Sanders planning "Major Speech" on democratic socialism

[Papageorgio]

It was never about "evil corporations". It was about the amount of power they have over congress and the legislation that they purchase.

The one that controls the power to change that is Congress, not corporations. Congress needs to set limits and neither party will do that.

That's how it is supposed to work. That's not how it actually works. So, they cut out the middle man and went straight to Wall Street. The argument was later made that it was somehow all about all corporations are evil. Intentionally moving the issue to extremes.

That is why Occupy Wall Street was such a farce, it attacked the symptom not the cause. Congress is and always has been the issue.

That's funny. Considering that the Tea Party was created from top to bottom by billionaires and your Tea Party group in Congress does exactly what the Heritage Foundation and Cato tells it to. They run their own numbers, control their own media and are largely involved in top to bottom for profit and heavy into the financial industry. This is why the Tea Party is a farce. It bought Congress.

My TeaParty group? You are a partisan but job.

I said Congress, last I saw Congress was full of Republicans and Democrats. Democrats when controlling Congress did nothing to stop Congress.

You don't want to solve anything, you want to blame others. Partisanship is a problem and you proved it.

 

[Disir]

It was never about "evil corporations". It was about the amount of power they have over congress and the legislation that they purchase.

The one that controls the power to change that is Congress, not corporations. Congress needs to set limits and neither party will do that.

That's how it is supposed to work. That's not how it actually works. So, they cut out the middle man and went straight to Wall Street. The argument was later made that it was somehow all about all corporations are evil. Intentionally moving the issue to extremes.

That is why Occupy Wall Street was such a farce, it attacked the symptom not the cause. Congress is and always has been the issue.

That's funny. Considering that the Tea Party was created from top to bottom by billionaires and your Tea Party group in Congress does exactly what the Heritage Foundation and Cato tells it to. They run their own numbers, control their own media and are largely involved in top to bottom for profit and heavy into the financial industry. This is why the Tea Party is a farce. It bought Congress.

My TeaParty group? You are a partisan but job.

I said Congress, last I saw Congress was full of Republicans and Democrats. Democrats when controlling Congress did nothing to stop Congress.

You don't want to solve anything, you want to blame others. Partisanship is a problem and you proved it.

You're on the Right, right? Or are you just desperately trying to shift as quickly away as you can so that you don't have to face it.

It's the House Freedom Caucus, cry baby.

 

[DonaldFG]

Actually, capitalism can be a good system. But the free market type has been a dismal failure.

You do understand that "free market" is simply another way of saying voluntary exchange, right? Voluntary exchange being only workable in the absence of coercion of course, what other way would you like to see exchange take place, involuntarily? What other mechanism would you like to see determining the dynamics of the economy other than a free market, central planning?

So, the American brand of capitalism has had its moments, but it has not served society for the general good. It appears to me that the nations blending socialist policies with capitalism are doing the best for their people.

Had it's moments? I'd say that's more than a bit of an understatement given that it's created the wealthiest society in the history of mankind, why would we want to change that? So that we can be less wealthy and have less economic freedom?

We need an economic system that responds to human needs much more efficiently, especially with resources.

What system would that be? History clearly demonstrates that no system yet tried has been as successful at fulfilling on such a broad scale human wants and needs as that which has been practiced in the United States.

Usually economists refer to the free market as "unregulated". That is the type I referred to. FDR saw the problems with that and created the well regulated "New Deal". This worked pretty well until about 1980.

You claimed this is the wealthiest society in history. Then why are there still poor in America? Why are so many unemployed? Why is the economy so unbalanced towards the rich? I don't resent the rich. But they are not entitled to everything.

No system yet tried? I see better performing economies for their citizenry elsewhere.

 

[DonaldFG]

Also, USSR had a tyrannical government.

So it's no longer your assertion that the United States has been so economically successful because of it's resources, it's because we didn't have a "tyrannical government"? Why did the Soviet Union have a tyrannical government, did it have anything to do with the necessity to tightly control economic activity?

About the organized theft issue, you need to read John Perkins book. It is really enlightening!

This is what lawyers call a "document dump", instead of addressing my point you attempt to throw a book at me, I could throw a whole library of books that I've read at you on the subject of economics, however that would not provide anything useful to the discussion nor would I expect you to read them. Try addressing the point yourself......

I don't have an unlimited amount of time for this sort of discussion. Do you?

John Perkins is not an economist. He is a whistleblower on how American style capitalism works. He was trained by the CIA to do the dirty work he describes.

 

[DonaldFG]

IT'S HYSTERICAL watching left-wing nutjobs here try to portray themselves as moderates merely trying to "correct" the situation where the rich have "too much". As if every dictator in the world didnt think the same way.
one idiot yesterday, donald, says he only wants to take one car away from a rich person who has 8 cars and give it to the poor i guess. As if that would ever satisfy people who think what others have belongs to the government first, not even the poor, to be "distributed" as the government sees fit

idiots and hypocrites

DON'T blame me for that statement. I did not make it.

 

[NightFox]

Usually economists refer to the free market as "unregulated".

Not any economist that knows what he/she is talking about, free markets do not require "no regulation" they require voluntary exchange (i.e. absence of coercion), big difference.

FDR saw the problems with that and created the well regulated "New Deal".

FDR saw the opportunity to buy votes with tax payer money, he was not only an anti individual liberty fanatic but he was short sighted to boot on the plus side he was a good commander in chief with respect to putting the right people in the right places to fight and win WW II.

This worked pretty well until about 1980.

As Maggie said: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" apparently this holds true for trying to use tax payer money to subsidize everyone under the sun including the wealthiest members of society, do you realize that (last time I checked) 82 cents of every federal subsidy dollar goes to people that are NOT poor? and that doesn't even include hidden subsidies like the distribution effects of inflation which go solely to the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of everybody else.

You claimed this is the wealthiest society in history.

I don't claim it , the facts prove it.

Then why are there still poor in America?

Poor in comparison to whom?

Why are so many unemployed?

Primarily due to government intervention in the economy and our unwillingness to do what it takes to compete on a global scale, what did you think it was?

Why is the economy so unbalanced towards the rich? I don't resent the rich. But they are not entitled to everything.

It's not our economy that is "unbalanced towards the rich" it's government that is, the rich can buy all the regulatory and tax favoritism in Washington and State Capitals that they want, not to say all of them do but those that don't play the game (see Apple Computer) get the congressional hearing smack down for attempting to compete honestly. The more you increase government power over the economy the worse this situation (i.e. "unbalancing") will become.

No system yet tried? I see better performing economies for their citizenry elsewhere.

Where?

 

[DonaldFG]

How about humans meeting their own needs instead of expecting the government to do it for them?

Humans form governments to help organize society for the common good. We have had considerable trouble controlling our governments afterwards, however.

 

[Conservative65]

How about humans meeting their own needs instead of expecting the government to do it for them?

Humans form governments to help organize society for the common good. We have had considerable trouble controlling our governments afterwards, however.

Depends on how you define common good. I've found that bleeding hearts like you define it as the government providing people things they should be providing themselves. There are things that people should simply provide to themselves, get someone to voluntarily provide to them, or do without.

 

[DonaldFG]

No system yet tried? I see better performing economies for their citizenry elsewhere.

Where?

Where social programs are integrated with capitalism. Examples: Switzerland, Germany...

 

[DonaldFG]

The poorest in America live far better than the vast majority of the rest of the world. They should kiss the ground they walk on for having running water and a roof over their head

Yeah, that bridge overhead really helps keep the rain off.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The poorest in America live far better than the vast majority of the rest of the world. They should kiss the ground they walk on for having running water and a roof over their head

Yeah, that bridge overhead really helps keep the rain off.

Can't help the mentally ill, they belong in a shelter or out living with Mick Dodge

 

[DonaldFG]

How about humans meeting their own needs instead of expecting the government to do it for them?

Humans form governments to help organize society for the common good. We have had considerable trouble controlling our governments afterwards, however.

Depends on how you define common good. I've found that bleeding hearts like you define it as the government providing people things they should be providing themselves. There are things that people should simply provide to themselves, get someone to voluntarily provide to them, or do without.

When a person has literally nothing, he can't provide for himself. This is an example where government help is needed.

 

[Conservative65]

How about humans meeting their own needs instead of expecting the government to do it for them?

Humans form governments to help organize society for the common good. We have had considerable trouble controlling our governments afterwards, however.

Depends on how you define common good. I've found that bleeding hearts like you define it as the government providing people things they should be providing themselves. There are things that people should simply provide to themselves, get someone to voluntarily provide to them, or do without.

When a person has literally nothing, he can't provide for himself. This is an example where government help is needed.

The government isn't needed for that. If YOU see a need YOU believe warrants help, write a check. That you think the government is the solution proves you aren't willing to do what you say needs to be done. If you were, you'd do it, say nothing about it, and go on about your business. What you do is expect the rest of us to see it your way thinking it's your place to determine for someone else how and to what level to help someone else.

 

[NightFox]

No system yet tried? I see better performing economies for their citizenry elsewhere.

Where?

Where social programs are integrated with capitalism. Examples: Switzerland, Germany...

We have "social programs" "integrated" with capitalism here already, are you not aware of the gigantic welfare state that currently exists in the U.S? in real dollar terms and numbers of recipients it's already bigger and broader than what they have in Switzerland and Germany combined.

Neither Switzerland (a confederacy BTW) nor Germany operate on the same scale as the United States (far smaller, less diverse populations and land area), their institutions, forms of state, cultures, traditions and attitudes differ significantly from those of the U.S. not to mention both of those countries have received incredible largess from the United States in the form of national defense subsidies, in Germany's case we also have had highly favorable trade policies toward them since the end of WW II and essentially rebuilt their economy (along with most of the rest of Western Europe's) after they attempted to annihilate themselves with two world wars in the twentieth century.

So your comparisons are not apples to apples, I would also add that having lived in Germany for an extended period of time (which I enjoyed immensely) I found that their economy is not nor has been nearly as dynamic as ours is, they don't create the same level of innovation nor does the German economy generate the level entrepreneurial opportunity that ours has. Western European institutions are not our institutions and attempting to recreate them here without the same traditions, cultures and attitudes is a fools errand destined for failure, that doesn't mean we cannot learn anything from each other, it just means you cannot make dramatic changes based on what XYZ country does and expect positive results.

 

[DonaldFG]

When a person has literally nothing, he can't provide for himself. This is an example where government help is needed.

The government isn't needed for that. If YOU see a need YOU believe warrants help, write a check. That you think the government is the solution proves you aren't willing to do what you say needs to be done. If you were, you'd do it, say nothing about it, and go on about your business. What you do is expect the rest of us to see it your way thinking it's your place to determine for someone else how and to what level to help someone else.

Only the rich are able to do what you suggested to any significant extent. Oh, if only I could win that lottery. No, I seldom buy a lottery ticket.

 

[DonaldFG]

No system yet tried? I see better performing economies for their citizenry elsewhere.

Where?

Where social programs are integrated with capitalism. Examples: Switzerland, Germany...

We have "social programs" "integrated" with capitalism here already, are you not aware of the gigantic welfare state that currently exists in the U.S? in real dollar terms and numbers of recipients it's already bigger and broader than what they have in Switzerland and Germany combined.

Neither Switzerland (a confederacy BTW) nor Germany operate on the same scale as the United States (far smaller, less diverse populations and land area), their institutions, forms of state, cultures, traditions and attitudes differ significantly from those of the U.S. not to mention both of those countries have received incredible largess from the United States in the form of national defense subsidies, in Germany's case we also have had highly favorable trade policies toward them since the end of WW II and essentially rebuilt their economy (along with most of the rest of Western Europe's) after they attempted to annihilate themselves with two world wars in the twentieth century.

So your comparisons are not apples to apples, I would also add that having lived in Germany for an extended period of time (which I enjoyed immensely) I found that their economy is not nor has been nearly as dynamic as ours is, they don't create the same level of innovation nor does the German economy generate the level entrepreneurial opportunity that ours has. Western European institutions are not our institutions and attempting to recreate them here without the same traditions, cultures and attitudes is a fools errand destined for failure, that doesn't mean we cannot learn anything from each other, it just means you cannot make dramatic changes based on what XYZ country does and expect positive results.

The size of the country is irrelevant. Look at how it is run. About military aid and expenses, see the Perkins video I posted.

 

[Conservative65]

When a person has literally nothing, he can't provide for himself. This is an example where government help is needed.

The government isn't needed for that. If YOU see a need YOU believe warrants help, write a check. That you think the government is the solution proves you aren't willing to do what you say needs to be done. If you were, you'd do it, say nothing about it, and go on about your business. What you do is expect the rest of us to see it your way thinking it's your place to determine for someone else how and to what level to help someone else.

Only the rich are able to do what you suggested to any significant extent. Oh, if only I could win that lottery. No, I seldom buy a lottery ticket.

The "IF I could" argument. If you can't do what you think should be done, you're the last person to be saying the rest of us should do anything. What you're saying is you can't do something but it's OK if others are made to do it.

 

[NightFox]

No system yet tried? I see better performing economies for their citizenry elsewhere.

Where?

Where social programs are integrated with capitalism. Examples: Switzerland, Germany...

We have "social programs" "integrated" with capitalism here already, are you not aware of the gigantic welfare state that currently exists in the U.S? in real dollar terms and numbers of recipients it's already bigger and broader than what they have in Switzerland and Germany combined.

Neither Switzerland (a confederacy BTW) nor Germany operate on the same scale as the United States (far smaller, less diverse populations and land area), their institutions, forms of state, cultures, traditions and attitudes differ significantly from those of the U.S. not to mention both of those countries have received incredible largess from the United States in the form of national defense subsidies, in Germany's case we also have had highly favorable trade policies toward them since the end of WW II and essentially rebuilt their economy (along with most of the rest of Western Europe's) after they attempted to annihilate themselves with two world wars in the twentieth century.

So your comparisons are not apples to apples, I would also add that having lived in Germany for an extended period of time (which I enjoyed immensely) I found that their economy is not nor has been nearly as dynamic as ours is, they don't create the same level of innovation nor does the German economy generate the level entrepreneurial opportunity that ours has. Western European institutions are not our institutions and attempting to recreate them here without the same traditions, cultures and attitudes is a fools errand destined for failure, that doesn't mean we cannot learn anything from each other, it just means you cannot make dramatic changes based on what XYZ country does and expect positive results.

The size of the country is irrelevant. Look at how it is run.

LOL! mmmkkkayy..is which planet it's on also "irrelevant"?

About military aid and expenses, see the Perkins video I posted

If Perkins shows up here I'll have a discussion with him, k? In the meantime either you're capable of formulating your own arguments or you are not, which is it?

 

[DonaldFG]

The "IF I could" argument. If you can't do what you think should be done, you're the last person to be saying the rest of us should do anything. What you're saying is you can't do something but it's OK if others are made to do it.

No. I can't help directly to any significant extent. But if all citizens (including you and me) shared the burden through a small tax, such problems could be solved. That is the function of good government. The rich would not even notice this tax.

 

[DonaldFG]

No system yet tried? I see better performing economies for their citizenry elsewhere.

Where?

Where social programs are integrated with capitalism. Examples: Switzerland, Germany...

We have "social programs" "integrated" with capitalism here already, are you not aware of the gigantic welfare state that currently exists in the U.S? in real dollar terms and numbers of recipients it's already bigger and broader than what they have in Switzerland and Germany combined.

Neither Switzerland (a confederacy BTW) nor Germany operate on the same scale as the United States (far smaller, less diverse populations and land area), their institutions, forms of state, cultures, traditions and attitudes differ significantly from those of the U.S. not to mention both of those countries have received incredible largess from the United States in the form of national defense subsidies, in Germany's case we also have had highly favorable trade policies toward them since the end of WW II and essentially rebuilt their economy (along with most of the rest of Western Europe's) after they attempted to annihilate themselves with two world wars in the twentieth century.

So your comparisons are not apples to apples, I would also add that having lived in Germany for an extended period of time (which I enjoyed immensely) I found that their economy is not nor has been nearly as dynamic as ours is, they don't create the same level of innovation nor does the German economy generate the level entrepreneurial opportunity that ours has. Western European institutions are not our institutions and attempting to recreate them here without the same traditions, cultures and attitudes is a fools errand destined for failure, that doesn't mean we cannot learn anything from each other, it just means you cannot make dramatic changes based on what XYZ country does and expect positive results.

The size of the country is irrelevant. Look at how it is run.

LOL! mmmkkkayy..is which planet it's on also "irrelevant"?

About military aid and expenses, see the Perkins video I posted

If Perkins shows up here I'll have a discussion with him, k? In the meantime either you're capable of formulating your own arguments or you are not, which is it?

I stated my opinion, and the reason. I can't help your indifference. We are all a result of the information we are exposed to. The video is Perkins speaking the truth he revealed in his book. Vast corruption can't be explained in a sentence or two.