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: 25
37
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Can only trust a person running for 'president' that advocates the hanging of treasonous terrorists that are currently or have been in a governmental position acting as such. None of them say, we're going to hang Donald Rumsfield for depleted uranium, much less, George Bush and et. cetera...

No one will disagree with me... Try it, dare you...




posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

No one has proven that this "repackaging socialism" thing is bad - They've used it with a negative connotation, but proving that the connotation is just STILL has not happened.

Show me how national healthcare is breaking Switzerland.
Show me how higher minimum wages in France, Belgium, Germany are "destroying the world"
Show me any shred of proof that the moves he wants to take - Similar to what other nations already had the sense to do, are bad moves. SHOW ME.


Switzerland's Income tax rate is 40%. That is across their footprint. The average household income of Switzerland is a little over $35K while the US average household income is nearly $52K with people at or below this rate paying 0 income tax. Tell them they are going to lose more to pay for more and more social policies will not end well with a nation that it's poor have more automobiles, TV's and air conditioned living than any other poor in the world.

And to assume we can only tax the rich to pay for all these social programs is an absolute economic nincompoop. The only way to pay for all these social programs will have to be done through EVERYONE taking on a substantial tax burden.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: stutteringp0et

I definitely support small business and wish they were actually taxed quite a bit less than large corporations. They are typically locally owned and supported, they aren't usually taking home millions, and every small business I've worked at has much better working conditions and pay than a large place. A lot of people on all sides of politics agree small business should be the backbone of America. Right now, corporations are given unfair advantages in the form of tax loop holes, subsidies, legislation that benefits them ( insurance companies love Obamacare I hear) - I wouldn't ever desire to write legislation that breaks up a big company, but I'd defined remove every one of these benefits they are receiving.

There's this false mindset in the minds of a lot of people.

When talking to an individual, you can tell them that education, the right career path and choices, etc will make them be able to get a better job with better pay.

When addressing the masses.. You can't tell tens of millions of people that if they all worked hard and got education, their situation would change. More and more adults and parents are working those entry level jobs - more and more skilled people are working entry level jobs. The housing market crash put a lot of skilled workers out of work.

Is this the fault of fast food restaurants? Not really. I actually agree that those jobs are often good jobs for teenagers just getting into the workforce, that's what I did myself and I made enough money to save thousands as a teenager.

However, the blame can be assigned to major corporations, economy manipulation, greed and the like.. The banks failing, for instance, and we bailed them out at the same time that they threw people out their homes due to foreclosure... They should be the ones boosting our economy again.

The answer isn't to raise taxes across the board, nor create an unfair market for small businesses. The answer is to hold the rich and elite responsible for their crimes. The banks included. Oil companies and their ever funded wars included.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bearack

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

No one has proven that this "repackaging socialism" thing is bad - They've used it with a negative connotation, but proving that the connotation is just STILL has not happened.

Show me how national healthcare is breaking Switzerland.
Show me how higher minimum wages in France, Belgium, Germany are "destroying the world"
Show me any shred of proof that the moves he wants to take - Similar to what other nations already had the sense to do, are bad moves. SHOW ME.


Switzerland's Income tax rate is 40%. That is across their footprint. The average household income of Switzerland is a little over $35K while the US average household income is nearly $52K with people at or below this rate paying 0 income tax. Tell them they are going to lose more to pay for more and more social policies will not end well with a nation that it's poor have more automobiles, TV's and air conditioned living than any other poor in the world.

And to assume we can only tax the rich to pay for all these social programs is an absolute economic nincompoop. The only way to pay for all these social programs will have to be done through EVERYONE taking on a substantial tax burden.



And here in this country expanded socialism means corporate and business welfare in the form of the system expanding its net to include better care of work visa folks, immigrants ect. You know to make it more attractive for them to come over and work for minimum wage while Joe Blows great grand son, Blows family having been in america for 200 years and fought in all the wars, ect ect gets fines every year for not having insurance and otherwise doesn't qualify for non-citizen safety net incentives.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: centarix

Can anyone at all tell me they don't drive on roads? Very few that have Internet can say this.

Can you tell me you've never used nor ever will use social security, Medicaid, food stamps, or anything else?

Ever gone to a public park?

Do you enjoy food from grocery stores, delivered by large trucks who drive on roads paid for by taxes to the government....

Pretty much everyone decrying "socialism" enjoys all of these other things that are "socialistic"
Roads are a communist and/or fascist enterprise, but not a socialist idea. So, I don't believe that is a good example. Can I rob your house and then offer and make it up to you by offering you a ham sandwich and a taxi ride the next day? I'm sorry but you can't make up for doing wrong by offering me a less bad deal on other stuff. Social Security.... take 16% of my money and give it back later to me at 0% interest. No thanks. Bad deal. Food stamps.... a $74 billion program paid for mostly by 122 million Federal Income Tax payers. So that is $606 per year for something giving maximum benefits of roughly $2,000 per year for an adult. So, unless I'm going to be on food stamps about half the time, that is a bad deal. No thanks to that one to. I'll chose the risk of starving to death instead. But, you don't want me to have that option, right?

Do you or do you not wish to force me into a social contract that is a bad deal for me, when I'd rather just withdraw me along with the my land from a morally wrong corporation?

There is only one circumstance where governments seem to offer me a service or support, which is when their is an unfair deal to force upon me where they end up on top. Government officials live more financially prosperous lives than the average person. They always have, and always were. That is evidence their system is a scam where they benefit to the detriment of others.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: centarix

It would be very difficult to separate people who want to participate from those who don't...

I do believe in the choice. It would just be nearly possible to monitor.

You cannot travel public roads.
No public assistance for you, ever.
The government will never help with any medical costs.
You cannot go to publicly ran parks.
The police will not respond to your calls...
Firemen will not put out fires on your property

Everything you do... Would have to be owned by private corporations and people.

I don't see this being realistic, nor a situation many want...

Unless you just mean you want your own little world of things funded.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: centarix

It would be very difficult to separate people who want to participate from those who don't...

I do believe in the choice. It would just be nearly possible to monitor.

You cannot travel public roads.
No public assistance for you, ever.
The government will never help with any medical costs.
You cannot go to publicly ran parks.
The police will not respond to your calls...
Firemen will not put out fires on your property

Everything you do... Would have to be owned by private corporations and people.

I don't see this being realistic, nor a situation many want...

Unless you just mean you want your own little world of things funded.
Why should it have to be all or nothing?

I'll pay for my use of the roads and public parks. As for the rest of it, I can buy insurance and get a much better deal. I'll pass on the police and fire protection. Police are a clean-up crew and only prevent wrongs in rare circumstances. Fire protection is mostly only useful in cities where a neighbor's house fire can spread to your house.

Mennonites and Quakers can and do opt out of Social Security. Now I want that option and then the option to opt out of all the rest of them. Government must have the consent of the governed to be a valid organization. They don't have my consent at the moment because they are highly immoral and corrupt.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Necrose

You Nailed it
You people better wake up and start thinking outside the box.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

That's a ridiculous argument and not even close to the same thing. You obviously don't know how roads get funded and approved and eventually built. Hint, government workers aren't building roads in the USA like they do in the EU.

Fire departments used to be private but they didn't have steady income so they forced people to pay for them by becoming a public service...that's when they became first responders as less than 5% of calls are actual fires and they were being paid full time to mostly sit around. People were getting upset they were paying for a service that was hardly used.

The LA fire department is broke as it is completely mismanaged by the city. Since it doesn't have to compete it just wastes money and then gets the city to up local taxes to pay for it...

Private Fire, Just like private police, would have to compete for cities to use their business. We wouldn't see nearly as many problems between the community and police if they were private and had to compete for their jobs.
edit on 11-2-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: icewater

Driven by Envy of what?

What is my specific motive to desire Bernie Sanders for president?

I'm in good health. Have not been to a doctor for many years, do not see myself going for many years. His healthcare is not alluring to me as applied to me. ( Dodging that dumb piece a garbage obamacare fine wouldn't be a bad thing, though. )

I do not plan to attend any college. His free college ideas are not things I desire.

On the argument of business moving over seas?

I'd definitely encourage legislation to NOT affiliate with businesses that do not give their workers a reasonable wage. We used to have such trade laws, it's not a fantasy, it's not crazy - USA has the most purchasing power IN THE WORLD. We are not ones that are going to crumble super easily when a businessman has a bad day.

I don't live in

You are driven by envy of either rich people or you envy communist and socialist countries whose citizens do not have to worry about the common worries of life, like where the mortgage payment is coming from next month. To admit you do not plan to go to school, have no need for health insurance (assuming you have your own), or plan to take advantage of other of Bernie's socialist programs makes me wonder why you are so hot on Bernie.

Tell us then....why do you seem so interested in Bernie's programs? He will not be able to resolve all of the social problems of our country. The Executive Branch has very little authority when it comes to the economy. Yeah, the President can lobby congress hard to lower or raise taxes...that will do it. He or she can encourage Congress to establish trade tariffs, that will also do it. And he or she can increase relations with foreign countries to TRY to get them to trade with companies in the United States but that is entirely up to the commercial world. The President can increase the size of government, thereby increase the number of jobs but aside from screwing with the tax rates for business he or she cannot affect the number of jobs in this country. I get a big kick out of Obama bragging about the number of jobs he has created. He does not create jobs; Business creates jobs. Clinton got lucky with the dot.com boom. He did nothing, absolutely nothing to create that industry yet took all the credit for the things it did for the economy. Then when it took a dive Clinton was nowhere to be found.

Sanders will be a disaster if by some quirk of fate he gets elected. Clinton too but that is another post. Bernie will not ever be a Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. I cannot imagine serving under him. Bill Clinton was bad enough with Hillary running around the White House screaming how much they hate the military. Did you notice Deadly during the Obama State of the Union address when the President announced what great shape the military was in that every democrat in the room stood up and cheered, every member of the cabinet stood up and cheered, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff sat quietly and did not move? Then Obama announced what a great fighting force the men and women of the military were and the Joint Chiefs came to their feet to cheer. In other words, the democrats have decimated our military fighting capability despite the efforts of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

I hate to tell you this Deadly but if you support Bernie you are backing someone who will further the destruction of our country. Hillary is still in the nineties with her issues but won't be able to govern from a prison cell. So your best bet is a Republican. Personally I don't know who to tell you to vote for. I would prefer someone who has actually been an executive of something, unlike people who call themselves a Senator and who actually only thinks stuff up and expects someone else to do it. In the real world those people are called Ideas people and if you have been in the real world for any length of time, which I suspect you have, you know that label is not a compliment.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: qwerty12345
Can only trust a person running for 'president' that advocates the hanging of treasonous terrorists that are currently or have been in a governmental position acting as such. None of them say, we're going to hang Donald Rumsfield for depleted uranium, much less, George Bush and et. cetera...

No one will disagree with me... Try it, dare you...


You're right - I can't disagree with you... until you can explain just how "depleted uranium" = "treason" (the hanging offense you mention). Until that point comes, the post is just too disjointed to comprehend enough to disagree with - I'm more prone to just write it off and move on. I can think of a number of reasons to try them for treason, but depleted uranium is not one of those reasons. Can you come up with any other, valid, ones?



edit on 2016/2/12 by nenothtu because: spelling



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: centarix

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: centarix

It would be very difficult to separate people who want to participate from those who don't...

I do believe in the choice. It would just be nearly possible to monitor.

You cannot travel public roads.
No public assistance for you, ever.
The government will never help with any medical costs.
You cannot go to publicly ran parks.
The police will not respond to your calls...
Firemen will not put out fires on your property

Everything you do... Would have to be owned by private corporations and people.

I don't see this being realistic, nor a situation many want...

Unless you just mean you want your own little world of things funded.


Mennonites and Quakers can and do opt out of Social Security. Now I want that option and then the option to opt out of all the rest of them. Government must have the consent of the governed to be a valid organization. They don't have my consent at the moment because they are highly immoral and corrupt.


Social Security, the way its set up, the way its paid for ect ect is not something for which an exemption can be ok for one segment of society but the same opt up cannot be extended to all. The government gets to look like it is not imposing its will over the constitutional rights of a protected class. However everyone else is screwed.......because they have no constitutional exemption? Its not voluntary is the point and the concessions made to Quakers and Mennonites are simple patronizations made to give the impression that the government is constitutionally bound when in truth is doesn't give a rats ass in this case.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Something else I wanted to add, the infrastructure of this country was mostly built by private enterprise. The railroads, the airlines, the "public" transit systems. All were built by private corporations FOR PROFIT.

The City of NYC for example BOUGHT the elevated and subway lines from private corporations. Why? Because the city had it's own competing subway line that was awful and broke as it could be. They forced the sale of the private lines so they could bolster their income for the IND line. The result?

The public transportation system in NYC is one of the best in the world, but has been perennially broke and in perpetual disrepair. Many New Yorkers think the city built the fine system they used on a daily basis, when the opposite is true. Private enterprise built the system and the city has let it stagnate. Spending millions on a cool facade is now what the system needed (in the case of the Trade Center) but instead much needed repair and expansion on existing lines/new lines.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Let's not confuse modern times with history.

I will never say business has no place.

I will never say capitalism does not have its virtues.

I will never say I'd prefer more government officials over more entrepreneurs.

However, everything is cyclical. Right now corporations are too big, too powerful, and leverage their size to control the workers into meager circumstances.

I believe the fortune 500 companies are mostly bad for the average, and the several companies could replace most companies on the list, create better competition and a more fluid and dynamic economy.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Do you understand what fortune 500 means? It's simply the top 500 grossing companies. If you break them up you'd still have a fortune 500. I get the feeling you have no knowledge of economics which is probably why you support Bernie. That guy doesn't either.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I suppose top 50 companies would be a better example.

Say Walmart never existed and there's 20 different stores instead... All different owners. All different share holders. All different stocks..

So 20 millionaires would be around instead of one billionaire, right?

20 stores now competing with their prices, their work conditions, etc..

How is this bad?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

don't worry deadly hope, you have more knowledge of economics and common sense than most people!


eta: The saddest part of these discussions is seeing how the banksters/eliite/money grubbers have just about convinced the majority of people that they deserve what they've got.
edit on 17-2-2016 by toolgal462 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   
This made me chuckle for multiple reasons

www.nytimes.com...

1) Liberal economists says Sander's plans won't work
2) Then they say that the Democrat party uses 'evidence-based policy making' and has a 'reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic.'

Of course the article ends with a general swipe every GOP idea but that's to be expected. They are still libs and it's still the NY Times.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Technically speaking the economy has always done better under democratic control. Pumping fiat money into an economy will do that.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Because that isn't how it works...




top topics



 
37
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join