Sanders planning "Major Speech" on democratic socialism

[Conservative65]

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.

Then STFU. Your problem is you can't do what you say needs to be done but think it's OK to expect anyone else to do anything.

The function of good government isn't to force people to do what you admit you can't do yourself.

Who the hell are you to determine for anyone but yourself what would be noticed.

You aren't talking about sharing. You're talking about a mandate. Sharing involves a choice by the giver not a mandate from the taker. You don't want people to share. You want people to be forced to do what you can't do. When the answer is no, you think it's OK to force it.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

More programs like the unaffordable care act !!!

For the public good ! Lmfao

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There were no problems with the unregulated market. FDR was a scumbag who tried to implement fascism. Government meddling in the market is what caused the depression, not lack of regulation.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Our "poor" have a better standard of living than the middle class in most European countries.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong. The real reason they form governments is so a small class of privileged parasites can exploit and loot the larger mass of productive people.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

How can he "blow the whistle" on how American style capitalism works if he doesn't know how it works? If the CIA didn't train him as an economist, then he isn't qualified to the job you claim he does.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Anyone can make $100/day pan-handling in the street, so it's ridiculous to speak of people who have nothing.

 

[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.

Anyone can make $100/day pan-handling in the street, so it's ridiculous to speak of people who have nothing.

For many with low level skills, that $100/day is more than they would get working. They won't even go out and panhandled but expect that $100/day to be sent to the mailbox. I guess they think walking to it is a job.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I don't believe in all the tea party platforms, never have. I have maintained from day one the problem isn't Wall St., it is Congress allowing Wall St. to influence them with money. Congress has followed this pattern for decades. The party doesn't matter, both parties are at fault.

I lean conservative.

Partisan nutters have a tough time understanding that people can be left or right and not be extreme like yourself.

Sanders leans to far left for my taste.

 

[Disir]

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.

I don't believe in all the tea party platforms, never have. I have maintained from day one the problem isn't Wall St., it is Congress allowing Wall St. to influence them with money. Congress has followed this pattern for decades. The party doesn't matter, both parties are at fault.

I lean conservative.

Partisan nutters have a tough time understanding that people can be left or right and not be extreme like yourself.

Sanders leans to far left for my taste.

A platform is a platform. That's not relevant. The point is that the group behind the Tea Party controls everything from the input (data) to the output (media). I can tag Democrats all day long. Doesn't bother me a bit, ok? But this...........Democrats do it too is nothing more than a deflection.

Doesn't change the fact that Occupy decided to skip the middle man (congress) and took it to Wall Street. They didn't care if it was Democrat or Republican. You don't have to like it.

 

[Disir]

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.

Then STFU. Your problem is you can't do what you say needs to be done but think it's OK to expect anyone else to do anything.

The function of good government isn't to force people to do what you admit you can't do yourself.

Who the hell are you to determine for anyone but yourself what would be noticed.

You aren't talking about sharing. You're talking about a mandate. Sharing involves a choice by the giver not a mandate from the taker. You don't want people to share. You want people to be forced to do what you can't do. When the answer is no, you think it's OK to force it.

I do it. In fact, I have purchased wardrobes, food, given away vehicles, paid rent, etc. I spend between 8-12 hours a day, 5 days a week "investing" in all kinds of people.

I'm a tax payer as well. There are people at the bottom that absolutely are leeches. They have no motivation. I don't care how well you lay something out some of these people are absolutely not going to take it. They damn sure won't be motivated to attend any university free or otherwise. But, I notice that you don't have too damn much to say about the leeches in the for-profit fraud schemes.

The public universities should be free. Keeping higher education cost prohibitive does not guarantee talent. It guarantees only that education is maintained in the hands of the elite. Lawd knows some of these asshats aren't all that bright.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Then STFU. Your problem is you can't do what you say needs to be done but think it's OK to expect anyone else to do anything.

The function of good government isn't to force people to do what you admit you can't do yourself.

Who the hell are you to determine for anyone but yourself what would be noticed.

You aren't talking about sharing. You're talking about a mandate. Sharing involves a choice by the giver not a mandate from the taker. You don't want people to share. You want people to be forced to do what you can't do. When the answer is no, you think it's OK to force it.

I do it. In fact, I have purchased wardrobes, food, given away vehicles, paid rent, etc. I spend between 8-12 hours a day, 5 days a week "investing" in all kinds of people.

I'm a tax payer as well. There are people at the bottom that absolutely are leeches. They have no motivation. I don't care how well you lay something out some of these people are absolutely not going to take it. They damn sure won't be motivated to attend any university free or otherwise. But, I notice that you don't have too damn much to say about the leeches in the for-profit fraud schemes.

The public universities should be free. Keeping higher education cost prohibitive does not guarantee talent. It guarantees only that education is maintained in the hands of the elite. Lawd knows some of these asshats aren't all that bright.

How you do it is how it should be done. When you met those needs, YOU were the one that determined whether or not they were valid. With what the bleeding hearts do, they think it's their place to make that determination for others. In other words, if they don't like that I said "no" to a request for help where they felt it should have been met, they go about seeing that the help is mandated.

I didn't say anything about the for profit leeches because that wasn't the topic of discussion.

How can something like public universities be free? Are the professors working for free? Do the utility companies provides their services at no costs? Etc. If taxes fund what you say should be free, someone is paying and it isn't necessarily those doing the receiving. My daughter attends a private university. What her academic scholarships (roughly 90%) didn't cover, I pay (roughly 10%). On top of that, I already pay state taxes that offset the costs of universities she doesn't attend. Are you aware that's why there is in state and out-of-state tuition rates for state schools?

I'm far from elite but my daughter is getting an excellent education for which she earned scholarships to offset the costs. The balance, which I am more than happy and ABLE to pay since from the day she was born my wife and I started saving for college, is taken care of for ALL four years. What's left over MY family will use to do something entertaining. Since we saved it, it's OUR money not money that should be taxed to go to someone else's kid because that parent didn't do what my wife and I did nor the kid earned through scholarships.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I don't believe in all the tea party platforms, never have. I have maintained from day one the problem isn't Wall St., it is Congress allowing Wall St. to influence them with money. Congress has followed this pattern for decades. The party doesn't matter, both parties are at fault.

I lean conservative.

Partisan nutters have a tough time understanding that people can be left or right and not be extreme like yourself.

Sanders leans to far left for my taste.

A platform is a platform. That's not relevant. The point is that the group behind the Tea Party controls everything from the input (data) to the output (media). I can tag Democrats all day long. Doesn't bother me a bit, ok? But this...........Democrats do it too is nothing more than a deflection.

Doesn't change the fact that Occupy decided to skip the middle man (congress) and took it to Wall Street. They didn't care if it was Democrat or Republican. You don't have to like it.

Occupy skipped everything, they were nothing but thieves, rapists and criminals try to take advantage of a political cause.

It is no deflection because we are talking about Sanders and the Democrats, not Tea Party or Republicans.

 

[Disir]

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.

Then STFU. Your problem is you can't do what you say needs to be done but think it's OK to expect anyone else to do anything.

The function of good government isn't to force people to do what you admit you can't do yourself.

Who the hell are you to determine for anyone but yourself what would be noticed.

You aren't talking about sharing. You're talking about a mandate. Sharing involves a choice by the giver not a mandate from the taker. You don't want people to share. You want people to be forced to do what you can't do. When the answer is no, you think it's OK to force it.

I do it. In fact, I have purchased wardrobes, food, given away vehicles, paid rent, etc. I spend between 8-12 hours a day, 5 days a week "investing" in all kinds of people.

I'm a tax payer as well. There are people at the bottom that absolutely are leeches. They have no motivation. I don't care how well you lay something out some of these people are absolutely not going to take it. They damn sure won't be motivated to attend any university free or otherwise. But, I notice that you don't have too damn much to say about the leeches in the for-profit fraud schemes.

The public universities should be free. Keeping higher education cost prohibitive does not guarantee talent. It guarantees only that education is maintained in the hands of the elite. Lawd knows some of these asshats aren't all that bright.

How you do it is how it should be done. When you met those needs, YOU were the one that determined whether or not they were valid. With what the bleeding hearts do, they think it's their place to make that determination for others. In other words, if they don't like that I said "no" to a request for help where they felt it should have been met, they go about seeing that the help is mandated.

I didn't say anything about the for profit leeches because that wasn't the topic of discussion.

How can something like public universities be free? Are the professors working for free? Do the utility companies provides their services at no costs? Etc. If taxes fund what you say should be free, someone is paying and it isn't necessarily those doing the receiving. My daughter attends a private university. What her academic scholarships (roughly 90%) didn't cover, I pay (roughly 10%). On top of that, I already pay state taxes that offset the costs of universities she doesn't attend. Are you aware that's why there is in state and out-of-state tuition rates for state schools?

I'm far from elite but my daughter is getting an excellent education for which she earned scholarships to offset the costs. The balance, which I am more than happy and ABLE to pay since from the day she was born my wife and I started saving for college, is taken care of for ALL four years. What's left over MY family will use to do something entertaining. Since we saved it, it's OUR money not money that should be taxed to go to someone else's kid because that parent didn't do what my wife and I did nor the kid earned through scholarships.

I did what had to be done because the need was immediate.

I said some however many pages back that nobody is under any illusions and that it technically isn't "free". Hence, I am a tax payer as well. I refuse to bicker about semantics at this point and I am not getting into a pissing contest with you. I did not say that you were elite. I did not say that at any point that anyone should confiscate your leftover funds after your daughter graduates.

I'm telling you point blank that education has always been available for the wealthy. Always. Parochial schools have always been available. Public education is for the rest of the population. Further, pretending that the for-profit schools is not part of the issue or what is leading towards this movement is a problem. Our tax dollars go there as well.

I am not one of those people that thinks that there is an endless supply of money. I am one of those people that is looking at the taxes that I am paying and where it is going and asking where are the services that should be in place for the people. That’s what the hell I am paying taxes for. When cuts are made it’s the services that take a hit. You don’t see those that are profiting from it but doing little good take a hit. Hell no. They hide behind ideology. They sputter about socialism and make lengthy posts about the virtues of capitalism. They point fingers at those with the least amount of power. Why? To protect their profits and to make sure that not a damn thing is done.

Sometimes the answers are really simple: a reallocation of resources. Does this do what it was supposed to do? No. Get rid of it. Is the money allocated here helpful in the short term but does not benefit the long term (I’m thinking homeless here: temporary v long term)? Does it do any good to give grants to shelters that are designed to act as a middle man to acquire services for an individual if the services don’t exist? The answer is not lets pay both because a bunch of people don’t want government to do it. The answer is fund the damn services. Measure twice; cut once.

I can do this all day long with education. Does the billion dollar testing industry show and do what it is supposed to do? No? Then stop spending between 24-30 million dollars a year on it. Lets take a look at all of the companies that are for-profit but don’t pay property taxes………like hospitals and nail them. They keep expanding and I have to keep paying more to cover the taxes that they don’t pay.

 

[Disir]

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.

I don't believe in all the tea party platforms, never have. I have maintained from day one the problem isn't Wall St., it is Congress allowing Wall St. to influence them with money. Congress has followed this pattern for decades. The party doesn't matter, both parties are at fault.

I lean conservative.

Partisan nutters have a tough time understanding that people can be left or right and not be extreme like yourself.

Sanders leans to far left for my taste.

A platform is a platform. That's not relevant. The point is that the group behind the Tea Party controls everything from the input (data) to the output (media). I can tag Democrats all day long. Doesn't bother me a bit, ok? But this...........Democrats do it too is nothing more than a deflection.

Doesn't change the fact that Occupy decided to skip the middle man (congress) and took it to Wall Street. They didn't care if it was Democrat or Republican. You don't have to like it.

Occupy skipped everything, they were nothing but thieves, rapists and criminals try to take advantage of a political cause.

It is no deflection because we are talking about Sanders and the Democrats, not Tea Party or Republicans.

It's a deflection.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I don't believe in all the tea party platforms, never have. I have maintained from day one the problem isn't Wall St., it is Congress allowing Wall St. to influence them with money. Congress has followed this pattern for decades. The party doesn't matter, both parties are at fault.

I lean conservative.

Partisan nutters have a tough time understanding that people can be left or right and not be extreme like yourself.

Sanders leans to far left for my taste.

A platform is a platform. That's not relevant. The point is that the group behind the Tea Party controls everything from the input (data) to the output (media). I can tag Democrats all day long. Doesn't bother me a bit, ok? But this...........Democrats do it too is nothing more than a deflection.

Doesn't change the fact that Occupy decided to skip the middle man (congress) and took it to Wall Street. They didn't care if it was Democrat or Republican. You don't have to like it.

Occupy skipped everything, they were nothing but thieves, rapists and criminals try to take advantage of a political cause.

It is no deflection because we are talking about Sanders and the Democrats, not Tea Party or Republicans.

It's a deflection.

Sure whatever you say nutter, you can't accept that Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans. Occupiers had no real goal and no organization to accomplish a goal if they wanted because they attacked the group that doesn't write laws, just takes advantage of them.

How many bills did Sanders introduce to cut ties and money from Wall St. to Congress?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I don't believe in all the tea party platforms, never have. I have maintained from day one the problem isn't Wall St., it is Congress allowing Wall St. to influence them with money. Congress has followed this pattern for decades. The party doesn't matter, both parties are at fault.

I lean conservative.

Partisan nutters have a tough time understanding that people can be left or right and not be extreme like yourself.

Sanders leans to far left for my taste.

A platform is a platform. That's not relevant. The point is that the group behind the Tea Party controls everything from the input (data) to the output (media). I can tag Democrats all day long. Doesn't bother me a bit, ok? But this...........Democrats do it too is nothing more than a deflection.

Doesn't change the fact that Occupy decided to skip the middle man (congress) and took it to Wall Street. They didn't care if it was Democrat or Republican. You don't have to like it.

Occupy skipped everything, they were nothing but thieves, rapists and criminals try to take advantage of a political cause.

It is no deflection because we are talking about Sanders and the Democrats, not Tea Party or Republicans.

It's a deflection.

Sure whatever you say nutter, you can't accept that Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans. Occupiers had no real goal and no organization to accomplish a goal if they wanted because they attacked the group that doesn't write laws, just takes advantage of them.

How many bills did Sanders introduce to cut ties and money from Wall St. to Congress?

Democrats are far, far more corrupt than Republicans. Democrats would sit by and watch government employees get murdered to further their political agenda. Hillary just admitted as much.

 

[Disir]

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.

I don't believe in all the tea party platforms, never have. I have maintained from day one the problem isn't Wall St., it is Congress allowing Wall St. to influence them with money. Congress has followed this pattern for decades. The party doesn't matter, both parties are at fault.

I lean conservative.

Partisan nutters have a tough time understanding that people can be left or right and not be extreme like yourself.

Sanders leans to far left for my taste.

A platform is a platform. That's not relevant. The point is that the group behind the Tea Party controls everything from the input (data) to the output (media). I can tag Democrats all day long. Doesn't bother me a bit, ok? But this...........Democrats do it too is nothing more than a deflection.

Doesn't change the fact that Occupy decided to skip the middle man (congress) and took it to Wall Street. They didn't care if it was Democrat or Republican. You don't have to like it.

Occupy skipped everything, they were nothing but thieves, rapists and criminals try to take advantage of a political cause.

It is no deflection because we are talking about Sanders and the Democrats, not Tea Party or Republicans.

It's a deflection.

Sure whatever you say nutter, you can't accept that Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans. Occupiers had no real goal and no organization to accomplish a goal if they wanted because they attacked the group that doesn't write laws, just takes advantage of them.

How many bills did Sanders introduce to cut ties and money from Wall St. to Congress?

Sure I can, multiple ID troll.

You mean like this right here:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/031213-CUAmendment.pdf

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't believe in all the tea party platforms, never have. I have maintained from day one the problem isn't Wall St., it is Congress allowing Wall St. to influence them with money. Congress has followed this pattern for decades. The party doesn't matter, both parties are at fault.

I lean conservative.

Partisan nutters have a tough time understanding that people can be left or right and not be extreme like yourself.

Sanders leans to far left for my taste.

A platform is a platform. That's not relevant. The point is that the group behind the Tea Party controls everything from the input (data) to the output (media). I can tag Democrats all day long. Doesn't bother me a bit, ok? But this...........Democrats do it too is nothing more than a deflection.

Doesn't change the fact that Occupy decided to skip the middle man (congress) and took it to Wall Street. They didn't care if it was Democrat or Republican. You don't have to like it.

Occupy skipped everything, they were nothing but thieves, rapists and criminals try to take advantage of a political cause.

It is no deflection because we are talking about Sanders and the Democrats, not Tea Party or Republicans.

It's a deflection.

Sure whatever you say nutter, you can't accept that Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans. Occupiers had no real goal and no organization to accomplish a goal if they wanted because they attacked the group that doesn't write laws, just takes advantage of them.

How many bills did Sanders introduce to cut ties and money from Wall St. to Congress?

Sure I can, multiple ID troll.

You mean like this right here:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/031213-CUAmendment.pdf

What the hell is a multiple ID troll? Are you a loon?

 

[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.

Then STFU. Your problem is you can't do what you say needs to be done but think it's OK to expect anyone else to do anything.

The function of good government isn't to force people to do what you admit you can't do yourself.

Who the hell are you to determine for anyone but yourself what would be noticed.

You aren't talking about sharing. You're talking about a mandate. Sharing involves a choice by the giver not a mandate from the taker. You don't want people to share. You want people to be forced to do what you can't do. When the answer is no, you think it's OK to force it.

I do it. In fact, I have purchased wardrobes, food, given away vehicles, paid rent, etc. I spend between 8-12 hours a day, 5 days a week "investing" in all kinds of people.

I'm a tax payer as well. There are people at the bottom that absolutely are leeches. They have no motivation. I don't care how well you lay something out some of these people are absolutely not going to take it. They damn sure won't be motivated to attend any university free or otherwise. But, I notice that you don't have too damn much to say about the leeches in the for-profit fraud schemes.

The public universities should be free. Keeping higher education cost prohibitive does not guarantee talent. It guarantees only that education is maintained in the hands of the elite. Lawd knows some of these asshats aren't all that bright.

How you do it is how it should be done. When you met those needs, YOU were the one that determined whether or not they were valid. With what the bleeding hearts do, they think it's their place to make that determination for others. In other words, if they don't like that I said "no" to a request for help where they felt it should have been met, they go about seeing that the help is mandated.

I didn't say anything about the for profit leeches because that wasn't the topic of discussion.

How can something like public universities be free? Are the professors working for free? Do the utility companies provides their services at no costs? Etc. If taxes fund what you say should be free, someone is paying and it isn't necessarily those doing the receiving. My daughter attends a private university. What her academic scholarships (roughly 90%) didn't cover, I pay (roughly 10%). On top of that, I already pay state taxes that offset the costs of universities she doesn't attend. Are you aware that's why there is in state and out-of-state tuition rates for state schools?

I'm far from elite but my daughter is getting an excellent education for which she earned scholarships to offset the costs. The balance, which I am more than happy and ABLE to pay since from the day she was born my wife and I started saving for college, is taken care of for ALL four years. What's left over MY family will use to do something entertaining. Since we saved it, it's OUR money not money that should be taxed to go to someone else's kid because that parent didn't do what my wife and I did nor the kid earned through scholarships.

I did what had to be done because the need was immediate.

I said some however many pages back that nobody is under any illusions and that it technically isn't "free". Hence, I am a tax payer as well. I refuse to bicker about semantics at this point and I am not getting into a pissing contest with you. I did not say that you were elite. I did not say that at any point that anyone should confiscate your leftover funds after your daughter graduates.

I'm telling you point blank that education has always been available for the wealthy. Always. Parochial schools have always been available. Public education is for the rest of the population. Further, pretending that the for-profit schools is not part of the issue or what is leading towards this movement is a problem. Our tax dollars go there as well.

I am not one of those people that thinks that there is an endless supply of money. I am one of those people that is looking at the taxes that I am paying and where it is going and asking where are the services that should be in place for the people. That’s what the hell I am paying taxes for. When cuts are made it’s the services that take a hit. You don’t see those that are profiting from it but doing little good take a hit. Hell no. They hide behind ideology. They sputter about socialism and make lengthy posts about the virtues of capitalism. They point fingers at those with the least amount of power. Why? To protect their profits and to make sure that not a damn thing is done.

Sometimes the answers are really simple: a reallocation of resources. Does this do what it was supposed to do? No. Get rid of it. Is the money allocated here helpful in the short term but does not benefit the long term (I’m thinking homeless here: temporary v long term)? Does it do any good to give grants to shelters that are designed to act as a middle man to acquire services for an individual if the services don’t exist? The answer is not lets pay both because a bunch of people don’t want government to do it. The answer is fund the damn services. Measure twice; cut once.

I can do this all day long with education. Does the billion dollar testing industry show and do what it is supposed to do? No? Then stop spending between 24-30 million dollars a year on it. Lets take a look at all of the companies that are for-profit but don’t pay property taxes………like hospitals and nail them. They keep expanding and I have to keep paying more to cover the taxes that they don’t pay.

Very well said! Thanks.