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 Supporters Can’t Describe Socialism

page: 8
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tearman
I don't understand why anybody would want someone to become astronomically wealthy. Wealthy enough to hoard media and begin to control the flow of information. Wealthy enough to skirt the law, to buy their way out of any mistake or wrongdoing. To exercise influence over vast portions of the population, over the environment, where it is very difficult to contest them. Why should anybody be allowed to accumulate that much power?


Why should anybody be the President?

Power comes from coercion. All of the power of money comes from using the power of the government.

Get rid of coercive power and wealth will distribute itself to workers.




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

Considering how badly the right misrepresents Socialism, I'm not surprised. It's hard to get a consistent answer about what Socialism is and isn't. Then that propaganda bleeds over to the left because people want to have balanced perspectives and get confused. Heck conservative members are doing it here in this thread.


Ahhh, so Bernie Sanders supporters can't define Socialism, because of those DERN PESKY CONSERVATIVES MUDDLING the issue

LOL

I've been on so many threads here discussing Socialism and I would say the majority, talking over 90%, have no idea what it means, how it applies to the U.S., how Bernie Sanders supports it, what his history is on the matter, what "Social Democracy" is...

Nothing. It's just basically "We need better stuff, and we need it free, but we're not Marxists or anything....I still like money....but NORWAYDENMARKSWEDEN!!"

LMAO. This place is hilarious. Bernie Sanders freaks are hilarious too. It's like kids reading books about Fabled lands and animals and meadows made of chocolate...

HAHAHAHA I love it. "Low Info" voters come in every spectrum....that much is a constant.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tearman

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Tearman

So giving that much power to the government is INSANE, but as a Bernie supporter it's what you want.



Exactly. THEY want the power to decide what people get and how much they can have. It blows my mind that people like this cant see the sheer hypocrisy of their position.


I think allowing the government to check that kind of power is a far cry from giving the government that kind of power. Plus, if the power is in the hands of democracy, at least we have the theoretical ability to do something about it. What can you do if a billionare has that power? Nothing at all.


Power will go to the people working 24/7 to get it.

Get rid of the power, or else some one evil will get it someday, for sure.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Tearman
I don't understand why anybody would want someone to become astronomically wealthy. Wealthy enough to hoard media and begin to control the flow of information. Wealthy enough to skirt the law, to buy their way out of any mistake or wrongdoing. To exercise influence over vast portions of the population, over the environment, where it is very difficult to contest them. Why should anybody be allowed to accumulate that much power?


Why should anybody be the President?

Power comes from coercion. All of the power of money comes from using the power of the government.

Get rid of coercive power and wealth will distribute itself to workers.


Bernie and his dupes think there's TOO MUCH CAPITAL..

It's all about the 'working class'...

Well ya know what... SCREW the working class. We have a surplus of workers and not enough JOBS or PRODUCTION.

You can only have so much of an imbalance. Why not make it so that the true CAPITALISTS and those with CAPITAL can create more jobs, easier, and make good products or services, and can afford to PAY the WAGE EARNERS?

Nope, it's all about the WAGE EARNER...the American Proletariat.

SCREW the Proletariat. Screw Proletariat thinking.

MORE Capital...MORE creation. Less "WORKER BEES". We have enough.

And "Education"? Screw that too. It's become a culture of it's own and nobody is getting WORK and the jobs that are good paying are few and far.

And SCREW "Healthcare"..people want to prosper with GROWTH, not be broke with great teeth.

This 20th Century European/South American model of all the worst of STATE Capitalism and wide SOCIAL programs and expenditures is for the birds. What a crock of crap we've got ourselves in. And Bernie Sanders is the complete opposite of what this nation needs.

So over this circular nonsense.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tearman
Okay. So none of this adds up for me.

People aren't happy about the way things are going.
Wealth largely controls the way things are going.


The sum total of all individual's choices throughout the day controls the way things are going.

Free your mind.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Tearman
Okay. So none of this adds up for me.

People aren't happy about the way things are going.
Wealth largely controls the way things are going.


The sum total of all individual's choices throughout the day controls the way things are going.

Free your mind.



Have you ever been homeless? I mean literally sleeping in abandoned buildings homeless?

I have...and it ages you fast and you feel like garbage. And it is entirely about money.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The concept of insurance in general is socialist - pooling resources for the common good. So Obamacare forced everyone to pool their resources. Why don't you appreciate having to pool your resources?


Um no... Insurance was created as a private product and is pure Capitalism.


Likely because it's far more expensive than you imagined it would be and you resent being forced to do it when you know it's a bad deal. Welcome to socialism.



Because being forced to buy a private product isn't Socialism.


Like fraud isn't theft?

Only the government can force behavior by legal means. Force by government for the common good is socialism,



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tearman
Nobody is talking about turning the us into the soviet union. Nobody wants it. No one will try to do it. It will never happen. Get over it.


And BTW, I don't believe the right will or wants to turn us into a theocracy either!


The folks the made the Soviet Union used the useful idiots.

Wants and wishes wreck on realities. Socialism is wants and wishes, economics is reality.

Socialism is not economically possible because socialism cannot accurately allocate scarce resources in the absence of competitive bidding.

Socialism is not possible. And the people who run the world either know that or don't care.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
You don't have to be an economics major to like someone's proposed policies. Duh. How many Cruz or Trump supporters can explain supply side economics? I'm sure there are some, but it's obviously not a prerequisite for supporting a candidate.


Kinda makes you wonder about Democracy.

How can voters make the right choices unless they all know economics?



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: greencmp




I agree of course. I just ignored her demand for trillions of dollars and focused on what legal recourse may actually be available.


That's a good question. Is there any indication a crime has even been committed?

I'm not fully informed on the bailout and the mortgage crisis, I'd have to read more on it, but if that recent movie with Christian Bale had any truth to it, a lot of it also had to do with the poor consumer choices in regards to mortgages and lending.


In a nutshell,

The government decreed that low income people must be given home loans. Concurrently, the central bank created more money and the loan interest rate dropped and loans were easier to get. Many more people were eligible to purchase homes than before and by the law of supply and demand the prices of all houses went up. The prices of houses continued to increase to the extent that a person could make a living by the increase in equity of his home. Also concurrent to this was a new industry wide financial practice of using mortgages as collateral for loans. And then using those loan contracts as collateral for loans, and then using those contracts as collateral for loans...

Either the housing market saturated or the credit dried up to other market forces. The net result was millions of homeowners who could not afford the houses they had mortgaged and trillions of mortgage backed securities that had zero value.

The gov could have paid the mortgages, but instead decided pick winners and losers in the financial markets, and buy some of the contracts.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: okrian

originally posted by: TheTory
To avoid such a travesty again, we would have to allow the natural regulations and incentives of the free market to pick the winners and losers in our economy, not the whims of bureaucrats and politicians. Those banks should have failed.

"Going after the banks" is simply more government intervention to rectify past government intervention. I don't see how that works.


What free market? Unchecked capitalism destroys the free market (and has). How is there a free market when mega-corps set pricing, own the means of manufacturing and distribution (and certainly aren't going to give the competition access), write the laws, can buy out competition, own the locations where there is foot traffic (and buy the building that the competition had), have the capital to slander the competition and advertise in a way that keeps competition irrelevant, has a team of lawyers to sue the competition for who knows what (it doesn't matter because a legal battle of any kind will put the smaller competition out of business), etc. etc. etc.

The "free market" solution is a terribly sad meme that only benefits the wealthy and is keeping them in power. And you are doing their work for them.

Time/Warner anyone?


The free market was back before the mega corps. The political entrepreneurs made the mega corps and system we have today.

The free market entrepreneurs only made the stuff.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Tearman
Okay. So none of this adds up for me.

People aren't happy about the way things are going.
Wealth largely controls the way things are going.


The sum total of all individual's choices throughout the day controls the way things are going.

Free your mind.



Have you ever been homeless? I mean literally sleeping in abandoned buildings homeless?

I have...and it ages you fast and you feel like garbage. And it is entirely about money.



I have never been homeless for longer than a move. Sometimes it is hard to get a place when you have some money but no job.

Luck and savings have something to do with that too.


edit on 3-2-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   
It would seem many ATS members can't define 'socialism' either.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Wow. That was like 2pages of semicollegiate ranting to himself. Hope he won whatever argument nobody was listening to.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
Wow. That was like 2pages of semicollegiate ranting to himself. Hope he won whatever argument nobody was listening to.


He did, we were.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Tearman
Okay. So none of this adds up for me.

People aren't happy about the way things are going.
Wealth largely controls the way things are going.


The sum total of all individual's choices throughout the day controls the way things are going.

Free your mind.



Have you ever been homeless? I mean literally sleeping in abandoned buildings homeless?

I have...and it ages you fast and you feel like garbage. And it is entirely about money.



More times than I care to admit, all very different experiences.

Mostly awful but, sometimes quite enlightening and pleasant. Not that I want to ever experience it again so, I decided to make sure that I could carry my own weight.

It's one of the problems with people attempting to assign economic class to an individual, most of us move up and down the ladder throughout our lives so it just isn't possible to pigeonhole anyone.

For sure, subsidizing dependence does not encourage independence and punishing success is very effective at destroying it.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
You don't have to be an economics major to like someone's proposed policies. Duh. How many Cruz or Trump supporters can explain supply side economics? I'm sure there are some, but it's obviously not a prerequisite for supporting a candidate.


Kinda makes you wonder about Democracy.

How can voters make the right choices unless they all know economics?

That doesn't even make sense. Going by that logic, only insiders with the highest security clearances and doctorate degrees in every academic field should be allowed to vote. Then again, your first sentence implies you question the merit of democracy anyway.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Democracy is merely majority rule, I don't know why people attribute ideology to it. It has none.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: okrian

Of course not! This is why only most of his policies are socialist! This is just the second step toward transitioning this country toward socialism. He wont take it full on socialist now, just most of the way.. later, someone else will take it farther, and then farther, and before you know it we will have another civil war in order to get our country back.

FUN times! (read sarcasm here)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Yep, everything you get is free, but your paycheck is almost nonexistent.

That is not free, its comes from you and other people in the form of crippling taxes.




top topics



 
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join