Bernie Sanders says he wants to "redistribute wealth". But what does that really mean?

[HereWeGoAgain]

It's an unpleasant fact of life that nobody has ever gotten rich as a result of the Marxist idea of "redistribution of wealth". Money is power and the stated intent of the socialists is to seize the power and use it for their own ends. The problem is that most socialists can't walk and chew gum at the same time so the corporate power they seize turns to junk, the people become equal only in their shared misery and only the socialist elites benefit until the system finally collapses.

Yeah junk, except in EVERY single country that is doing it well. Name a country that you think is prospering. Just one. I promise you they have many of the 'socialist' policies that Sanders is advocating.

You cant name any can you?
This sounds very much like the Tom Sawyer fence painting scheme.

I can name plenty. I asked you your opinion on what country you feel is doing well and prospering.

Than why are you asking?
Put em up.

 

[g5000]

Bernie is a classic live in mom's basement economic illiterate.

I hear he wants to turn the Post office into a bank, but the only way that would work is if you turned the Banks into a Post Office.

It........could........work!!!!!!!

There are several countries whose postal services provide banking services. Including the US for many decades.

They have proven to be very profitable. Germany's was so profitable, it was bought out by their biggest bank.

Do the customers at these banks in low-income neighborhoods have to show some form of photo ID?

You love them apples and oranges fallacies, don't you.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The bitter tears of your failure....
You want to know the best thing about class warfare?
You're the only one who has to fight it.

Only one of us is the idiot who supports politicians and policies that actually go against our own best interest. Talk about failure.

Keep up the good fight there sparky...
Although you could use that time and energy to improve your place in life.
But I'm sure picketing outside the MickyD's will eventually pay off for you.

This coming from the guy who is "retired".

LOL, thanks for the laugh turnip.

Here ya go sparky..since you seem confused.
Although with the high likely hood of you never needing to utter the word I can see where the confusion lies.

re·tired
rəˈtī(ə)rd/
adjective

1. 1.
   having left one's job and ceased to work.
   "a retired teacher"
   synonyms: former, ex-, past, in retirement, superannuated More
   
   
   
   
2. 2.

I know what retired means. You aren't retired. You're unemployed and a hypocrite. Look up those terms chief.

You go ahead think whatever makes you feel better about yourself..

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The bitter tears of your failure....
You want to know the best thing about class warfare?
You're the only one who has to fight it.

Only one of us is the idiot who supports politicians and policies that actually go against our own best interest. Talk about failure.

Keep up the good fight there sparky...
Although you could use that time and energy to improve your place in life.
But I'm sure picketing outside the MickyD's will eventually pay off for you.

This coming from the guy who is "retired".

LOL, thanks for the laugh turnip.

Here ya go sparky..since you seem confused.
Although with the high likely hood of you never needing to utter the word I can see where the confusion lies.

re·tired
rəˈtī(ə)rd/
adjective

1. 1.
   having left one's job and ceased to work.
   "a retired teacher"
   synonyms: former, ex-, past, in retirement, superannuated More
   
   
   
   
2. 2.

Bernie is going to tax wealth not just income so say bye bye to your 401k.

So Colonel Sanders is going to raid everyones 401k?
That'll go over real well.

 

[williepete]

One of you Bernistas please chime in:

Say I'm the CEO of a greedy, evil corporation facing severe competition from overseas firms with lower labor costs and few regulations. My company supplies jobs to, er, oppresses American workers. I have to show a profit for the company to survive in a competitive market. I have to show a return to my investors to maintain their confidence so they will continue to be a source of working capital. I have to daily prove to the board of directors that I'm their best pick as CEO for the health of the company and to beat our competition.

How is Bernie going to force me to abandon sound business practices learned the hard way in order to bankrupt my company, un-employ my workers, deflate my company stock and most important get myself fired? I've been all through his web site and he says he's going to do this but he never says how. So do tell.

I can't wait to hear this.

 

[Votto]

Bernie is a classic live in mom's basement economic illiterate.

I hear he wants to turn the Post office into a bank, but the only way that would work is if you turned the Banks into a Post Office.

It........could........work!!!!!!!

. Germany's was so profitable, it was bought out by their biggest bank.

Wait,......wut?

The Post Office posing as a bank was so profitable it was bought out by a bank?

Oh, the irony.

So why then are we wanting to do this again?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is the latest installation of liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

----------------------------------------------

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Oct. 20, 2015

In an interview with Felix Salmon of Fusion, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders explains how he would redistribute wealth back to the middle class. However, Sanders said it's "a little more complicated" than just taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the middle class. Sanders also proposed a wealth tax to help pay for his economic agenda.

"I think what’s happened is that there has been mass redistribution of wealth in this country for the last 30 years," Sanders said. "The problem is it’s gone from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1%. And I think we have to redistribute it back to working families and the middle class so that they can have a decent standard of living."

What it really means is that Bernie Sanders wants working class Americans to get a bigger share of the pie.

 

[Votto]

One of you Bernistas please chime in:

Say I'm the CEO of a greedy, evil corporation facing severe competition from overseas firms with lower labor costs and few regulations. My company supplies jobs to, er, oppresses American workers. I have to show a profit for the company to survive in a competitive market. I have to show a return to my investors to maintain their confidence so they will continue to be a source of working capital. I have to daily prove to the board of directors that I'm their best pick as CEO for the health of the company and to beat our competition.

How is Bernie going to force me to abandon sound business practices learned the hard way in order to bankrupt my company, un-employ my workers, deflate my company stock and most important get myself fired? I've been all through his web site and he says he's going to do this but he never says how. So do tell.

I can't wait to hear this.

I think the plan is for business around the country to go belly up first.

They want large corporations running everything and snuff out the smaller businesses.

 

[Votto]

This is the latest installation of liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

----------------------------------------------

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Oct. 20, 2015

In an interview with Felix Salmon of Fusion, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders explains how he would redistribute wealth back to the middle class. However, Sanders said it's "a little more complicated" than just taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the middle class. Sanders also proposed a wealth tax to help pay for his economic agenda.

"I think what’s happened is that there has been mass redistribution of wealth in this country for the last 30 years," Sanders said. "The problem is it’s gone from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1%. And I think we have to redistribute it back to working families and the middle class so that they can have a decent standard of living."

What it really means is that Bernie Sanders wants working class Americans to get a bigger share of the pie.

But we have heard this from the Dim nut jobs for about a century or so.

And every time they promise it they never produce. All we wind up with is less freedom and more heart ache.

 

[williepete]

And they keep buying it.

 

[BluesLegend]

Bernie Sanders says he wants to "redistribute wealth". But what does that really mean?

He wants to redistribute wealth to the Democratic party coffers, the poor will see little of this wealth. Here's an example, Obama gave Baltimore nearly $1 billion dollars in stimulus money. Guess how much poor blacks got for jobs training? A paltry $3 million. Where did the money go? Right into the public and private union coffers to buy votes and for campaign contribution kick backs to Dem politicians. If you think these liberals like Bernie and Hillary give a shit about the poor you are a stupid fool.

 

[Votto]

Bernie Sanders says he wants to "redistribute wealth". But what does that really mean?

He wants to redistribute wealth to the Democratic party coffers, the poor will see little of this wealth. Here's an example, Obama gave Baltimore nearly $1 billion dollars in stimulus money. Guess how much poor blacks got for jobs training? A paltry $3 million. Where did the money go? Right into the public and private union coffers to buy votes and for campaign contribution kick backs to Dem politicians. If you think these liberals like Bernie and Hillary give a shit about the poor you are a stupid fool.

But if they are Bernie or Hillary supporters they are stupid fools.

I find the term "sheeple" more PC than stupid fools.

They think that electing a good shepherd is their only hope for a good life.

 

[BluesLegend]

Bernie Sanders says he wants to "redistribute wealth". But what does that really mean?

He wants to redistribute wealth to the Democratic party coffers, the poor will see little of this wealth. Here's an example, Obama gave Baltimore nearly $1 billion dollars in stimulus money. Guess how much poor blacks got for jobs training? A paltry $3 million. Where did the money go? Right into the public and private union coffers to buy votes and for campaign contribution kick backs to Dem politicians. If you think these liberals like Bernie and Hillary give a shit about the poor you are a stupid fool.

But if they are Bernie or Hillary supporters they are stupid fools.

I find the term "sheeple" more PC than stupid fools.

They think that electing a good shepherd is their only hope for a good life.

A large portion of their supporters are people who are bitter and angry about where they ended up in life. Hillary and Bernie encourage them to blame corporations and the 1% and the morons eat it up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is the latest installation of liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

----------------------------------------------

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Oct. 20, 2015

In an interview with Felix Salmon of Fusion, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders explains how he would redistribute wealth back to the middle class. However, Sanders said it's "a little more complicated" than just taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the middle class. Sanders also proposed a wealth tax to help pay for his economic agenda.

"I think what’s happened is that there has been mass redistribution of wealth in this country for the last 30 years," Sanders said. "The problem is it’s gone from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1%. And I think we have to redistribute it back to working families and the middle class so that they can have a decent standard of living."

What it really means is that Bernie Sanders wants working class Americans to get a bigger share of the pie.

But we have heard this from the Dim nut jobs for about a century or so.

And every time they promise it they never produce. All we wind up with is less freedom and more heart ache.

You want to bring back the Gilded Age? Fine. Go for it.

 

[oreo]

This is the latest installation of liberals and other socialists saying they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberal socialists think they can do it better.

But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.

Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.

But if our modern liberal socialists had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The liberal socialists want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked them exactly what the money was used for, they can't answer the question.

People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.

These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.

"Redistributing" is the liberal socialists' way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. They're trying to get you away from that idea.

A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing those liberal socialists are. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.

Next time one of our liberal socialists tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in many ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.

----------------------------------------------

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Bernie Sanders: A "Little More Complicated" Than Just Taking Wealth From The Rich And Redistributing It

Oct. 20, 2015

In an interview with Felix Salmon of Fusion, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders explains how he would redistribute wealth back to the middle class. However, Sanders said it's "a little more complicated" than just taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the middle class. Sanders also proposed a wealth tax to help pay for his economic agenda.

"I think what’s happened is that there has been mass redistribution of wealth in this country for the last 30 years," Sanders said. "The problem is it’s gone from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1%. And I think we have to redistribute it back to working families and the middle class so that they can have a decent standard of living."

So you really believe that the top 1% is going to be able to take care of the 99%--LOL

Look it's clear that Bernie Sanders is a looser from way back. He didn't earn his first paycheck until he was 40 years old, and went running into POLITICS. He's never worked at an Ice Cream stand, let alone managed one.
Bernie Sanders a Bum Who Didn't Earn His First Steady Paycheck Until Age 40 Then Wormed His Way Into Politics - The Gateway Pundit

I don't know what world you came from, but when I was 18 years old, I was out of mommy & daddies house and earning my own living. In my day anyone that was 21 and still in their parents home and living off of them was a looser.

Someone like Bernie Sanders who did that crap until he was 40 YEARS old is a very lazy, unmotivated person, living off of anyone that will put up with him. He's a TAKER. He doesn't bother to participate in taking care of himself--because of the way he was raised, and he knew that others would take care of his crap for him. Someone was always there holding his hand, and patting him on the back, telling him it wasn't his fault he was a LOOSER, it was the WORLD'S fault.

Now he's preaching it to the Millennials in this country with promises of free shit coming from everyone. Free college tuition for underwater basket weaving classes. Of course it will be paid for off of the backs of working motivated American citizens.

Socialism

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

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill

What's next for Bernie--free puppies for votes?

 

[Little-Acorn]

He says he wants to "redistribute wealth".
It's remarkable how little difference there is between the ideas and motivations of people who say they want to "redistribute wealth", and those of a mugger who holds you up at gunpoint and steals your wallet.
Both want your money. Both think it's OK for them to take it even if you would rather keep it. Both have no legal foundation for their actions.

I'll assume you're not rich, which means what Sanders wants to do will benefit YOU.

Of course. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, that always benefits Paul.

Does that mean it's OK for the government to rob Peter?

I thought the purpose of government was to protect Peter from getting robbed. (and Paul too.) When did that change?

 

[Little-Acorn]

So you really believe that the top 1% is going to be able to take care of the 99%--LOL

You know the liberals have run out of credible arguments, when they start making up things you didn't say and try to bash you for them anyway.

 

[williepete]

Who needs credible arguments when you have a basement bedroom shelf full of trophies?

 

[peach174]

If y'all can explain why there are mega-corporations that pay little or no taxes, while you the middle class pay your fair share, it will all become clear to you.

If you're too ignorant to understand the premise, just keep making stupid statements.

That is a propaganda scam by the left.
The tax codes apply for all on tax breaks.

 

[peach174]

So you really believe that the top 1% is going to be able to take care of the 99%--LOL

You know the liberals have run out of credible arguments, when they start making up things you didn't say and try to bash you for them anyway.

Yep!
Then when that doesn't work they turn into 5th grade class bullies.
Very pathetic.