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.

 

Bernie Sanders: Would he really be that bad.?.?

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I feel like the media, and their handlers, had a collective orgasm when Trump was elected (lol). Sure, it looked like bafflement and outrage, but they were just trying to hide the O-Face. Im really not sure if Im kidding or not.. I dont think I am?

I feel like topics such as the national debt predate Trump as well. I see most of them as running exponentially out of control and Trump provides a very, very nice scapegoat for things that would be happening with or without him. Its not like he has done anything to change it for the better either, but doing so is literally a deadly proposition.

I believe nearly all of this is connected, and people like me have been calling it out for quite some time. So, when I see something that I, or others like me, predicted long before the presidency was even a glint in Trump's eye.. Its more than a little difficult for me to be convinced its because of Trump.

As an example, I told my dad in.. maybe '02-'03 that we were going to start seeing a massive decrease in the quality of race relations. Not any specifics, as I genuinely struggle in a lot of aspects of this particular topic, but just as a generality. Of course, at that point it seemed bizarre, so the response was predictable. But then, in maybe '11-'12, we saw a coordinated, huge increase in the medias use of all the buzzwords we so "love" today. As I told him, that would be the precursor to "the real troubles."

So, when Trump is blamed for something that I have been warning about for so long.. I am strongly, strongly biased against the notion that, in these respects, he is anything more than an effective scapegoat. Im not convinced that he isnt "in on it" though. Even if you disagree, I hope that makes sense.

My biggest concern is that those who openly espouse this ideology, under the guise of "socialism," "environmentalism," etc. will kick things into high gear, rather than the already deeply concerning exponential growth. I think someone like Bernie has made it abundantly clear that he is willing to "play along."

I think we are on about the same page on Yang. Ive changed my mind on him the more he talks, now coming to the point I think he would be exceedingly valuable in certain positions (though not the presidency). My cynicism reigns that in though, as I feel he would then be initiated into a system that pretends to give people like him a say, but behind it all they are saying "tow the line, or else." They can play absolutely any part on any side, and it will easily serve towards the same end.

To be blunt, I think the only "realistic" possibility in stopping it is an AI takeover. Obviously though, the end result from that isnt guaranteed positive. At all. Barring that, my participation in things like voting, or even these message boards, is about doing what little ol me can to stall the inevitable as long as possible.

In that, voting for someone like Bernie or most of the others is in direct opposition to what is, in essence, my own belief system.

I guess the TL;DR is pretty much the whole "lesser of two evils" thing, though I think that is dismissive of my actual thought processes.
edit on 7-8-2019 by Serdgiam because: Flooglesnorf




posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Assassin82

If the rich become no longer rich, what does that do to the economy as a whole? Stagnation by punishing success will no doubt have a huge negative effect on the economy. Less income getting into wealthy job creators hands, will mean less jobs, less revenue to the federal government and higher debt.

I see the danger as not being so much the income disparity, as it is letting corporations become too large and wield too much power. Think Amazon, Google and the like.

When it comes to education, one of the pitfalls has been a generation of kids that resulted in universities offering courses of study that lead to no job. Producing a crop of people, who would be unemployable under any circumstances, leaving with a degree that is just so much paper and spending huge amounts of borrowed money on worthless degrees. Paying for that worthless education with tax dollars would not change that, it would make it even worse. I’m cool with a free education, but with the stipulation that it’s only free if you take a major in a field that has reasonable job prospects. I’d include trade schools being paid for as part of that and trade schools should be free now. Having a nail gun in their hand for $30 an hour instead of a spatula on their side to flip burgers for minimum wage, just makes sense. That's an investment that will pay back the country with interest, not a waste of time and money creating yet another expert in a field, for which there are no jobs beyond teaching it to someone else, who can't get a job.

The problem with Bernie and most politicians is that he is promising the moon, but he knows he can’t keep those promises. He knows he’s lying for votes. He’s just another person with power, who will do anything to keep that power or gain more. It does not take a math wiz to figure out he can't keep his promises.



edit on 8/7/2019 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

No, I was opposed to the QE program. My point is that the US debt isn't exactly the same as anyone else's position where debt is concerned. We have a unique status which gets overlooked by the debt hawks too frequently. I was very much in favor of budget cuts across the board a decade ago, when it actually would have mattered. Now, with an additional $12 trillion tacked on to it, we've passed the point where making it a focal point is logical. WE ARE INSOLVENT. We are already to a degree where we can't catch up to the debt payments and carry on normal business, thus we may as well say "screw it" and buttress the military leading in to the eventual conflict with the rest of the globe over our debts and the status of the US Dollar.

Bottom line, that "60%" you belittle still has this nation sitting in the catbird seat. If the US opted to put our foot down, we'd suffer some, but the rest of the world would effectively collapse under our weight, their carcasses keeping the US from ever touching the floor and they'd be pinned there until we decided to stand again. You can hate that fact, claim it's unfair, whatever you wish... but it is a fact.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   
The problem with Bernie is he doesn’t realize that he might not sit well with a vast majority of the American people with his radical programs. I personally could agree with some of them.

But first of all, he WILL NOT get any of these radical programs through a US senate controlled by the GOP, even if he got elected.


As for his election. All Trump has to do to beat Bernie, in this electoral college race, is win Florida and Pennsylvania.

Bernie’s tax the middle class for his programs will not sit well with many voters in those swing states he has to win.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Assassin82

If the rich become no longer rich, what does that do to the economy as a whole? Stagnation by punishing success will no doubt have a huge negative effect on the economy. Less income getting into wealthy job creators hands, will mean less jobs, less revenue to the federal government and higher debt.

I see the danger as not being so much the income disparity, as it is letting corporations become too large and wield too much power. Think Amazon, Google and the like.

When it comes to education, one of the pitfalls has been a generation of kids that resulted in universities offering courses of study that lead to no job. Producing a crop of people, who would be unemployable under any circumstances, leaving with a degree that is just so much paper and spending huge amounts of borrowed money on worthless degrees. Paying for that worthless education with tax dollars would not change that, it would make it even worse. I’m cool with a free education, but with the stipulation that it’s only free if you take a major in a field that has reasonable job prospects. I’d include trade schools being paid for as part of that and trade schools should be free now. Having a nail gun in their hand for $30 an hour instead of a spatula on their side to flip burgers for minimum wage, just makes sense. That's an investment that will pay back the country with interest, not a waste of time and money creating yet another expert in a field, for which there are no jobs beyond teaching it to someone else, who can't get a job.

The problem with Bernie and most politicians is that he is promising the moon, but he knows he can’t keep those promises. He knows he’s lying for votes. He’s just another person with power, who will do anything to keep that power or gain more. It does not take a math wiz to figure out he can't keep his promises.



First off, the he job creators are not creating jobs.... at least not here in the US. They are creating them in China, Mexico, Vietnam. There’s no great American electronics or appliance or any other types of factories being built. Even though they make ridiculous profits and have ridiculous tax breaks and subsidies. This leads into my next issue. All the people harping on trade schools. Our economy cannot run on trade schools products. We can’t keep solvent or grow by repairing each other’s houses, or cars, or fixing each other’s plumbing. We need products and we need trade, and trade schools don’t provide that. As to “useless degrees”, the requirements for degrees have vastly expanded among jobs that previously didn’t need them. For kids growing up now, to get into anything beyond minimum wage or close to it, a degree is required. Often it doesn’t matter what degree, just a degree.

As to income disparity, the problem with inequality isn’t that they have more. It’s that they took that “more” from the workers who produced it. We as a people are constantly asked to do more work for less money. That’s called transfer of wealth. If a person at a job created 60k a year, and was paid 30k, say 20 years ago. And over that time the profit from his labor grew to say 150k a year and yet his pay is only 35k, that’s a transfer of wealth. The only reason everyone is ok with this is because in our society the oligarchs are painted as the hero of the story, and are the only ones who’s job titles justify increase in pay, while workers are justifiably subject to the tyranny of corporations because they weren’t smart enough to own the company. And this fits perfectly because Americans are authoritarian by indoctrination.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
The problem with Bernie is he doesn’t realize that he might not sit well with a vast majority of the American people with his radical programs. I personally could agree with some of them.

But first of all, he WILL NOT get any of these radical programs through a US senate controlled by the GOP, even if he got elected.


As for his election. All Trump has to do to beat Bernie, in this electoral college race, is win Florida and Pennsylvania.

Bernie’s tax the middle class for his programs will not sit well with many voters in those swing states he has to win.
The actual problem is that the media is so full of sht in the us that most don’t realize the majority of the population supports most of Bernie’s policies. And every single policy he proposes have been part of the discussion since 50 years ago, and are enacted by every single western industrialized nation other than the us. That’s not radical.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: luthier

No, I was opposed to the QE program. My point is that the US debt isn't exactly the same as anyone else's position where debt is concerned. We have a unique status which gets overlooked by the debt hawks too frequently. I was very much in favor of budget cuts across the board a decade ago, when it actually would have mattered. Now, with an additional $12 trillion tacked on to it, we've passed the point where making it a focal point is logical. WE ARE INSOLVENT. We are already to a degree where we can't catch up to the debt payments and carry on normal business, thus we may as well say "screw it" and buttress the military leading in to the eventual conflict with the rest of the globe over our debts and the status of the US Dollar.

Bottom line, that "60%" you belittle still has this nation sitting in the catbird seat. If the US opted to put our foot down, we'd suffer some, but the rest of the world would effectively collapse under our weight, their carcasses keeping the US from ever touching the floor and they'd be pinned there until we decided to stand again. You can hate that fact, claim it's unfair, whatever you wish... but it is a fact.


You are very very clueless as to anything you are saying....

So let me get this strait math doesn't matter and we can borrow money with variable rate interest, and then ask the tax payers to pay that debt on interest when it could have been a fraction by collecting enough revenue?

Dude nobody thinks 110 percent debt to GDP is ok. It has absolutely nothing to do with some nation asking us to pay them back.....it is literally on mandatory interest or nobody will use the dollar regardless of our aircraft careers. Unless what we start a war because we over spend?

My lord. You are a liberal in terms of fiscal policy.

President trump has literally been begging the fed for QE because we are about to crap the bed in a recession.

This is the negative bond yield indication your liberal economics uses to indicated their bubble is popping.

If that happens trump is done. His tariffs dont even cover the farm bailout and that is serious doom coming as well. China is waiting out the next year and a half. In that time trumps lie that the chinese are paying for the tariffs will be hitting the consumer and since he didnt say brace yourself they will rebel.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Yes you obviously are a Keynesian I prefer Hayek and Milton.


Good God no, I'm Mises/Rothbard all the way given my druthers. I simply am also acknowledging of the fact that the USA holds all of the cards, making it possible for this country to run the game however we see fit. I think to some degree, however, Keynes got a bad rap. His economic theory actually worked quite well when this country was still on the gold standard, because the gold standard greatly restricted hyperinflation... it was when the US adopted Friedman's ideology of abandoning the gold standard in the 70s that things went to pot.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Put that little thing away, zip your fly back up, stop trying to win a rational discussion via insults. You're position here is flat out wrong, as evidenced by the fact that the best thing you can come up with in the discussion is trying to stymie me with "you're a liberal" accusations. Jesus Christ, Plato...



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: luthier
Yes you obviously are a Keynesian I prefer Hayek and Milton.


Good God no, I'm Mises/Rothbard all the way given my druthers. I simply am also acknowledging of the fact that the USA holds all of the cards, making it possible for this country to run the game however we see fit. I think to some degree, however, Keynes got a bad rap. His economic theory actually worked quite well when this country was still on the gold standard, because the gold standard greatly restricted hyperinflation... it was when the US adopted Friedman's ideology of abandoning the gold standard in the 70s that things went to pot.


The gold standard did no such thing and was subject to people like the rothschilds buying/flooding markets.

But hey..


So why support a bunch of terrible economics by trump?

You know he wants to artificially lower rates, and literally I mean literally is calling for QE?

He is adding more than obama to the debt. More. Without the tarp and recession.
edit on 7-8-2019 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
The gold standard did no such thing and was subject to people like the rothschilds buying/flooding markets.

But hey..


So why support a bunch of terrible economics by trump?

You know he wants to artificially lower rates, and literally I mean literally is calling for QE?

He is adding more than obama to the debt. More. Without the tarp and recession.


The US debt was 36% of GDP when we abandoned the gold standard and we were actually paying it down following the WW2 balloon. Since leaving the gold standard, we've gone heels to Jesus.

As I've said a few times here, we've past the point of no return. There is no light at the end of the tunnel now, we've gone too deep into debt. Once insolvency has been reached, only a damn fool worries about owing more. May as well get what we can while we can, as no degree of haircuts or self imposed squalor is going to right this boat until the next global war, call it World War 3, comes along and the US has an opportunity to put all of that outlandish military spending to good use and force ourselves back into a position of solvency.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I disagree. Except about our spending problem since Nixon.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Assassin82

He's a communist.

Communism is incompatible with the United States Constitution. He would be terrible for America.

the movement to have weekends off in the labor movement..socialist
.


Mmmm no. That's just flat out wrong. Yay revisionist history lessons eh?



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Labor unions maybe learn some history.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

You seem to be confused as to what the trades pay? Sure, while you are an apprentice (helper) it's low, but just like with a degree, after four years it can be very high. It's been that way for a long time now. In the 70's I put my degree in a box and forgot about it because I had jobs that paid a lot better. As a journeyman in a trade I made as much as 80K in the tail end of the 70's, working industrial construction and working in the oil fields.

It's still good out there for skilled people in the trades. Where have you been? It's not at all unusual for an electrician called to work on someones home to be earning more than the person who hired them.

The trades are the quickest path to self-employment and an even higher wage. There will always be a need for people to fix things or build them.

The mechanic who fixes my vehicles over the twenty years I've known him, has opened two of his own shops and he's so busy he can barely keep up with it. He stays up to date, hires people who know how to work on new vehicles and he's done very well. Try that with a communications degree, the go to for so many kids just taking classes so they don't have to get a real job. How many graphic artists wanting to create games do you think the world can support? Plenty of both of those living with their parents.

If the open jobs in the trades were filled right now, there would be close to zero unemployment. Those kids in mom and dads basement at 30 would be working if they learned a useful trade.
edit on 8/7/2019 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Labor unions maybe learn some history.


Not in America, at least.

Thank Henry Ford for it. To combat his high turnover rate, he doubled the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 and then set a five eight hour day schedule.

This lit a fire under GM and Chrysler's butts to do the same, or lose employees to FoMoCo. And the big three were THE big game in the country at that time.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Labor unions maybe learn some history.


Not in America, at least.

Thank Henry Ford for it. To combat his high turnover rate, he doubled the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 and then set a five eight hour day schedule.

This lit a fire under GM and Chrysler's butts to do the same, or lose employees to FoMoCo. And the big three were THE big game in the country at that time.


This is true, it also stemmed from Ford's belief that following the industrial revolution, the middle and working class had to have recreational time or they would have no need to purchase much of what the industrialists were selling. In other words, they installed the 8 hour day and 5 workday weeks to expand their customer base, not out of some mentality of socialism.

The feds arguably were working of a pseudo-socialist position when they codified the 44 hour week into law, but it was primarily to combat sky high unemployment at the end of the Great Depression. Factories needed to run 24/7 and it was preferable to pay 3 people to work 3-8 hour shifts over 2 people to work 2-12 hour shifts (or, in some cases, overlapping 16 hour shifts.) because it equaled lowering the overall unemployment numbers.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Interesting. Considering it was started before his birth and a year after his birth the 8 hour day was getting unionized in Chicago.

Maybe you should read some history.


Here is some AOC stuff...
In August 1866, the National Labor Union at Baltimore passed a resolution that said, "The first and great necessity of the present to free labour of this country from capitalist slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the normal working day in all States of the American Union. We are resolved to put forth all our strength until this glorious result is achieved."
edit on 7-8-2019 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Labor unions maybe learn some history.


Not in America, at least.

Thank Henry Ford for it. To combat his high turnover rate, he doubled the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 and then set a five eight hour day schedule.

This lit a fire under GM and Chrysler's butts to do the same, or lose employees to FoMoCo. And the big three were THE big game in the country at that time.


This is true, it also stemmed from Ford's belief that following the industrial revolution, the middle and working class had to have recreational time or they would have no need to purchase much of what the industrialists were selling. In other words, they installed the 8 hour day and 5 workday weeks to expand their customer base, not out of some mentality of socialism.

The feds arguably were working of a pseudo-socialist position when they codified the 44 hour week into law, but it was primarily to combat sky high unemployment at the end of the Great Depression. Factories needed to run 24/7 and it was preferable to pay 3 people to work 3-8 hour shifts over 2 people to work 2-12 hour shifts (or, in some cases, overlapping 16 hour shifts.) because it equaled lowering the overall unemployment numbers.


Weird because when Ford was 7 On 19 May 1869, President Ulysses Grant issued a National Eight Hour Law Proclamation.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421


originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Willtell
The problem with Bernie is he doesn’t realize that he might not sit well with a vast majority of the American people with his radical programs. I personally could agree with some of them.

But first of all, he WILL NOT get any of these radical programs through a US senate controlled by the GOP, even if he got elected.


As for his election. All Trump has to do to beat Bernie, in this electoral college race, is win Florida and Pennsylvania.

Bernie’s tax the middle class for his programs will not sit well with many voters in those swing states he has to win.
The actual problem is that the media is so full of sht in the us that most don’t realize the majority of the population supports most of Bernie’s policies. And every single policy he proposes have been part of the discussion since 50 years ago, and are enacted by every single western industrialized nation other than the us. That’s not radical.


The problem is that Medicare for all is indeed supported in polls by most Americans UNTIL the fact that higher taxes is involved then the polls go different.




The poll found that Americans initially support “Medicare-for-all,” 56 percent to 42 percent. However, those numbers shifted dramatically when people were asked about the potential impact, pro and con. Support increased when people were told “Medicare-for-all” would guarantee health insurance as a right (71 percent) and eliminate premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs (67 percent). But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Support fell to 32 percent if it would threaten the current Medicare program.


www.apnews.com...

You see that's the problem. Bernie at least is honest enough to admit taxes will go way up under his programs.


edit on 7-8-2019 by Willtell because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join