then what happenned with Obama? hes all flash no substance too apparently



posted on Aug, 6 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: beezzer
Why don't the democrats debate?


Because a lot of people on the Left look for substance and voting records, rather than a dog and pony show where the candidates puff out their chest and lie to each other to show the audience who's man enough to lead the nation.


Boy then what happenned with Obama? hes all flash no substance too apparently



Pretty hard to have any substance when the Banksters are in your back pocket

www.opensecrets.org...

Top Contributors to Obama

Goldman Sachs $1,034,615
JPMorgan Chase & Co $847,895
Citigroup Inc $755,057
US Government $638,335
Skadden, Arps et al $554,439
US Dept of Justice $540,636
IBM Corp $534,470
UBS AG $534,166
General Electric $532,031
Morgan Stanley $528,182



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join