I am a conservative, but anything is better than a socialist

a reply to: russ212

Its funny how Bernie is making waves . Like in this piece .

By Matt Taibbi

February 08, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Rolling Stone" - Lloyd Blankfein, Chief Executive Cephalopod of Goldman Sachs, issued a warning about the Bernie Sanders campaign this week.

"This has the potential to be a dangerous moment," he said on CNBC's Squawk Box.

The Lloyd was peeved that Sanders, whom he's never met, singled him out in a debate last week. "Another kid from Brooklyn, how about that," he lamented.

He ranted about how frightening it is that a candidate like Sanders, who seems to have no interest in "compromising" with Wall Street, could become so popular.

"Could you imagine," he asked, "if the Jeffersons and Hamiltons came in with a total pledge and commitment to never compromise with the other side?"

The slobbering Squawk Box hosts went on to propose firing all the academics in the country, because clearly it is their fault that so many young people are willing to support a socialist.

"I'm ready," said co-host Joe Kernen, "to send my daughter to Brigham Young or Liberty or something."

Then Kernen, Becky Quick and Blankfein all made jokes about how socialism doesn't work and how all those Berniebots should take a trip to Cuba.

"The best real-time experiment is, I went to Cuba," said Lloyd.

"I haven't been," Kernen said proudly.

"You should go," said Lloyd. "You go there, stop in Miami and you just see the Cuban community and how much wealth they've generated.

Of course the politics of Sanders is closer to what you'd find in Sweden or Denmark than Cuba, but they were rolling by then.

www.informationclearinghouse.info... I wonder is Cuba being under a embargo by the US had or has any bearing on why Cuba might be like it is ??? NAAAA .

a reply to: luthier

Many Republicans are also interventionists.

You are correct, both parties are actively responsible for and/or pursuant to interventionism and, ultimately, socialism.

That is the progression that must be blunted and, hopefully, rolled back.

a reply to: greencmp

How though. We just keep insulting each other. The two parties just keep petty attacks ip and every election for the past 20 years has been nearly divided 50/50. It's sad. Fleeced by both sides and argueing about the technicalities of the fleecing.

A few things we should agree on. Elections should be publically funded. Not by unions or superpacs, or billionaires of either persuasion.

Senators shouldn't spend 70 percent of their time begging for money.

We don't need to tell people how to live their lives or what they do at home.

a reply to: russ212

You are correct. Given that there has been very little test of his policies in the territorial, social and economic, American model (besides perhaps the 15$ minimum wage in some places – the jury is still out on that one) the promise that they will work is rainbows and smoke, as you put it, but I would also throw in "nonsense" for good measure. Without real-world examples, all we have is theory, and so far, theory has failed countless times.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
a reply to: russ212

I disagree.

Like it or not, the future of this planet will be a universal system of one world government socialism.

It doesn't mean that you can't have your 50 acre ranch, but it will mean that those with nothing (including brain cells) still get to have basic housing, healthcare, food and higher education.

Very well stated EmmanuelGoldstein. I could not agree more.

We are at the beginning stages of replacing workers with technology, and in time we'll only have less and less work for people to do. In the end we need a system that works for everyone, not just individuals.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: greencmp

How though. We just keep insulting each other. The two parties just keep petty attacks ip and every election for the past 20 years has been nearly divided 50/50. It's sad. Fleeced by both sides and argueing about the technicalities of the fleecing.

A few things we should agree on. Elections should be publically funded. Not by unions or superpacs, or billionaires of either persuasion.

Senators shouldn't spend 70 percent of their time begging for money.

We don't need to tell people how to live their lives or what they do at home.

Our constitution had it right, government is existentially indispensable and, simultaneously, the greatest threat to individual liberty. Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments for starters.

It was designed to form a balance of power between the three federal branches, the states and the people. When functioning as intended, the federal government should not be able to do very much at all.

Limiting funding for election candidates to public dollars is both a misuse of taxpayers money and a violation of the first amendment. Public sector unions already use public funds for their agendas, limiting its opposition by force would amount to authoritarian single party state politics.

a reply to: greencmp

There is plenty of publically funded elections in the history of the US.

We have technically become an oligarchy which is every bit as dangerous as a state party.

Elections should be funded by the public. The telecom act created citizens united. It is a disaster.

a reply to: russ212

We have socialism now, except it's for the corporations with huge tax breaks, subsidies paid for by the taxpayers and preferential treatment by tptb, hidden off shore accounts and lobbyist that tell the govt what to do.

All this Bernie socialism rhetoric is just BS promoted by the scared ****less GOP. Bernie can't singularly highhandedly institute socialism in a solid Corporate oligarchy. That's just silly...

a reply to: luthier

I feel the same way... As much as I dislike socialism, Sanders won't be able to do much other than bring awareness..

*** THOUGH, what most people don't seem to be talking about is that the next president has the chance to nominate up to 4 supreme court justices. This is in my mind the biggest issue to vote on for your next president. ***

a reply to: russ212

I think you meant to say, "I'm a liberal but anything is better than a socialist".


a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

No thank you.

We dont want one world anything.

Not to mention the fact that socialism just doesnt work. These systems collapse under their own weight because the givers are only able to support the takers for so long.

The EU is a good example. They erased the borders and created a "one-world government" and a "one-world" currency. One nation after another has collapsed under its own debt and their "solution" is to give them more loans ie debt...

Even here, EVERYthing that our government touches from housing to healthcare to student loans has resulted in booms and busts, skyrocketing prices and a sharp decline in the quality of services.

We're not allowed to provide for ourselves. We are inundated with taxes, fees, rules, regulations, licenses, approvals, permits etc.

Government WANTS to make us a bunch of dependent slaves, because it perpetuates THEIR existence and power.

We're not allowed to grow our own food.

Stop arresting people for growing their own garden.

We cant build a shelter.

'All I wanted to do is build a house'.

We’re not even allowed to have a lemonade stand.

America's Attack On Lemonade Stands.

There is a solution but its not socialism and its definitely not more government.

It begins with government getting off our backs and honest money ie getting rid of the Federal Reserve and the Rothschild debt based monetary system.

And when he had the chance for real change, Bankster puppet Sanders sided with the Banks and the Fed.

Ron Paul says Bernie Sanders 'sold out' on Fed amendment.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: russ212

We have socialism now, except it's for the corporations with huge tax breaks, subsidies paid for by the taxpayers and preferential treatment by tptb, hidden off shore accounts and lobbyist that tell the govt what to do.

All this Bernie socialism rhetoric is just BS promoted by the scared ****less GOP. Bernie can't singularly highhandedly institute socialism in a solid Corporate oligarchy. That's just silly...

What's currently taking place is not socialism but crony capitalism. And crony capitalism is the result of free market capitalism, where some grow stronger financially and then take over.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Yes, I lament the death of the good ole days as well.
I know its going to be painful and it will actually get worse until it levels out, but...

Once future generations grow up under the new rules and as our generations die out, the world will have changed.

When the entire world is one currency and one nation, we would no longer "owe" debt to anyone but ourselves.
Money could actually be eliminated except for those that can accumulate it somehow.
And it wont be accumulated through corporations or business as usual, that will all be controlled by the State. Money could be accumulated through merit on the individual basis. Merit through art, science, literature, etc.


The real painful part of this plan will be the final "payment" before we reach this utopia.

With all of the money eliminated and or irrelevant to day to day life, the only thing that will need to be kept in place is overall population levels.

That part isn't going to be pretty, but for the most part it will happen quickly and without you really even knowing it is going on - unless you are on the list somehow.

But in the end, I can see the world united under Education and Science. Scattered around the globe will be groups of very large clean energy cities that each house millions of people.

The rest of the world (95% of the surface of the Earth) will be left to grow back into a Protected Natural Environment.

A place that all can explore as if it was our own park.

If those natives that still exist in South America continue to go without contact, who knows, they may end up getting lucky and getting the whole world back to themselves. Not that they would know it.

originally posted by: russ212
I am a conservative, but anything is better than a socialist

I am a socialist, but anything is better than a conservative!

"What is Socialism? | World Socialist Movement
www.worldsocialism.org/english/what-socialism
Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population."

a reply to: luthier

PS how did Bush do with his bailouts

Who's bailout?

How about we talk about the real problem. Paying for social programs isn't the problem for the average family. It's the billions we shell out to the already billionaires.

In 2012, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 per year paid just $36 towards the food stamps program.

That's just ten cents a day!

The average American family pays a staggering $6,000 a year in subsidies to Republican-friendly big business.

Source

Good news then! Because Sanders isn't actually a socialist!


All he's really talking about is maybe redirecting some of the state wealth away from multi-billionaires and mega-corporations, and using some of it to maybe improve the lot of the actual people of the United States.

He's a capitalist. Just he's trying to oppose the sheer banditry of the system currently in place.

originally posted by: Painterz
Good news then! Because Sanders isn't actually a socialist!


All he's really talking about is maybe redirecting some of the state wealth away from multi-billionaires and mega-corporations, and using some of it to maybe improve the lot of the actual people of the United States.

He's a capitalist. Just he's trying to oppose the sheer banditry of the system currently in place.

Good post, and many don't know this because they just take what they hear as gospel instead of reading his policies.

a reply to: russ212

I dissagree. His idiology works around the world. What makes the states different? Why wont it work? You make these accusations but you dont provide any facts as to why or how he will destroy the economy.

Wait what?

You still think You can actually choose a new leader?

a reply to: russ212

These attack adds are all the same. The info comes from wallstreet. The guys who dont pay their fair share. They guts that stand to lose the most if bernie wins, which makes it very biased against him. It also does not account for the millions if not billions of dollars generated from the rich actually having to pay their fair share in federal taxes.

Legalizing weed will also generate millions if not billions in revenue for the government. Its not that bad. Also the states could cut back in military spending that would help out too.