Bernie Calls For a Moral Economy; Why Not?

[bripat9643]

Why not? Because there is nothing moral about taking money from someone to give to someone else.

So it's immoral to have a democratic government that decides to collect taxes to help pay for the health and education of the poor.

See, that's how far off the planet the modern American conservative is.

No idiot, I said it is'nt moral to take money from some one and give it to someone else. That is Crazy Berie's whole schtick. His idea of a moral economy is income equality. That is what is immoral.

Equality of opportunity is moral, equality of outcome is not.

If I take your money and use it to provide healthcare for a poor person,

what about that is NOT taking money from you to give to someone else?

Nothing. That's why it's theft.

So you support theft to build the border wall?

Since I don't have a choice about being looted, that's where I want it spent.

 

[bripat9643]

So-called "Nordic socialism" is indistinguishable from capitalism.

What are you afraid of then?

Higher taxes and a lower standard of living.

I'm guessing that you've never been anywhere that has this kind of economy (probably think it would ruin your ideological purity). Most people who've visited these countries become pretty depressed when they return to the U.S.

If you are used to paying 40% in taxes and such they got used to it.

Imagine if we had a tax holiday for three months and people really see how much federal and state taxes they pay .. .

It would be a revolt when they took it away.


.

I pay more than 40% of my income in order to have decent medical care, college fund for the kids and retirement when the time comes. That's all part of the package over there. Plus they eat real food, start out with 6 weeks of vacation and don't work themselves to an early grave.

Yes, you pay a lot more than 40%. It's more like 60%, and your medical care sucks.

 

[bripat9643]

So-called "Nordic socialism" is indistinguishable from capitalism.

What are you afraid of then?

Higher taxes and a lower standard of living.

I'm guessing that you've never been anywhere that has this kind of economy (probably think it would ruin your ideological purity). Most people who've visited these countries become pretty depressed when they return to the U.S.

I know people who live in Germany and when they came here they thought they had died and gone to heaven. They thought our homes were enormous. They were amazed that everyone owned a car. In Germany they had to pay $50 bucks just to get on a tennis court. Forget about playing golf unless you're rich.

In short, you're lying.

So YOU'VE never been anywhere. Why am I not surprised? Yeah, our homes are enormous. So fucking what? Mine is almost 5000 sq ft but it's more of an investment than anything we actually need. And yeah, there are some other perks like cheap golf if that's your thing. Tennis for $50? Color me skeptical since they have some great parks. If I didn't have family and friends here plus a huge investment in time for career, I'd move to Europe in a heartbeat.

You just admitted you are a lot better off here than in the so-called "democratic socialist" countries.

 

[bripat9643]

Why not? Because there is nothing moral about taking money from someone to give to someone else.

So it's immoral to have a democratic government that decides to collect taxes to help pay for the health and education of the poor.

See, that's how far off the planet the modern American conservative is.

No idiot, I said it is'nt moral to take money from some one and give it to someone else. That is Crazy Berie's whole schtick. His idea of a moral economy is income equality. That is what is immoral.

Equality of opportunity is moral, equality of outcome is not.

If I take your money and use it to provide healthcare for a poor person,

what about that is NOT taking money from you to give to someone else?

There is nothing moral about that.

So an entire nation, democratically governed, has no moral authority to accompany its legal authority to levy taxes to help the poor.

Nope. It has no valid legal authority, period.

 

[bripat9643]

[


Socialism 101

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

That's a big fat strawman because no one of consequence is trying to impoverish the wealthy for the sake of the poor.

Horse manure. Every leftwing douche bag in this forum bleats about the rich "not paying their fair share" on a daily basis.

 

[bripat9643]

A moral economy?

Like one where people make money by honestly dealing with one another? And one profits by providing goods and services another person needs effectively and in a way that makes others voluntarily come to them to get their goods and solve their problems? Think of it. A system if economics where people serve one another to provide for themselves.

And one that self corrects if people act immorally.

Wait, we have one! It's called the free market. So why do we want to install a government that's going to tell us what we can or can't do or how we meet our needs for providing for ourselves or what we have to buy regardless of our choice?

The free market has no morality. Slaves were bought and sold like property in a free market.

People are not property. Slavery has nothing to do with the free market.

 

[bripat9643]

We can change tax policies to encourage a more moral and considerate form of economics, so why not do it?

Why do we prefer to live in an economic jungle instead of a 'well regulated' economic garden?

Which would you rather leave to your kids and grand kids?

At the Vatican, Sanders Calls for a ‘Moral Economy’
During a speech this morning at the Vatican, Senator Bernie Sanders advocated for an end to income inequality in America, condemned Wall Street for contributing to that inequality, and called for “a truly moral economy.”...


Sanders was the only presidential candidate invited to a conference at the Vatican today, which was hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. According to The New York Times, Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, the academy’s chancellor, said Sanders was invited because he is “the candidate who cites the pope the most in his campaign.”

The conference marks the 25th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus encyclical, which called for social and economic justice at the end of the Cold War. In that encyclical, the Pope spoke out against the “illicit exploitation, speculation, or the breaking of solidarity among working people” in pursuit of profit. That made the conference fertile ground for Sanders to discuss his core campaign issues, including income inequality and corporate greed.

But while Sanders is often challenged to explain the mechanics of his plans to decrease income inequality in the United States, the speech at the Vatican was a rare chance to lay out a purely moral argument for doing so.

“The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great economic issue of our time, the great political issue of our time, and the great moral issue of our time,” he said. “It is an issue that we must confront in my nation and across the world.”

Though Pope Francis wasn’t in attendance at the conference, Sanders invoked the Pope’s speeches and writings, showcasing the similarities between himself and Pope Francis.

“As Pope Francis has stated: ‘Man is not in charge today, money is in charge, money rules,'” Sanders said. “And the Pope has also stated: ‘We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal.'”

What could be more "immoral" than looting money from the people who earned it so you can dispense to ticks on the ass of society?

How does anyone believing robbing others is moral? It's a good question. I wish I had an answer to that.

So does every left winger in this forum.

 

[PredFan]

Equality of opportunity = Moral
Equality of Outcome = Stupid and immoral.

What equality of outcome are you objecting to?

The very idea is absurd, destructive, and just plain stupid.

 

[PredFan]

Why not? Because there is nothing moral about taking money from someone to give to someone else.

So it's immoral to have a democratic government that decides to collect taxes to help pay for the health and education of the poor.

See, that's how far off the planet the modern American conservative is.

No idiot, I said it is'nt moral to take money from some one and give it to someone else. That is Crazy Berie's whole schtick. His idea of a moral economy is income equality. That is what is immoral.

Equality of opportunity is moral, equality of outcome is not.

If I take your money and use it to provide healthcare for a poor person,

what about that is NOT taking money from you to give to someone else?

There is nothing moral about that.

So an entire nation, democratically governed, has no moral authority to accompany its legal authority to levy taxes to help the poor.

No moral authority, correct.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


Socialism 101

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

That's a big fat strawman because no one of consequence is trying to impoverish the wealthy for the sake of the poor.

Horse manure. Every leftwing douche bag in this forum bleats about the rich "not paying their fair share" on a daily basis.

Who does? Who on this forum wants a rich man to become a poor man?

 

[Renae]

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

People just living for today is the problem, dude. To survive you need foresight and to paln for the future, You need to pull together as part of a community.

And everything we think we know ultimately rests on the concept of an Orderly Minded Creator.

Without such a Creator, the universe is a dark, insane and cold place.

Bernie and Socialist don't care about you. They care about you giving them the power to dictate your life because THEY are right, you are stupid.

That's socialism in a nutshell, the masses are stupid, make bad choices and only the political elite are worthy, and deserving. Regardless what they say, that's the crux of it.

You want to be a slave to that sort of person, there are plenty of failed countries for you to choose from, don't ask us to sign your pact of failure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So it's immoral to have a democratic government that decides to collect taxes to help pay for the health and education of the poor.

See, that's how far off the planet the modern American conservative is.

No idiot, I said it is'nt moral to take money from some one and give it to someone else. That is Crazy Berie's whole schtick. His idea of a moral economy is income equality. That is what is immoral.

Equality of opportunity is moral, equality of outcome is not.

If I take your money and use it to provide healthcare for a poor person,

what about that is NOT taking money from you to give to someone else?

Nothing. That's why it's theft.

So you support theft to build the border wall?

Since I don't have a choice about being looted, that's where I want it spent.

Y

Equality of opportunity = Moral
Equality of Outcome = Stupid and immoral.

What equality of outcome are you objecting to?

The very idea is absurd, destructive, and just plain stupid.

That was 10 words of a non-answer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So it's immoral to have a democratic government that decides to collect taxes to help pay for the health and education of the poor.

See, that's how far off the planet the modern American conservative is.

No idiot, I said it is'nt moral to take money from some one and give it to someone else. That is Crazy Berie's whole schtick. His idea of a moral economy is income equality. That is what is immoral.

Equality of opportunity is moral, equality of outcome is not.

If I take your money and use it to provide healthcare for a poor person,

what about that is NOT taking money from you to give to someone else?

There is nothing moral about that.

So an entire nation, democratically governed, has no moral authority to accompany its legal authority to levy taxes to help the poor.

No moral authority, correct.

Since you now have established that you believe there is no such thing as morality, how, exactly, do you believe society should be run?

 

[bripat9643]

[


Socialism 101

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

That's a big fat strawman because no one of consequence is trying to impoverish the wealthy for the sake of the poor.

Horse manure. Every leftwing douche bag in this forum bleats about the rich "not paying their fair share" on a daily basis.

Who does? Who on this forum wants a rich man to become a poor man?

Every leftwing douche bag in this forum wants to take all of their wealth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A moral economy?

Like one where people make money by honestly dealing with one another? And one profits by providing goods and services another person needs effectively and in a way that makes others voluntarily come to them to get their goods and solve their problems? Think of it. A system if economics where people serve one another to provide for themselves.

And one that self corrects if people act immorally.

Wait, we have one! It's called the free market. So why do we want to install a government that's going to tell us what we can or can't do or how we meet our needs for providing for ourselves or what we have to buy regardless of our choice?

The free market has no morality. Slaves were bought and sold like property in a free market.

People are not property. Slavery has nothing to do with the free market.

If People declare a certain subset of 'people' to be property, yes, slavery becomes an exercise of the free market.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


Socialism 101

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

That's a big fat strawman because no one of consequence is trying to impoverish the wealthy for the sake of the poor.

Horse manure. Every leftwing douche bag in this forum bleats about the rich "not paying their fair share" on a daily basis.

Who does? Who on this forum wants a rich man to become a poor man?

Every leftwing douche bag in this forum wants to take all of their wealth.

Nice meltdown.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is it moral to pay people not to work?

 

[bripat9643]

A moral economy?

Like one where people make money by honestly dealing with one another? And one profits by providing goods and services another person needs effectively and in a way that makes others voluntarily come to them to get their goods and solve their problems? Think of it. A system if economics where people serve one another to provide for themselves.

And one that self corrects if people act immorally.

Wait, we have one! It's called the free market. So why do we want to install a government that's going to tell us what we can or can't do or how we meet our needs for providing for ourselves or what we have to buy regardless of our choice?

The free market has no morality. Slaves were bought and sold like property in a free market.

People are not property. Slavery has nothing to do with the free market.

If People declare a certain subset of 'people' to be property, yes, slavery becomes an exercisse of the free market.

That would be the same as government declaring everything you earn to be its property. The free market means all people are free to trade their labor for remuneration, not just a subset of them.

You simply want to define slavery as compatible with capitalism. The fact is that it took capitalism to abolish slavery.

 

[DarkFury]

Good Lord....I'm not sure here....Did the Bern EVER hold an actual job in his 75 years? Just curious - because he apparently has no clue whatsoever as to how an "Economy" and the "demand" in the economy works. So, I don't know, what do we do? elect this clown, allow him to make the government 10 times the size it is now and 20-25 TRILLION in debt and have him make hundreds of thousands a year while he tells US what WE can make?

Sounds pretty damned tyrannical to me - sort of like Fidel Castro....

That was an interesting question so I took a look.
"After graduating from college, Sanders returned to New York City, where he initially worked in a variety of jobs, including Head Start teacher, psychiatric aide, and carpenter.[28] In 1968, Sanders moved to Vermont because he had been "captivated by rural life." After his arrival there he worked as a carpenter, filmmaker, and writer[42] who created and sold "radical film strips" and other educational materials to schools.[43] He also wrote several articles for the alternative publication The Vermont Freeman.[44]"

And this....
"Following his resignation from Liberty Union, Sanders worked as a writer and the director of the nonprofit American People's Historical Society (APHS).[50] While with the APHS, he made a 30-minute documentary about American Socialist leader and presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs.[30][51]"

From here...
Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He IS a hard core socialist and has been all his life.

 

[PredFan]

No idiot, I said it is'nt moral to take money from some one and give it to someone else. That is Crazy Berie's whole schtick. His idea of a moral economy is income equality. That is what is immoral.

Equality of opportunity is moral, equality of outcome is not.

If I take your money and use it to provide healthcare for a poor person,

what about that is NOT taking money from you to give to someone else?

Nothing. That's why it's theft.

So you support theft to build the border wall?

Since I don't have a choice about being looted, that's where I want it spent.

Y

Equality of opportunity = Moral
Equality of Outcome = Stupid and immoral.

What equality of outcome are you objecting to?

The very idea is absurd, destructive, and just plain stupid.

That was 10 words of a non-answer.

No, it was a good answer. You just don't like it.