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.

 

What Democratic Socialism means to Bernie Sanders

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74


Note the word "instead". Spending OUR tax dollars on things we want and need versus things politicians and corporations want and need, sounds pretty great.



Ha! Well, the problem is our corrupt Congress does the spending. And the bigger the spending plan, the more they will divert into the pockets of the wealthy.




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

There is that too. Everyone seems to agree that the government is corrupt, but I can't figure out why Sanders supporters actively WANT to give that corrupt system MORE power to take in MORE money because that's the result of what Sanders' plans will do.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
If the US was made up entirely of 18 year olds, Sanders would be the perfect president.

Unfortunately, there is a large population of adults that do not require a nanny state.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Your picture unintentionally shows why government should never be trusted with our money.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

" What is not clear is what happens to the approximately 500,000 people currently working in the health insurance field. Some would stay on for those additional plans, but most would be out of work."

That is a great point and I've puzzled over that very same idea! What to do with the 500,000 or MORE who work in the health insurance industry. (that's assuming the 500,000 number is correct?...I don't know).

According to: www.epi.org...
"From August 1997 to August 2007, employment in the health insurance industry grew an astounding 52%, from 293,000 to 444,000."

My answer, if I were President, would be to put those people to work as analysts and monitors in the build out of a total surveillance National security system.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Arizonaguy

The problem with it is that you are then forcing people into a system where they are forced to subsidize things they do not agree with and that are highly controversial that get lumped under the unbrella of "health care." By creating a system that is single payer, it also generally rules out a system where those highly controversial things can be left in a separate system that leave people the freedom to leave themselves in or out as they wish which at least creates some separation because those private systems are either extremely expensive in a socialized health care system or generally outlawed.


Look, I have lived in Arizona for 20 years, and Barry Goldwater is a legend here. Barry Goldwater is the reason that I started questioning the government to begin with. I went to public school and a public university in Pennsylvania and was basically taught that Goldwater was a racist nut who wanted to nuke other countries. When I moved here in the mid 90s I was amazed at the reverence for the man, so I looked into him. I found out that most of what I was taught were lies, plain and simple. Barry Goldwater was basically Ron Paul with a lot more common sense.

Interestingly enough, Barry, who was a Christian, spoke out AGAINST the emerging Christian Coalition in the late 70s, basically saying that that stuff had no place in politics, and that allowing these people a foothold in the GOP would spell the death of the party, and of politics as we know it. He was prophetic. What I am getting at is that these people are no better or different than the looney left. There is no middle ground, it's their way or the highway. Why concern ouselves with either side when it accomplishes nothing?



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

In other words, you would grow another sector of the public bureaucracy aside from the takeover of the health care system which would see all the doctors, nurses, technicians, etc., already in that sector of the economy (1/6th of the present economy, btw) becoming public employees needing to be paid off of tax dollars and make those new employees also needing to be paid off of public tax dollars?

At what point do you think the private sector collapses under this avalanche of spending, keeping in mind that government makes nothing of its own of value, only takes from the private sector?



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

That meme is so full of holes it's not even funny.

I wonder why private services run circles around public.

PRIVATE education makes more successful people than Public.

Wall Street was not bailed out. The Federal Reserve, and the STATEs creation that guaranteed 95 % of ALL us mortgages was. Fanny, and Freddy.

More money has been spent on SOCIAL PROGRAMS than any war ever fought.

See the 'War on Poverty' with spending over 22 trillion dollars providing 'public' services without a damn thing to show for it.

Since when has the LEFT not like 'corporate' subsides ?

Jp Morgan, and Monsanto have made BILLIONS off those 'public' services.

EBT cards and the fees associated with it, and that 'free' GMO the masses love so much.

And then there is this golden nugget.

The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them

Note the reality.

INSTEAD of bullsnip memes.
edit on 27-3-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

I think that I was not speaking about religion, but about being libertarian.

Neither side should force the other. If it's wrong for one side to force, then it's equally wrong for the other. The only way for there to be any respect is for there to be a means for each to do as they wish, but when you enact a system that collectivizes everyone, that cannot happen. One side or the other MUST prevail and there is no respect either way.

We are seeing this play out now, and when we have an amendment that guarantees certain liberties like freedom to live one's religious values, it sort of makes us hypocrites to not give people that latitude IMO. Does it hurt you at all to allow people to live their religion in their own way? No, unless we are collectivized and that religious value trumps what you believe. But that's a two way street. People who would prefer to believe that something magical happens that makes a baby human at the point it hits open air are equally forcing their beliefs through the same collectivized system on those of us who believe that a human is human well before that magical point.

How do you determine which view is right, and since the system is a collective, there is no way to respect both views. And that is why collectivism is wrong. Someone loses no matter how you do it.

That's why personal liberty, as messy as it is, is the best way.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Well that's the great thing about voting isn't it? I'm voting for him because those are things that I want, you're not voting for him because you don't want those things. You big ole grown up you.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Arizonaguy

One would think they would consolidate medicare, and medicaid in to one.

They don't, and they won't.

They want something 'different'.

That isn't different.

It's their way, and anyone that disagrees is 'hitler' or some other pejorative.


I agree. The looney left is no better than the religious right when it comes to compromise. None of them can see the other side or the bigger, better picture. The fact is though, is that if combined EVERY single government health care program into one and consolidate administration, then it wouldn't cost much more than it already does.And there would be some economic benefits in the form of large corporations, Ford Motor Company pays as much in health care costs as it does for the steel for its products. Many large corporations are resisting hiring full time employees due to health care costs. This could actually open the door for economic expansion.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Many economists agree that Bernie's economic plan would actually save money.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Never ceases to amaze me how some people want to throw gobs of money at our corrupt government to fix problems caused by government corruption.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Many economists agree that Bernie's economic plan would actually save money.


Good for them. But that doesn't change the fact that Congress cannot be trusted to spend one dime.

ETA: And before you wonder, I don't support anyone running. But Bernie wants to give the most money to Congress to spend so I especially don't support him.
edit on 27-3-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Gumerk

After watching your videos I can say that 'Democratic Socialism' is exactly the crap I expected it to be. I am even more against it after 'learning' about it from Bernie. No thanks.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Well you know that is their actual job assigned by the US Constitution, spending money... the trick is to make it less lucrative for them to do so.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Many economists agree that Bernie's economic plan would actually save money.





posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Well you know that is their actual job assigned by the US Constitution, spending money... the trick is to make it less lucrative for them to do so.


Correct. And after millions went unaccounted for under Obama's stimulus plan, giving Congress more to spend under Bernie's stimulus plan isn't palatable to me.

That's just one example of many where the money went *poof*.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Well you know that is their actual job assigned by the US Constitution, spending money... the trick is to make it less lucrative for them to do so.


The constitution also says this.



Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


www.law.cornell.edu...

That means even rich people.

The 14th basically flips the middle finger to socialists.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

#1To make the argument a pure Libertarian one, then you must presume that ALL taxes are an infringement on personal liberty. If this is the case, then you're living in lala land. It's never going to be that way in a nation as vast as ours is. With every federal healthcare program, your taxes are ALREADY going towards healthcare.
#2 NOTHING about a National Healthcare program prevents a religious person from living their faith. The Amish and Quakers are pacifists. They pay taxes . We have the largest military on Earth. They still are pacifists.







 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join