Bernie Sanders says that billionaires have “psychiatric issues.” He’s not entirely incorrect.

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: johnwick

He is a socialist, openly.

Socialism was tried many times, it is a utter failure.

It seems to be working well in the northern European nations, social democracies. Bernie's a Democratic Socialist, can you list some democratic socialist nations that have failed?

Except for the massive national debts in all the countries.



Tick by Tick -- Bombs Away

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: johnwick

He is a socialist, openly.

Socialism was tried many times, it is a utter failure.

It seems to be working well in the northern European nations, social democracies. Bernie's a Democratic Socialist, can you list some democratic socialist nations that have failed?

Except for the massive national debts in all the countries.

Tick by Tick -- Bombs Away

Which isn't bigger than ours, eh?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: johnwick

He is a socialist, openly.

Socialism was tried many times, it is a utter failure.

It seems to be working well in the northern European nations, social democracies. Bernie's a Democratic Socialist, can you list some democratic socialist nations that have failed?

Except for the massive national debts in all the countries.

Tick by Tick -- Bombs Away

Which isn't bigger than ours, eh?

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Daedal
a reply to: johnwick

Could you explain to me what or how his position on issues equates to insanity or what he's saying has historically been proven as a failure as you've replied.

He is a socialist, openly.

Socialism was tried many times, it is a utter failure.

In other words, he is obviously crazy, because he thinks this time it will be different.

When it can't ever be different, it doesn't work, no matter how many times it is tried it will fail.

Berney, is a politician, he is going to tell those like you, that believe him, what you want to hear.

Then, true to form for a politician, he will enact his own viewpoint, which in this case is socialism.

You honestly think a new openly socialist politician is not going to try to enact legislation, that follows his ideology?

If he didn't want socialist policies, why would he be a socialist?

Clear enough?

Seems quite obvious to me.

I'm a libertarian, if I were elected, guess what I would try to get passed, that is right libertarian policies.

How is this not as obvious as water being wet and things falling when you drop them?

Yes, he is a professed democratic socialist, I agree with that; however, can you provide me an example to where, what he's proposing, has been tried and failed.

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: johnwick

He is a socialist, openly.

Socialism was tried many times, it is a utter failure.

It seems to be working well in the northern European nations, social democracies. Bernie's a Democratic Socialist, can you list some democratic socialist nations that have failed?

Oh, so this time it will be different?

Insanity - try the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result. Einstein.

Those countries are tiny, and they are all dying.

They have a reproductive rate of 1 or less, a country must have a 2.1 rate just to maintain their current population.

1 to replace mom, 1 to replace dad, and. 1 to make up for the Darwin award winners.

Without this, any nation will die.

This is not debatable, it is a numerical fact.

They are circling the drain as we speak, and this current generation will be the last that lives as they do now, because there aren't enough new tax payers to pay for the bloated benefits the older generations are receiving.

Am I the only math major in this discussion?

Because this is all very very easy to see and understand to me, just from a numerical perspective.

originally posted by: Daedal

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Daedal
a reply to: johnwick

Could you explain to me what or how his position on issues equates to insanity or what he's saying has historically been proven as a failure as you've replied.

He is a socialist, openly.

Socialism was tried many times, it is a utter failure.

In other words, he is obviously crazy, because he thinks this time it will be different.

When it can't ever be different, it doesn't work, no matter how many times it is tried it will fail.

Berney, is a politician, he is going to tell those like you, that believe him, what you want to hear.

Then, true to form for a politician, he will enact his own viewpoint, which in this case is socialism.

You honestly think a new openly socialist politician is not going to try to enact legislation, that follows his ideology?

If he didn't want socialist policies, why would he be a socialist?

Clear enough?

Seems quite obvious to me.

I'm a libertarian, if I were elected, guess what I would try to get passed, that is right libertarian policies.

How is this not as obvious as water being wet and things falling when you drop them?

Yes, he is a professed democratic socialist, I agree with that; however, can you provide me an example to where, what he's proposing, has been tried and failed.

What does it matter what a politician running for president proposes?

They will say anything they think they need to in order to win.

Then once they are in, they enact their actual agenda, regardless of anything they promised.

Have you never lived through a presidential election cycle before?

I have, several, it is always the exact same every single time!!!

Just saying.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: johnwick

He is a socialist, openly.

Socialism was tried many times, it is a utter failure.

It seems to be working well in the northern European nations, social democracies. Bernie's a Democratic Socialist, can you list some democratic socialist nations that have failed?

Except for the massive national debts in all the countries.

Tick by Tick -- Bombs Away

Which isn't bigger than ours, eh?

But, our population is growing.

If we froze spending growth for 1 decade, 10 years, we would grow out of our debt.

They can't say the same, over the next decade, their spending must increase, and their revenue must decrease, because of their declining population, and an aging population.

a reply to: johnwick

What matters in my opinion, is they're record related to rhetoric, and if history provides an example that lends credence to the present; in Bernie's case it does.

Why would someone whose been pushing for legislation for years, as an independent, all the sudden after decades of consistency, jump ship and go rogue, it don't make sense.

If anything, I would rather support a straight shooter, so to speak, one from outside the duopoly currently in power. Have a look at his history as mayor or in college for that matter, he's stuck to his guns, I like that.

His ideals haven't been hampered by or curtailed by outside interests and big money, common people support Bernie and believe in his ideas, not just because; but his history supports his integrity and people see that and discern his intentions based on it.

I’ll let you in on a little secret, johnwick, that I discovered recently, but you have to promise to keep it under your hat. The U.S. is not a Democracy. SHHH! SHHHH! We can’t let this get out. It could cause widespread panic and mayhem.

I don’t think that amongst the developed nations of the world there is a single purely democratic one. Most are a mixture of ideologies, including a certain degree of what many may consider socialist policy. The following programs/ideals in America are considered socialist by many:

Social Security Income
Medicare/Medicaid
Equality under the Law
Equal Access
Public Education

However, many Americans benefit from these programs and hold them dear.

On the flip-side, Capitalism isn’t the end-all, either. Taken to it’s extreme (which we have) results in income inequality, rampant poverty, massive unemployment and is unsustainable.

Bottom line is, if you hang your hat on a single, narrow ideology, then only a single, narrow and unstable solution will result. A better idea, IMHO, is to ignore the ideological labels and just do what works.

Peace...

PS: BTW, I pretty much agree with the title of the OP. In many cases (not all) I think it takes a borderline OCD, ruthless and self-serving desire/drive to get, and stay, rich.

originally posted by: Daedal
a reply to: johnwick

What matters in my opinion, is they're record related to rhetoric, and if history provides an example that lends credence to the present; in Bernie's case it does.

Why would someone whose been pushing for legislation for years, as an independent, all the sudden after decades of consistency, jump ship and go rogue, it don't make sense.

If anything, I would rather support a straight shooter, so to speak, one from outside the duopoly currently in power. Have a look at his history as mayor or in college for that matter, he's stuck to his guns, I like that.

His ideals haven't been hampered by or curtailed by outside interests and big money, common people support Bernie and believe in his ideas, not just because; but his history supports his integrity and people see that and discern his intentions based on it.

Maybe I will look more closely into berny, only one politician has ever impressed me, because his record was flawless, Ron Paul.

He voted the things he said 100 percent of the time.

I didn't always agree with him, but at the least he was honest, and had integrity.

That does matter to me.

I prefer the truth I don't like, to the lie I love.

originally posted by: netbound
I’ll let you in on a little secret, johnwick, that I discovered recently, but you have to promise to keep it under your hat. The U.S. is not a Democracy. SHHH! SHHHH! We can’t let this get out. It could cause widespread panic and mayhem.

I don’t think that amongst the developed nations of the world there is a single purely democratic one. Most are a mixture of ideologies, including a certain degree of what many may consider socialist policy. The following programs/ideals in America are considered socialist by many:

Social Security Income
Medicare/Medicaid
Equality under the Law
Equal Access
Public Education

However, many Americans benefit from these programs and hold them dear.

On the flip-side, Capitalism isn’t the end-all, either. Taken to it’s extreme (which we have) results in income inequality, rampant poverty, massive unemployment and is unsustainable.

Bottom line is, if you hang your hat on a single, narrow ideology, then only a single, narrow and unstable solution will result. A better idea, IMHO, is to ignore the ideological labels and just do what works.

Peace...

PS: BTW, I pretty much agree with the title of the OP. In many cases (not all) I think it takes a borderline OCD, ruthless and self-serving desire/drive to get, and stay, rich.

Quoted for truth and accuracy!!

a reply to: Daedal

Well, this applies more to bankers than the billionaires but studies have shown coc aine and making large amounts of money on a deal trigger the same pleasurable sensations in the brain. Then we wonder why Wall Street has such an epidemic with coc aine use... it's definitely a mental health issue.

originally posted by: johnwick
But, our population is growing.

If we froze spending growth for 1 decade, 10 years, we would grow out of our debt.

They can't say the same, over the next decade, their spending must increase, and their revenue must decrease, because of their declining population, and an aging population.

This is why the penny plan (which is very close to a spending freeze) is such a deeply flawed plan. The Penny Plan proposes that we cut federal spending by 1% per year for 10 years to fix our problems. We average a 3.5% per year inflation rate (though it's being kept artificially low right now). This means that under the penny plan, next year we would spend 99% vs 103.5% to maintain budgeting parity. Over 10 years this means expenditures are at 90% vs 141%, and there's 7% more people to serve. This makes that plan a roughly 61% cut in spending over 10 years, such an extreme cut is well beyond even the wildest demands of those opposed to spending.

a reply to: netbound

Excellent observation.



Capitalism in and of its self is not the problem nor is it the solution. In developing nations capitalism and free markets encourage growth, as it still does; however, unregulated capital that allows for the few, some 85 people out of 7 billion, to control the markets and world for that matter, has become destructive, look at Greece or maybe even Puerto Rico.

That's why I like Bernie's proposal of breaking up the banks, like he said, "to big to fail to big to exist." The monopolies that currently exist control just about everything, just look at the food industry as example, just a few names control the whole darn thing, how's that for the free market and capitalism.

Capitalism coupled with greed and the lust for power has resulted in what we see today. I don't know what has to be done per say, but if there is someone I'd entrust to take it to the corporations and the banks, I'd choose Bernie.

originally posted by: Daedal
a reply to: netbound

Excellent observation.

Capitalism in and of its self is not the problem nor is it the solution. In developing nations capitalism and free markets encourage growth, as it still does; however, unregulated capital that allows for the few, some 85 people out of 7 billion, to control the markets and world for that matter, has become destructive, look at Greece or maybe even Puerto Rico.

That's why I like Bernie's proposal of breaking up the banks, like he said, "to big to fail to big to exist." The monopolies that currently exist control just about everything, just look at the food industry as example, just a few names control the whole darn thing, how's that for the free market and capitalism.

Capitalism coupled with greed and the lust for power has resulted in what we see today. I don't know what has to be done per say, but if there is someone I'd entrust to take it to the corporations and the banks, I'd choose Bernie.

"too big to fail, too big to exist ".

I said that to my brother in 08.

Where TF are the antitrust regulations?

IBM, bell telephone....

Broken up painfully costing tens of thousands of jobs, not even 1/100th the size and capital holdings of these banks.

Yet they let these "too big to fail" banks merge after this bs?

I would have watched them sink, frozen the markets for 2 weeks, did a soft opening, with strict trading regulations, let the necessary market corrections occur, and than opened back up full tilt in 6 months to a year.

No bailout, no QE3, no letting the banks rape the middle class for profit, and then get hundreds of billions in bailout money, that they used immediately to give outrageous bonuses to those that caused this.

And jail time, there would have been hundreds of thousands of of years of sentences handed out.

But I care about regular folks, that's the flaw in my thinking.

a reply to: johnwick

I go back and forth on the bailouts. Without the bailouts we probably would have been looking at a complete collapse of the financial system. If that happened there wouldn't have been funding for schools, public utilities, or anything else. We likely would have also seen three generations that wouldn't be able to retire rather than one. Our banking system would be healthier today but would it have been worth it? Among other things we would be in year 7 now of no education system at all due to there being no funding, no road repair, no energy investment like the fracking booms, and even higher unemployment.

I am confused... how can in one post the claim be we have taken capitalism to the extreme, right after posting a list of 5 separate items that are said to be socialist?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: johnwick

I go back and forth on the bailouts. Without the bailouts we probably would have been looking at a complete collapse of the financial system. If that happened there wouldn't have been funding for schools, public utilities, or anything else. We likely would have also seen three generations that wouldn't be able to retire rather than one. Our banking system would be healthier today but would it have been worth it? Among other things we would be in year 7 now of no education system at all due to there being no funding, no road repair, no energy investment like the fracking booms, and even higher unemployment.

Wrong.

It is the old narrative of workers vs management.

If tomorrow, none of the workers showed up how would the company do?

If tomorrow none of the management showed up, how would the company do?

The company doesn't really need the management, the work would still get done without them, without the workers... Well there is no need for the management, because there would be no company.

The market doesn't exist because of the banks, it exists in spite of them.

You would still need gas for your car and food for your table right?

Well the guy at the gas station still needs those things to.

Honestly, the banks could disappear, and we would all be OK, we would just have to believe that $1 was still worth $1.

That is honestly the only thing that makes the economy work.

Banks or not, this concept would still exist.

As long as folks didn't panic we would be just fine.

Banks don't make this concept work, we the people do, the banks just figured out how to be the middle man for profit.

a reply to: Punisher75
I thought that curious as well but let it slide, because I didn't feel like arguing.

I didn't read the entire thread, but I understand the jist. I just want to understand why people think the billionaires are any different from anyone else? Everyone hates on the 1%....why?

Say, suddenly, you inherited $15BN from a distant relative, that you had no idea existed before today...

What would you do with that money/wealth? Would you invest it? Would you distribute it evenly to your friends and family? Would you give it all away to charity? Would you ever give another F $#K what anyone thought of you?

I have always wanted to know what people who despise the 1% would do if THEY had the money.