The Truth of Sanders is That He Is a Socialist.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If just voting for a "little socialism" is okay, has there ever been a time when any country voted for a little less?

How does one vote themselves out of government control?

I think the vote was meant as a veto against over reaching laws originally by the Founding Fathers.

Although I have never heard anyone say that, it seems to go along with

"When the people find that they can vote them selves the treasury, we will lose our form of government"

a reply to: luthier

The market was free when the Rockefellors ruled the day and children worked in coal mines because they were cheaper to hire than men. That isn't good either.

Children worked because they had too. Like children used to have to get up and milk the cow, or feed the chickens, or skin the rabbits...

There is more wealth, i.e. technology, food, entertainment.. etc., in the world today from the action of the free market.

Children don't have to work today because the of increase in the living standard due entirely the free market.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So the market wasnt free before the federal reserve in the late 1800's

Well I guess it's a myth then.

In retrospect the market was not free. It was taken over by political entrepreneurs so some claim of government was implicit over the free market.

The free market is what happens when people can trade any surplus for anything voluntarily offered. It stopped being free when that was regulated.

In one sense there is always a free market, which is voluntary trade.

In another sense, when government exists, there cannot be a free market. The government can claim and take anything with the backing or indifference of the people.

Compared to the 20th Century governmtns, the market of the 1900's was free.

By the Way-- The free market of the 1800's halved the price of everything and invented or made the industrial base for everything we have today. Socialism is eating out that surplus made by the Free Market. That is why after the Century of Socialism there is a debt as big as all of the food and housing.

in my opinion a form of socialism would work if everyone was on board. the 1 percent and high wage, educated, successful "go getter" people would have to want to share their money to help create more jobs not more handouts and welfare, in my opinion welfare should be to temporarily help people in dire situations get back on their feet. as of right now I do not see that happening, and even if the elite were willing to pay more taxes for the betterment of society I do not see the government ever being able or trusted dispersing the money and being fair, efficient and cost effective with the extra tax money.

perhaps we need a hybrid form of capitalism/socialism, sanders for potus trump for vpotus and let our system of checks and balances force both sides to work together to come up with a plan that can work for ALL of us.

a reply to: DBCowboy

in our system of government, we are very free to vote ourselves into slavery.

Feel the burn yet?

Should be a billboard everywhere.

a reply to: greencmp

"Every ingenious man is free to start new business projects. He may be poor, his funds may be modest and most of them may be borrowed. But if he fills the wants of consumers in the best and cheapest way, he will succeed by means of "excessive" profits. He ploughs back the greater part of his profits into his business, thus making it grow rapidly. It is the activity of such enterprising parvenus that provides the market economy with its "dynamism." These nouveaux riches are the harbingers of economic improvement. Their threatening competition forces the old firms and big corporations either to adjust their conduct to the best possible service of the public or to go out of business.

But today taxes often absorb the greater part of the newcomer's "excessive" profits. He cannot accumulate capital; he cannot expand his own business; he will never become big business and a match for the vested interests. The old firms do not need to fear his competition; they are sheltered by the tax collector. They may with impunity indulge in routine, they may defy the wishes of the public and become conservative. It is true, the income tax prevents them, too, from accumulating new capital. But what is more important for them is that it prevents the dangerous newcomer from accumulating any capital. They are virtually privileged by the tax system. In this sense progressive taxation checks economic progress and makes for rigidity. While under unhampered capitalism the ownership of capital is a liability forcing the owner to serve the consumers, modern methods of taxation transform it into a privilege."

-Ludwig von Mises

They have never heard that anywhere before.

Proof of Conspiracy.

(Because stupid ignorant people can't be really in control)

Wasn't Obama a socialist amongst other derogatory slurs?

Under Obama gun ownership went up and the richest increased their wealth, with the biggest redistribution of wealth in history, from bottom to top.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Hardly news.

Sanders has openly admited he is a soclists.


May as well have opened a thread on how # stinks.

originally posted by: crazyewok

Hardly news.

Sanders has openly admited he is a soclists.


May as well have opened a thread on how # stinks.

Yeah well, many of his supporters in this site claimed he wasn't...

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: greencmp

lol. It makes for a convenient albeit idealistic example. Yes I know it's only fiction. Yes I know it's a TV show. But as we all know there is no actual corruption free society for me to use as an example anywhere. So I used that. I figured you were all intelligent enough to realize that.

Should I have used Atlantis instead??? Or maybe our Lords Kingdom in Heaven perhaps??? Would that have worked better for you???

I do like Star Trek too.

I have seriously considered writing a book on the subject as the genre is big and should be enough to derive plenty of examples of erroneous postulates.

What I discovered was that there are no actual explanations, they simply skip completely over the how. This is hardly surprising given that it is utopian fiction.

Actually its pretty simple.

The idea being energy is easy to come by and resources so plentiful they are worthless plus with replicators and robotics manufacturering is dirt cheap.

So with that capitalism kinda goes obsolete as what good is money when everyone can have everything for near nothing?

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Wasn't Obama a socialist amongst other derogatory slurs?

Under Obama gun ownership went up and the richest increased their wealth, with the biggest redistribution of wealth in history, from bottom to top.

Gun ownership under Obama increased not because of him, he implemented more gun control laws, and wanted to ban several guns, and magazines/clips with more than 10 bullets... So Americans bought more weapons before he could ban them...

The redistribution from the bottom to top is what ALWAYS happens under socialism...

The castros became rich because they have been starving and oppressing Cubans...

The Chavistas became rich, siphoning off the low, and middle classes, hiding away tons, and tons of food which ended up rooting in a Chavista government warehouse. Other necessary items are also scarce thanks to Chavez's socialism...

Socialism makes the elites in control richer... Heck, the Rockefellers support socialism, support nationalized healthcare, globalization with no borders, etc, etc...

Socialism is the tool used by the elites to squeeze the people of their money and make the rich elites richer and in control of every aspect of social life, as well as the economy...

edit on 12-2-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

a reply to: xuenchen

"The country's energy-dependent economy requires oil prices above $100 per barrel in order to sustain itself. Oil accounts for 95 percent of the country's export earnings, and combined with gas, it's 25 percent of the country's gross domestic product. Internationally traded Brent crude prices have fallen more than 48 percent in the past year."

Just one source: www.cnbc.com...

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
The future of our planet will not be operating under capitalism.

There's no way this can keep going like it is.

Socialist government policies are why Western Capitalism has problems.

Simple as that.

Crystal Clear.

Gotta love that

If we didn't have the government taking money to give to "others" we wouldn't be 18 Trillion in debt.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
The future of our planet will not be operating under capitalism.

There's no way this can keep going like it is.

Socialist government policies are why Western Capitalism has problems.

Simple as that.

Crystal Clear.

Gotta love that

If we didn't have the government taking money to give to "others" we wouldn't be 18 Trillion in debt.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

From your mouth to God's ear. If rich people and capitalism is so necessary why wars, recessions, depressions, poisoned environment. The real indicator, our foster care system is full of unwanted children with no love.

a reply to: dismanrc

Oh isnt that the truth. I am so glad wars are for free.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I honestly don't understand how people think Bernie Sanders as president would mean we turn the constitution on its head and everyone poor gets tons of free handouts.

Do people really think Congress would go along with stripping this country from the inside out and gutting everything that's already in the books?

And if they try the one thing all these socialist forget is that the conservatives are the ones that are the 'gun nuts".

300 million gun in the US? Umm how many do the socialist own? The 2nd Amendment added for a reason, hopefully we won't have to use it for what it was designed for.

a reply to: dismanrc
Is this a veiled threat to the socialists and liberals on here?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

right. Thats why extreme poverty shrunk under Chavez. Thats probably why GDP per capita has doubled in 10 years. Thats probably why infant mortality has shrunk under Chavez.

And why ignore what Evo Morales has accomplished in Bolivia? Right, because his realisations do not suit your propaganda.

I love to read all the gloom and doom that is being predicted to come out of "Bernies socialism". Great fiction! Keep it up!

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: dismanrc
Is this a veiled threat to the socialists and liberals on here?

Nope, just a piece of historical thought.

I had a talk a while back about Liberals and Conservatives and the idea of activism. Liberals are by definition activist. Conservative not so much. Yes there is a small group of conservatives that are VERY vocal, but they represent a very small %. I've seen figures of 10-15% of conservative belonging to these groups.

I have also said that most conservatives would probably make better Libertarians then GOP. Because MOST of them just want to go to work, go home and be left alone. Why are they GOP and not Libertarian? See above. Most would not even know what that was because they are not involved with politics and most don't even vote.

The issue is, just like Yamamoto said in the 1930, "don't wake the sleeping giant. This large group of conservatives are that giant. During the past 20-30 years the liberals and been pushing their agenda and this giant has grumbled but stayed asleep. BUT there comes a point when you wake it up. The something happens to swing the country back towards the middle and then they go back to sleep.

The last time we saw true conservative "activism" was in 1776. Personally I have seen war and I hope we never get to this point. But if the left keeps pushing their agenda I believe the bear will wake up and fight for what they think is right. I also wish they didn't just go to sleep and where more active. Because if they where we might find a better balance that everyone could live with.

The Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution because they where afraid of a government that became to powerful and moved away from the Constitution. Just wanted to point out this fact. If forced to this point the left can not win, BUT there is a VERY good chance that both sides would lose.

Again hopefully this is just a theoretical conversation, but a small part of me feels that unless something happens to blow off the steam we may be heading down this path.

One of the reasons I support Trump. He might just serve the purpose of this vent and allow a controlled swing back. Sanders I think would build the pressure even more.