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.

 

Can anyone give me a real reason Bernie is bad for America?

page: 15
37
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: TheSorrow

We hear the argument often, but government services, public works, and public expenditures is not "socialism" by any stretch of the imagination.


According to who?




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: TheSorrow




Did you read my comments? The government does a lot more than you realize.


I said what the government does is not "socialism", unless it is a socialist government.


According to who?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




According to who?


According to history. Tax collecting and public expenditure, militaries, law and order, public works, have been around long before socialism was even conceived.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

You bring up a very valid point, and I agree with some of your argument. However, I don't believe the solution to that is to elect someone who would so drastically change the landscape of our government. And I honestly can't see these surveillance programs would go away if he were elected, if anything they would probably only get larger.

Let's say hypothetically he does shutdown these programs, and I can feel safe texting pictures of my junk to my wife FINALLY! We would still be looking at a dramatic increase in taxes, and not just for the "1%". These increases will touch every American in a negative way. It will start out with the top earners, and eventually expand to the middle class. Can you afford to pay an additional $1000 in taxes? $2000-$5000? This is just your income taxes we are taking about. All the while, the price most goods and services climbs.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Oh... I see.

You are making it up as you go.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSorrow I just don't really understand....how has he said he wants to dominate or control the economy? In what way? Or education or healthcare? I saw his tax proposal....its a few percentage points, pretty much negligible for the vast majority, and even for the top tier it is quite a small increase. I think most of his plan was about closing loopholes.

All the western industrialized world other than the US has single payer health and education....but they still allow private for both....and the majority of them have better outcomes than ours for both and at half the cost. They are non-profit, and not mandatory but available....that's not government control, that's using the massive buying power of a whole nation to help get wholesale prices for necessary services.


I hardly think raising minimum wage a horrific idea. The business owners in the >1% are able to vote themselves raises quite easily, due to lobbying, offshoring, and exploitation....since the destruction of unions, the government is one of the few remnants of the labor wars that help protect us from being subject to the exact same practices and policies that the VERY SAME COMPANIES we work for perpetrate in china or south America. They have increased their wealth massively in the last 8 years by taking it from the rest of us.


And, lets be honest here....if the government stayed out of it completely, then you would be subject to the laws of the biggest bully up the block who could afford bigger guns than you, or who could afford to buy up all the food in your area and make you pay what he wants for it. That's what the "wild west" and the feudal times were like, and there would be no clint eastwood or john wayne in your town to help you out.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




Oh... I see.

You are making it up as you go.


Calling government services "socialism" would be making it up as you go.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

I don't think I was clear enough. I don't like the FEDERAL Government to be as involved as it is. Bernie Sanders along with all the other candidates want more government control. both the GOP and the DEMS want more money and more power and larger a government to make it happen. I guess you can make an argument that the GOP wants to control these aspects of life while the DEMS only want to control this aspect of life. I want them both out of my life. The Federal Government is heavily involved with all the aspects of life I mentioned before including education the economy and healthcare.

I know there is a growing movement of people you want the government to run their lives. I'm just not one of them.
edit on 2-2-2016 by TheSorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

No, It would be going by the definition.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: smitastrophe



i.imgur.com... well, the thing is, if I didn't need to pay my families premium I would be saving almost 5k a year alone. Add to that that most jobs I worked (hospital) offer an option of benefits, or per diem....see if you choose not to get benefits they save 10k a year on you, so they offer you usually about 5-8k more in salary. Add to that there would be no insurance industry anymore, which alone would drop the actual cost of our healthcare by almost half.....and the burden of our medicare expansion act would be lifted so we would no longer be spending several hundred percent for the same drugs as other nations....this would greatly reduce the cost our businesses have to bear for our health system to maybe 1/3 of what they are now taken together.

So....I have more money, the businesses save more money, and we get single payer, non profit healthcare and education? Whats not to like? It can easily surpass our current for profit system which exploits the sick, injured, and uneducated/ unemployed.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




No, It would be going by the definition.


How does the definition of socialism imply that government services are "socialist"?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Look, if you decide to remove education and health care from the economy then you are dominating and controlling them.

If the government pays for them, then the government must decide how that market works, top to bottom. You don't actually think that the schools and/or doctors and other providers will just continue to write their own bills do you?

No.

The government has limited resources because it only has that revenue it steals from us in the form of tax monies. It has a very large number of things it must spend this on. If you decide that it MUST pay for every American's college tuition and every American's health needs, then you are adding enormous costs on an annual basis to that budget.

It is unrealistic in the extreme to assume that we can simply continue to take all that we need to the tune of an additional $18 trillion/year out of an already weak economy without the government imposing price and wage controls on those markets: health and higher education. Whenever that happens, those markets suffer. It is a matter of historical fact. But such control will be necessary. Absent wage and price controls, then you are looking at control to access which means rationing. Realistically, you are looking at some mix of heavy taxation, wage and price control, and rationing in both markets in order to even have a hope of providing your fairy tale dreams.


edit on 2-2-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Instead of me writing a long reply explaining it in detail which would most likely be ignored I found an article that answers your questions in detail with examples that you will probably ignore.

link



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSorrow who do you think wants the government to run their lives? No one, NO ONE wants bigger government. There is not a single person I or you have ever met that has said "We need our government to have more power....they just don't have enough!" But what has sanders said that implies more government workers with greater power to restrict your freedoms? How is having non profit healthcare and education available for all alongside private healthcare and education a restriction of your freedoms?

At times in my life, the worry about medical bills and education costs alone have made me feel more trapped than almost anything else. I managed through luck, smarts, and charisma, and now my wife and I are firmly middle class but I look around me at many of my peers who just were not lucky or charismatic enough and still struggle to get by. Its a fallacy that our system rewards hard work, and the whole American dream is just that for most people. Opportunity comes from certain vectors, and a lot of it is not based off of your ability..... Fact of the matter is our corporate system no longer rewards hard work. The guy next to me can work harder than me, or laze about, but none of us are getting raises or promotions, because the hospitals only concern is paying people as low as possible, while funneling through as many patients as possible, and if someone came along with less experience or ability, but would do the work for a few bucks less, they would hire them over me in an instant.

damn, I'm rambling....anyhow, point is, I would like to be born a millionaire....but its not the way it is. So instead I will try to make the best with what I have, and not hold out waiting to be reborn in the next life as a trust funder. We would like freedom and security without government, but that cant exist in our predatory society, so I would posit that in such a landscape, at least pushing for those that we deduce as being uncorrupted (or at least less) due to their voting records and bankrolling reports, we can try to use the system to protect ourselves from the predations of the great powers of our time. I'm thinking people like Kucinnich, Gravel, Paul, Sanders, Warren, Perot....theres not a long list of them, but there are or have been a handful with integrity, and they are easy to recognize....they are the most attacked and ridiculed by the establishment, specifically because they are working to buck the status quo. (kicks soapbox aside....for now)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Those thing restrict your freedom because of the fact that they will become government run monopolies.

In order to have a true single payer system in health care, the government runs the entire health care market. Your doctor becomes a de facto government employee as does anyone else involved in the health care system. Think of Britain's NHS which actually has more employees than the US military. Let that sink in and imagine the size of the bureaucratic monster a similar system in the US would create.

You would have one provider for all your health services - the government. If the government decided that a particular service was not an option for you for whatever reason, there's is the only court of appeal. And you would be naïve in the extreme to believe there would be no claims denials. Medicaid and Medicare deny claims all the time.

You would likely be assigned a doctor under such a system and if he sucked ... too bad. And if you didn't like the treatment options he recommended, a second opinion wouldn't matter because those are the options the government bureaucrats allow. There are no other allowed options. You might have the option to a second, fully private system, but you would be forever beyond the government one in all things then, so you better be rich.

Why do you think medical tourism is a thing?

Government run systems restrict your liberties because they often take lots of your hard-earned money in taxes in various ways in order to pay for those systems (think public schools). They restrict your freedom of choice within the system you are taxed to pay for (when was the last time you chose either your preferred public school or the teacher you preferred inside your public school). And your loss of money offers you less freedom for everything else.

edit on 2-2-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

So you cannot explain it yourself? It seems like you haven't thought about it at all, and are merely a parrot.

Here's the definition of socialism according to your article:

"Socialism is taxpayer funds being used collectively to benefit society as a whole, despite income, contribution, or ability".

Here's the definition of socialism according to the dictionary:


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


According to wikipedia:


Socialism is a political ideology and movement[1] which has proposed a set of social and economic measures, policies[2] and systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[7][11][12]


So far not so good for the dailykos. If you can find me any definition of socialism that comes close to theirs, I won't ignore your article outright for being ideologically driven lies.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko how are you removing them from the economy? Does france, brittain, the Netherlands, not have private insurance and healthcare available? 18 Trillion a year...no, its 18 trillion over a decade.....less than we will pay during that time with ACA....and it would be one or the other, so no, its not adding 18 trillion. If it supplanted ACA (which is 30 trillion) then we would actually be saving 12 trillion.

Do Canada and Scandinavia exercise wage and price controls? I'm not sure....but I DO know for a fact that our corporations exercise price controls. Were just debating the direction of price control here apparently, one up and one down. One created by artificial scarcity, used to extort those in serious need, and one created by the actual value of the product, used to provide needed services without price gouging. I am pretty sure that nurses get similar pay in Europe and Canada to what we get here, and while doctors may get less, they are not living skinny.


At any rate, its not called a fairy tale when it actually exists in many places in the world. Fairy tales are things that never have existed.....my "fairy tale dream" is something that every single other western industrialized nation but us has. That doesn't make them the fairy tale....it makes us the backwater nightmare.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

We have not had a free market system in my lifetime. It has been socialist. In fact, every paycheck that I earned the government automatically takes a percentage. I could go on but I think everyone understands how out-of-control the government is.

I know Bernie Sanders, and all other candidates want a larger government (including the GOP) and desire more control over individual lives by expanding the government and raising taxes.

For example- The health care issue was not a problem until the federal government got so involved over the last several decades. now that it's out of control everyone wants more big government to have even more control. This will only make matters worse.

The answer is going back to freedom and liberty. If you're looking for someone else like Berny sanders to fix these problems for you, you will be met with disappointment. Take responsibility and take care of your own life. Of course we can't afford to do this because the government taxes the crap out of us.

The average American will spend approximately 70% of their lifetime earnings on taxes. People forget about hidden taxes including sales tax and gasoline tax. It all adds up.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Yes, those countries do.

I see you haven't spent much time researching this.

Since I have a chronic condition that would be drastically impacted by a change in our health care system, I have.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory




So you cannot explain it yourself? It seems like you haven't thought about it at all, and are merely a parrot.


No, I just don't feel like wasting my time on you when I had already figured out you would ignore any explanation I gave.





Here's the definition of socialism according to the dictionary:


Very good using the oxford dictionary, however I don't know why you are quoting the definition. The definition was never in question.

You asked me how the definition of socialism imply to government services and I provided you with a link. The link is still there if you earnestly want to understand.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join