Friendly reminder Sanders loves breadlines

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

What's wrong with providing breadlines for the poor?

Same reason people are told not to feed the animal at zoos.

Which I really don't get.

Socialism is 'bad' for zoos.

But turning this country in to the worlds largest zoo is perfectly acceptable.

And Sanders would be the highest paid 'care taker' in the land.

Animals get 'free' room, and board,food, and healthcare too.

WHAT's not to like ?

Of course another word for that is PRISON.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: pirhanna

Even still. Regardless of what the context is, which we don't actually know since it was never given. All he is saying is better that people have Breadlines than nothing at all and starve. That's all he said. Nothing more. No context given. No reason for why there are breadlines or other options. Nothing. Just that it's better than people starving.

Breadlines are an indication of something wrong, not something one wants to create. Communism creates the scarcity, the hunger that requires breadlines en masse. This is not to say other systems dont have their problems. There is no utopia, but clearly the spectrum from heavy socialism to communism is one of creating poverty. Communism can better be described as "everyone, equally poor, equally dependent upon the state.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
But it has EVERYTHING to do with how socialism would work within our corrupt federal government.

Ok, now you're getting more specific about what you're talking about. You very well may have a point there. The corruption within our Gov. could very hijack Socialist principles and use them against the populace in a variety of ways. That is certainly debatable and a topic worth looking into maybe. But even then you'd need to show your work and how it would happen and so on. Not just state it outright as if it's already known.

But that's a whole topic all on it's own. The Corruption within our Gov. seems to be doing pretty good by corrupting Capitalism as well. In fact they pretty much try and corrupt whatever they can whenever they can. That isn't the fault of Socialism though. That's the fault of a Corrupt Gov. So why not focus on that instead of misdirecting the problem at Socialism instead of Corruption. Corruption isn't Specific to Socialism. It's not specific to any one system. Corruption will corrupt anything. You're just wasting time trying to link it to Socialism itself as if it's contained there. It's not.

I am not linking corruption to socialism exclusively, at all. I am just saying a socialist spending plan is a lot larger than a fiscally conservative spending plan.

But, the truth is, democrats and republicans love to spend money liberally.

Therefore, a larger spending plan that gives the federal government more power is scarier to me.

It doesn't mean I like how capitalism works in the U.S. though.


ETA: And if you are looking for proof of infrastructure spending fraud, just look back at the Obama Stimulus Plan & the millions lost to phantom districts. The only explanation we were offered is that Recovery.org didn't have the proper safeguards in place to keep track of the spending. For example, recipients could type in a nonexistent zip codes and the system would not alert them to that fact.

There are probably thousands of levels of theft available when it comes to government spending. Recovery.org and Obama's stimulus plan 'disappeared' millions of dollars.

It's odd, whenever I have tried to type in a nonexistent zip code into a website form, I am ALWAYS told it's not a valid zip code. Yet, Recovery.org didn't have that minimal level of security sophistication.

I'm not ready to let Congress spend even more money.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: spav5

Hopefully schmopefully.

I'm not foolish enough to fall for any promises of Hope & Change from the DNC.

Well by what he proposes we at least have CHANCE to benefit. The way it is now we have NO chance.

a reply to: spav5

No. We have no chance to benefit when Congress is spending money and with the lack of transparency, oversight, and accountability in government.

Period.

Forget about it. The more power and money Congress gets, the worse it is for taxpayers and citizens.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So you're going to introduce socialism to a corrupt capitalistic system.

Hoo-boy!

Like it matters if it's corrupt. You don't want it corrupt in the first place. So why not concentrate on fixing that instead of worrying about socialism???

It's not any better having our system corrupt the way it is now either.

Friendly reminder of just what socialism is.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

No. We have no chance to benefit when Congress is spending money and with the lack of transparency, oversight, and accountability in government.

Period.

Forget about it. The more power and money Congress gets, the worse it is for taxpayers and citizens.

They keep taking money anyway. I think what spav5 is trying to say is at least with Sanders the money is targeted at the People of this country getting it in the form of Food, Wages, Healthcare, Education, etc. Rather than Corporate Subsidies for institutions that are already making profits, Unwanted Military Spending, "Expanding Freedom Abroad", etc.

First Priority is to stop the Corrupt Gov. I think we can all agree there. But at least with Sanders he wants to put the taxes that at least make it to where it's supposed to go, go to the people rather than War or Corporate favors.

a reply to: neo96

#7

#8

a reply to: pirhanna

Now you're talking about Communism. It's impossible to have a conversation when you keep changing the topic, inserting assumptions and demanding conditions that only you get to decide.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So you're going to introduce socialism to a corrupt capitalistic system.

Hoo-boy!

Like it matters if it's corrupt. You don't want it corrupt in the first place. So why not concentrate on fixing that instead of worrying about socialism???

It's not any better having our system corrupt the way it is now either.

Handing over more control, more authority, more money, to a corrupt system will make our corrupt capitalist system into a corrupt socialist system.

We need to focus on taking back power and control that we've given over to the government.

NOT give it MORE!

originally posted by: Domo1
His praise of Castro is disturbing, his honeymoon in the USSR was disturbing, this comment is disturbing.

Luckily he's been eliminated as a candidate, but I hope in the future people will look into a candidate past more. I hope those of you who lean left look into Hillary more. She's a different kind of villain.

Friendly reminder: Food stamps are the capitalist version of bread lines.

a reply to: xuenchen

I can show you a million pictures just like that from the great depression too. That wasn't a result of Socialism. In fact that is what made Socialism a possible option in the eyes of many. Socialism is what helped people in the aftermath of the Depression in recovering.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Domo1
His praise of Castro is disturbing, his honeymoon in the USSR was disturbing, this comment is disturbing.

Luckily he's been eliminated as a candidate, but I hope in the future people will look into a candidate past more. I hope those of you who lean left look into Hillary more. She's a different kind of villain.

Friendly reminder: Food stamps are the capitalist version of bread lines.

In response to socialist policy failures.

Somebody has to do something right?

a reply to: Aazadan

There will always be hungry people in a capitalist system. In a system where there are winners and losers and limited social safety nets, people will go hungry. Ideally, we would feed those who are hungry and house those who are homeless. Funny that there are now laws against housing the homeless and feeding the hungry.

But a socialist system, where the government controls the means of production, there shouldn't be hungry people or breadlines, unless it's what the socialist government wants.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: pirhanna

Now you're talking about Communism. It's impossible to have a conversation when you keep changing the topic, inserting assumptions and demanding conditions that only you get to decide.

I think some people are confused.

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.[2][3][4]

en.wikipedia.org...

Sanders supporters need to get just EXACTLY what they are defending.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Ok, great. I'm with you on that. So why are you focusing on Socialism as if it's the root of the problem??? Corruption is the root of the problem.

But you're not focused on the Corruption. Instead you focus all your attention to Socialism and make it seem like the problem when it's not.

You're wasting time railing against something that for one is already in place in many ways. Second is also the only thing keeping some people alive at the moment. The corruption isn't making it any easier but all I seem to hear from most of you is Bad Socialism. Remove All Social Programs. But the Social Programs aren't the problem and are for many people the only thing left for them between starving to death from being homeless and scraping by barely.

If we'd fix the corruption those social programs and the other problems wouldn't be an issue any longer. You're attacking the wrong area. If you remove all the social programs it isn't going to fix the Corruption. You need to remove the Corruption.

a reply to: mOjOm

Woodrow Wilson had many hidden socialist failures.

Study the history.

The Federal Reserve and the new 16th Amendment (IRS) didn't help either.

Study the money and financing of those days leading up to 1929.

a reply to: DBCowboy

In a system where there are winners and losers and limited social safety nets, people will go hungry.

That is how evolution is suppose to work.

Unlike socialists social engineering the environment to suit the mediocre.

There is no growth.

There is no adaptation.

There is no coming better tomorrow than what they were today.

Socialism is the antithesis of evolution.

a reply to: neo96

Pirhanna used the word "Communist" or "Communism". That's why I said that. I'm not confused. That's the word he used.

Communism isn't Socialism and Socialism isn't just one single form of itself either. Socialism can be arranged many ways.