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: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
The guy who repealed Glass Stegall!



And here:



'Wall Street' caused the bailouts!

Absolutely Priceless!

Sanders KNOWS who was responsible.

Since he was a part of the Fox's 'guarding' the hen house.
edit on 27-3-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Ah! You fail to see the beauty of my thinking! Yea.......more bureaucrats being paid out of taxpayers dollars, BUT, you tax those bureaucrats, right! Give with one hand, take with the other!

Besides that.........a giant, bloated government of overlapping bureaucracies is the hallmark of a truly High Civilization society! I'm told, for example, that in Italy, 1 of 2 jobs are government jobs!

So.........would you rather live in Detroit...........or Florence Italy?



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

I am all in favor of the repeal of the 16th Amendment. More abuse is perpetrated through the tax code than almost any other mechanism the government has. I am well aware that my taxes are going to health care programs already, and it doesn't make me happy. Medicaid and Medicare are a large part of the cost of health care problem, and the programs themselves are insolvent.

If I do not believe in birth control or in abortion, then having my tax dollars go to pay for those services is a violation of my belief. You are asking a person with those beliefs to pay for what they believe to be murder. Considering the system we had previously allowed them to find ways to NOT have to be involved in this, why do you think this should suddenly have to happen?

Also, find me the part in the constitution that justifies national health care for all. We do clearly have a part that provides for national defense, but I don't see any part that provides for national health care (or national college for all for that matter).

As to pacifism, a pacifist would be bitterly against the uses to which the military has been put recently. However, that does not mean they would be opposed to the military as a whole. The idea of a strong military is that you build it to prevent having to use it. The principle of detente. Prepare for war to maintain the peace. A pacifist probably is not as opposed to the military in its peacetime role of pure defense and disaster relief, for example.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Basically put the general welfare 'clause' was they gave the state the power of taxation to fund itself so it could function properly.

Over the course of two centuries it has been bastardized in to paying our bills.

Where it's creation meant the state to pay it's own bills.

'National healthcare for all' is not found anywhere in that piece of paper.

The founders wanted a limited form of government.

Socialism is the antithesis of that concept.
edit on 27-3-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
And since everyone loves memes.



This is what free college is.

This is what universal healthcare is.

Because 'beer' is your money.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

You do realize the Russian communist bolsheviks were officially democratic socialists, right?



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Yes, but whenever you point that out about either communists or fascists (the socialism inherent in their party titles), we are told this is completely new and we are just being haters.

The problem is this time they can "run it right."



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: RomeByFire

You do realize the Russian communist bolsheviks were officially democratic socialists, right?


It gets better.



However, contrary to Western usage, these states do not describe themselves as "communist" nor do they claim to have achieved communism; they refer to themselves as Socialist states or Workers' states that are in the process of constructing socialism.[


en.wikipedia.org...



However, communist states are criticized as being effectively one-party dictatorships, with totalitarian control of the economy and society and repression of civil liberties,[8] economic focus on heavy industry at the expense of consumer goods, sometimes resulting in shortages of vital products or even famine,[9] and militarism, censorship, and propaganda to cover up the mistakes of the government



edit on 27-3-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

My biggest concern is that Fabian socialism -- the socialism of the elites -- is behind everything we are seeing in the U.S. and Europe.

Because the evidence says it is.

And given that Fabian Socialists operate in secrecy and by infiltration, they sure aren't going to announce their arrival.

First step in overthrowing the U.S. federal government: Infiltrate both major parties. That's what we are seeing. That's why the two parties seem to be colluding against American citizens.

Just my .02¢.

ETA: And I would bet money that this election is being rigged for Bernie.

Biggest spending plan + biggest tax hike + biggest federal government = The Establishment's Chosen One.

I'm not fooled by the parties' and media's attempts to bill Bernie as anti-Establishment. Logic says The Establishment LOVES Bernie.
edit on 27-3-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye




And given they operate in secrecy and by infiltration, they sure aren't going to announce their arrival.


Hitler,Mao, and Pol Pot sure didn't announce their intentions.

They put some lipstick on a pig, and packaged it for mass public consumption.

And it was still a pig.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   


Democratic Socialism DOES NOT do away with free markets. There's still money, still personal private property, still have the ability to get rich, still the possibility that you fall flat on your face if you don't work hard or just survive if you choose to do the menial or under valued.



democratic socialists see capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership. Ultimately democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only cause more problems to emerge elsewhere in the economy, that capitalism can never be sufficiently "humanized", and that it must therefore ultimately be replaced with socialism
en.wikipedia.org...

"Democratic Socialism DOES NOT do away with free markets. There's still money, still personal private property...". This statement seems at odds with the tenets described above. Unless Bernie has decided to pick and choose which beliefs to embrace.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo



Or Bernie's Democratic Socialism is like this. He probably uses the term "untaxed revenue" to refer to the money you and I get to take home with us every pay day.







 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join