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.

 

19.6 Trillion Dollars in Tax Increases...Can you feel the "Bern" now?

page: 19
34
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

You know, I managed to just disregard the thing. Sorry.

I attended a private school in NYC prior, and the diction was just completely different to say the least.

Much more like a story, more entertaining to read, but impossible to remember, very bias in it's conclusions of events, and generally no issue with leaving things 'out'. There was even Democratic to Republican bias in it, where generally politics itself is super vague for the Left when it came to some things, while very elaborate and explanatory for the Right wing stuff merely justifying things.




posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: eXia7

time to go back to the Bush era? i remember that. that was great.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Here, folks - watch this again -
Rand Paul must have been off his meds, yeah........but

But!

Check out the girl, the blonde to the left of him on the screen - watch her face, her gestures, her honesty.
SERIOUSLY!!! Watch it with the sound turned off.......


She reminds me of this:


This drivel makes me sick.

edit on 1/20/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Here, folks - watch this again -
Rand Paul must have been off his meds, yeah........but

But!

Check out the girl, the blonde to the left of him on the screen - watch her face, her gestures, her honesty.
SERIOUSLY!!! Watch it with the sound turned off.......


She reminds me of this:


This drivel makes me sick.


He is off his meds because he has a different point of view on healthcare?

He has the libertarian point of view. I don't agree with him but he is making a solid arguement in terms of his own philosophy.

It's the same point of view that makes him one of the only politicians actually writing bills for criminal justice reform, which would effect millions of poor people put in jail for nonviolent "crimes". In fact he would make many of those non violent drug offenses not crimes at all.

It's like Bernie Sanders. He would be a disaster for the economy if he could get all his ideas passed. I still think he is a better choice than most of the candidates because some of his central issues like lobby power in politics are so important and without them so many other things will never be fixed.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier



He has the libertarian point of view. I don't agree with him but he is making a solid arguement in terms of his own philosophy.

His "view" is absurd. No one is going to come a-knocking or a-bashing down anyone's door to drag them out into the night and "force" them to do anything!

It is utterly ridiculous.
And the more that the libertarians repeat it, the more asinine it becomes.


iew that makes him one of the only politicians actually writing bills for criminal justice reform, which would effect millions of poor people put in jail for nonviolent "crimes". In fact he would make many of those non violent drug offenses not crimes at all.

So would Bernie.
He also advocates for criminal justice reform....
and for not incarcerating non-violent offenders.

You just, aren't really paying attention to both sides, are you? No. You aren't.

edit on 1/20/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: luthier



He has the libertarian point of view. I don't agree with him but he is making a solid arguement in terms of his own philosophy.

His "view" is absurd. No one is going to come a-knocking or a-bashing down anyone's door to drag them out into the night and "force" them to do anything!

It is utterly ridiculous.
And the more that the libertarians repeat it, the more asinine it becomes.


iew that makes him one of the only politicians actually writing bills for criminal justice reform, which would effect millions of poor people put in jail for nonviolent "crimes". In fact he would make many of those non violent drug offenses not crimes at all.

So would Bernie.
He also advocates for criminal justice reform....
and for not incarcerating non-violent offenders.

You just, aren't really paying attention to both sides, are you? No. You aren't.


No I do I am just not such a divisive debator and can accept different points of view.


Bernie had plenty of time to write bills. Paul has already and is cosponsored by a democrat.

Paul was using metaphors by the way to make his point.

It seems you are the one not paying attention to both sides.

Both sides need to come together if we are going to make changes. You can't just belittle the other side and expect compromises and solutions.

Again I don't agree with Paul but I get what he is saying.

Bernie has plenty of nutty ideas himself.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs
bernie here is a simpler way to raise trhe cash and balance the budget with out breaking the backs of anyone charge 4 cent sals tax on everydollar spent on stock markets in us. if i go tpo store and buy a soda i got to pay 7 cent sales tax on a dollar can of soda why cant this be done on stock market. if some one bought a dollar stock it would cost him 1.04 if he bought 10.40 if he bought a 100 it would be 104. if you did that you would be shocked at how fast you could balance the budget



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: proteus33

He's already had that planned for a while.

Sanders Tax Stock Trades



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Right to healthcare is slavery? What?

Uh...people CHOOSE to become doctors. It's not like some Men In Black show up and say, "You are going to be a doctor, and forced to give medical care to people"....

What? Is this real life?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: proteus33

That's what he's proposing..actually.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me, either. Maybe he's crafting a blockbuster screenplay to star Keanu or Matt Damon or something.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me, either. Maybe he's crafting a blockbuster screenplay to star Keanu or Matt Damon or something.


What he was saying was that the government would be dictating how Dr's do business. The current Dr's did not get into the profession under this mandate. It's not hard to understand the skeptisim that the US government is incapable of this task at the moment. Or that the resistance from the right and some of the left would make it impossible. Paul is using a sensational metaphore to say Dr's will be mandated how to treat by the government. How to do business. Libertarians don't like telling business what they can and can't do. At least it's a consistent arguement.

I don't agree with libertarians on the issue of healthcare but I don't think it will be an easy fix either. Personally I think the start is making health insurance companies operate as non profits.

Bernie will not be able to pass his legislation in congress which is just the truth. He will never have the votes to do so. This is where the ability to compromise comes into play. I think he does a fait job of not towing the party line and like I said his political reform is the single most important thing. However when you look at his bills the majority have a 0percent chance of passing even by liberal policy assessments. That is not a great sign for a president.

I would vote for him over any of the Republicans but he will most likely be less effective than Jimmy Carter from a realistic political analysis.

Citizens United is a tricky thing to overturn. Clinton's Telecommunications Act is the reason the court ruled the way it did. The media would have to be deconsolidated to overturn the ruling otherwise the arguement as bad is it for the American Public is valid. People like Soros and Murdock have an unfair ability to persuade public opinion.

I like Sanders but honestly he doesn't have much of a chance passing many of his policies.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


Personally I think the start is making health insurance companies operate as non profits.

Exactly!

Insurance is supposed to be everyone pitches in a little bit (which is how it started) - to cover the costs of any catastrophic event of those who pitched in. It is not supposed to be a stock-market cash cow. It should absolutely be a non-profit industry.


I would vote for him over any of the Republicans but he will most likely be less effective than Jimmy Carter from a realistic political analysis.

Even if he doesn't manage to get Congress' ducks in a row, and his policies might very well be obstructed (by the GOPs who have refused to do anything Obama wanted (like the petulant children they are - it's called "Oppositional Defiant Disorder") he might not get it all done - even he admits that -

but the people have another log on their fire now - it started decades ago....now the Boomers are taking over - their kids (the Millennials) share their views....
and no amount of obstructionist, puerile refusal is going to stop the people from protesting.
If he wins, the momentum keeps going - even if it takes 20 more years. 20 years ago people were saying "Throw them all out!". Well, we're getting closer to that.

I think.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: luthier


Personally I think the start is making health insurance companies operate as non profits.

Exactly!

Insurance is supposed to be everyone pitches in a little bit (which is how it started) - to cover the costs of any catastrophic event of those who pitched in. It is not supposed to be a stock-market cash cow. It should absolutely be a non-profit industry.


I would vote for him over any of the Republicans but he will most likely be less effective than Jimmy Carter from a realistic political analysis.

Even if he doesn't manage to get Congress' ducks in a row, and his policies might very well be obstructed (by the GOPs who have refused to do anything Obama wanted (like the petulant children they are - it's called "Oppositional Defiant Disorder") he might not get it all done - even he admits that -

but the people have another log on their fire now - it started decades ago....now the Boomers are taking over - their kids (the Millennials) share their views....
and no amount of obstructionist, puerile refusal is going to stop the people from protesting.
If he wins, the momentum keeps going - even if it takes 20 more years. 20 years ago people were saying "Throw them all out!". Well, we're getting closer to that.

I think.



Have you read Marx or Engels. They thought the same thing about 100 years ago and I don't mean from a hysterical communism is evil perspective. I mean the philosophy they wrote and the reason for the collapse of capitalism.

They were right about many things but they were not right about the power of subversion and the effect of the media on the public. We have been made overly comfortable with possessions and the real change will have to be serious consideration regarding possessions and consumption. Millenials and boomers love gadgets. Gadgets are part of the subversion and what keeps the overlords in power. Hopefully leaders will emerge with a greater understanding of sociology and philosophy to understand the greater changes that people need to be led into.

Guys like elon musk are more effective making artifacts to change society then Bernie Sanders who has very little national policy success. It s amazing to me people still believe a candidate is going to save the world.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Of course I have read them.

The Boomers read them, too - and Millennials have grown up with anti-authoritarian parents who did so.
Gadgets are nice, sure.
But intelligent, thinking people are not totally consumed with them.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: luthier

Of course I have read them.

The Boomers read them, too - and Millennials have grown up with anti-authoritarian parents who did so.
Gadgets are nice, sure.
But intelligent, thinking people are not totally consumed with them.




Well reality, sociology, and the market say very differently.

I have said this before but my wife is an academic who has a lifetime of work experience at Universities. We have attended several lectures from research schools who say creative critical thinking is almost gone. People are youtubing everything and not learning how to critically think through problems. Which is making big problems finding lab workers with critical thinking skills.

Thats the reality. Not to mention the entitlement of the youth where everyone wants exceptions made for themselves at the expense of others.

Some people are becoming more enlightened bit its certainly not the majority.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


We have attended several lectures from research schools who say creative critical thinking is almost gone. People are youtubing everything and not learning how to critically think through problems. Which is making big problems finding lab workers with critical thinking skills.

That's exactly my point.

Do you, for some reason, think I'm arguing against your point?
I actually agree with you. Just in case you were feeling defensive - there's no reason for it.
I'm on your side in this.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: eXia7

go to work where exactly?

Anywhere. Cut a lawn, dig a ditch, open a lemonade stand. Better than sitting on your ass sucking off the teet of the working Americans. And besides...who gave the unemployed not only this economy (and for god's sake...its been 8 years) but fed their addiction to poverty and laziness? Who is trying to build a country of poor minorities who would rather forget freedom or free-will and would rather suckle off mommy-government until the livestock are no longer needed.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me, either. Maybe he's crafting a blockbuster screenplay to star Keanu or Matt Damon or something.


What he was saying was that the government would be dictating how Dr's do business. The current Dr's did not get into the profession under this mandate. It's not hard to understand the skeptisim that the US government is incapable of this task at the moment. Or that the resistance from the right and some of the left would make it impossible. Paul is using a sensational metaphore to say Dr's will be mandated how to treat by the government. How to do business. Libertarians don't like telling business what they can and can't do. At least it's a consistent arguement.

I don't agree with libertarians on the issue of healthcare but I don't think it will be an easy fix either. Personally I think the start is making health insurance companies operate as non profits.

Bernie will not be able to pass his legislation in congress which is just the truth. He will never have the votes to do so. This is where the ability to compromise comes into play. I think he does a fait job of not towing the party line and like I said his political reform is the single most important thing. However when you look at his bills the majority have a 0percent chance of passing even by liberal policy assessments. That is not a great sign for a president.

I would vote for him over any of the Republicans but he will most likely be less effective than Jimmy Carter from a realistic political analysis.

Citizens United is a tricky thing to overturn. Clinton's Telecommunications Act is the reason the court ruled the way it did. The media would have to be deconsolidated to overturn the ruling otherwise the arguement as bad is it for the American Public is valid. People like Soros and Murdock have an unfair ability to persuade public opinion.

I like Sanders but honestly he doesn't have much of a chance passing many of his policies.


There has already been talk in some corners of forcing doctors to accept patients with medicaid / medicare. one of the big trends when Obamacare was passed was many doctors moving to concierge practices or dropping patients with medicare / medicaid altogether. My own family physician of 15 years did this. In some way this is forcing Doctors to provide services when they may not want to. My understanding is that the cost and frustration of dealing with medicare / medicaid is many times greater than regular insurance and for many practices not worth the headache.

I work in banking and we are constantly under the threat of government to make loans to under served populations even if empirically they are bad risks.

The thing a lot of progressives don't seem to understand is that oppressive governments don't have to say you must do X. They often pass regulations to force you to do X indirectly while claiming that that they aren't doing any such thing.

It is like how when we have these gun control debates and someone will invariably claim no one is going door to door to confiscate guns but they ignore that the regulation essentially has the same effect.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me, either. Maybe he's crafting a blockbuster screenplay to star Keanu or Matt Damon or something.


What he was saying was that the government would be dictating how Dr's do business. The current Dr's did not get into the profession under this mandate. It's not hard to understand the skeptisim that the US government is incapable of this task at the moment. Or that the resistance from the right and some of the left would make it impossible. Paul is using a sensational metaphore to say Dr's will be mandated how to treat by the government. How to do business. Libertarians don't like telling business what they can and can't do. At least it's a consistent arguement.

I don't agree with libertarians on the issue of healthcare but I don't think it will be an easy fix either. Personally I think the start is making health insurance companies operate as non profits.

Bernie will not be able to pass his legislation in congress which is just the truth. He will never have the votes to do so. This is where the ability to compromise comes into play. I think he does a fait job of not towing the party line and like I said his political reform is the single most important thing. However when you look at his bills the majority have a 0percent chance of passing even by liberal policy assessments. That is not a great sign for a president.

I would vote for him over any of the Republicans but he will most likely be less effective than Jimmy Carter from a realistic political analysis.

Citizens United is a tricky thing to overturn. Clinton's Telecommunications Act is the reason the court ruled the way it did. The media would have to be deconsolidated to overturn the ruling otherwise the arguement as bad is it for the American Public is valid. People like Soros and Murdock have an unfair ability to persuade public opinion.

I like Sanders but honestly he doesn't have much of a chance passing many of his policies.


There has already been talk in some corners of forcing doctors to accept patients with medicaid / medicare. one of the big trends when Obamacare was passed was many doctors moving to concierge practices or dropping patients with medicare / medicaid altogether. My own family physician of 15 years did this. In some way this is forcing Doctors to provide services when they may not want to. My understanding is that the cost and frustration of dealing with medicare / medicaid is many times greater than regular insurance and for many practices not worth the headache.

I work in banking and we are constantly under the threat of government to make loans to under served populations even if empirically they are bad risks.

The thing a lot of progressives don't seem to understand is that oppressive governments don't have to say you must do X. They often pass regulations to force you to do X indirectly while claiming that that they aren't doing any such thing.

It is like how when we have these gun control debates and someone will invariably claim no one is going door to door to confiscate guns but they ignore that the regulation essentially has the same effect.


And those are valid concerns. Even less sinister the unintended consequences are also a factor.

It's much better to have meaningful debates and listen to your opposition's fears and valid points. Now a days you just make fun of the opposing side and use ad hominem attacks.

This is how nothing gets done politically. One side suggests something the other mocks them and votes no or yes without a valid debate.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join