The Truth of Sanders is That He Is a Socialist.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Because no president has had that authority. Your making a giant leap that has no merit.

Besides there were lots of progressives both democrat and Republican that wanted a federal reserve.

Just out of curiosity what was the tax rate like in the 20's under Coolidge?

GWB trampled the constitution and he was a conservative. When was the last classical liberal conservative?

Your being overly dramatic.

Again, we can always vote for more government oversight, more government control, but we can't go back once we do.

Sanders will be good for the country. Democratic socialism, and trying to model some parts after some of the Scandinavian models is good. There is nothing wrong with it.

All of the Candidates will raise our taxes. All of them are not perfect. All of them have bad policies. But saying that Sanders is a commmunist or will destroy our country is just right wing propaganda. It's not really true.

The biggest thing that sanders is saying is take the money out of politics, replace Obama care with a better cheaper health care, start treating Amercian citizens better than corporations.

Then you have to keep in mind that we have a congress and a Supreme court and states and state goverrments. They all have a big say in what happens in the country. Trust me, Sanders would not be bad for the country. Don't listen to the fools on talk radio. That's all right wing lies.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Uh no. It doesn't work that way. Congress has to approve his nominations. All of them.

Really? well the Constitution states that only Congress can issue coin, and regulates it's value. Is that what has been happening?...No... progressive democrats made sure in 1913 that coin is issued and is regulated by an agency which is outside of government control...

What makes you think if Sanders is President he would not control who he nominates to be in charge of the Fed as he says he will do?

That's what I'm saying!

Sanders 2016!

a reply to: DBCowboy

So Bush didnt go back with his energy policies and coal?

Right now its no better than socialism. There is a complete fascade of a free market and democracy. We are an oligarchy. Which is every bit as bad as socialism.

The best thing that could happen is Sanders brings attention to the oligarchy has a Republican Congress that makes his legislation stall or fail and we get some new people running without the oligarchs backing them in the next election.

What is your plan to stop the oligarchy that already rules the legislation? To you believe we have a free market or the people have any rights that are not given to us by them


The market was free when the Rockefellors ruled the day and children worked in coal mines because they were cheaper to hire than men. That isn't good either.

a reply to: luthier

I've been saying our government is corrupt from the get-go and have been ignored.

And your answer is to make our corrupt government bigger, which will only make things worse.

I don't understand the logic.

originally posted by: luthier
...
The market was free when the Rockefellors ruled the day and children worked in coal mines because they were cheaper to hire than men. That isn't good either.

The market wasn't free...it was heavily regulated by the State who had favorites and made fortunes for a few people...

You only have to look at "the Rockefeller foundation" and what it promotes to see that rich families like the Rockefellers want socialism...

Just take a look at what they promote...

Universal healthcare, Global partnerships, etc. They want global socialism...

www.rockefellerfoundation.org...

Through socialism the true rich elite like the Rockefeller family will control every aspect of people's lives...

Promoting the well being of all humanity around the world... That's the motto the Rockefeller foundation has in it's front page...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So the market wasnt free before the federal reserve in the late 1800's

Well I guess it's a myth then.

a reply to: DBCowboy

My logic is that berine Sanders won't be able to pass any bills in office. Therefore doing less.

A Republican with a Republican Congress will be able to pas billss therefore being better for the oligarchy.

originally posted by: luthier
So the market wasnt free before the federal reserve in the late 1800's

Well I guess it's a myth then.

When the government controls the market it isn't a free market...

In a free market the people choose through competition in markets.

When you take from people the ability to own property that produces, you take away completely the market from the hands of the people to be controlled by the elites. Which is what Sanders and his rich pals want.

Sanders is being introduced as "a politician for the people"... But he wants to implement the same things rich families like the Rockefellers want...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You just said there was never a free market. It has always been state sponsored corperatism.

What the heck is the difference except that Sanders says outloud what these oligarchs have done in private covertly?

Exain to me how he implements all these things your afraid of.

The guy is the first in a long time who hasn't taken money from people like the Rockefellors to be elected. Thats good enough for me.

I am a realist. There is no way he is passing all these socialist bills through Congress.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

My logic is that berine Sanders won't be able to pass any bills in office. Therefore doing less.

A Republican with a Republican Congress will be able to pas billss therefore being better for the oligarchy.

The republicans and democrats in congress are drooling over a Sanders presidency.

They'll raise taxes, pass more laws, gain more control, inhibit more freedoms, and we'll lose.

But many will cheer because the "Bern" is in charge.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Well then its inevitable then isn't it?

This is the first guy in a long time who isn't paid for by an oligarch who keeps it all for himself.

This is the inherent flaw in capitalism.

It consolidates wealth creating an oligarchy and maximizes efficiency which destroys jobs.

a reply to: luthier

Save the terms.

If government wants to be bigger, government is going to be bigger.

And I can't honestly believe that there is a large percentage cheering that.

But you are.

Like I said, in our system of government, we are very free to vote ourselves into slavery.

But once there, we won't be able to ever vote ourselves free.

Feel the burn yet?

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
The future of our planet will not be operating under capitalism.

There's no way this can keep going like it is.

Like what?

a reply to: DBCowboy

No I don't. And if you don't understand the terms read a book.

Oligarchy.

That means we have no control over policy.

How is that better?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well then its inevitable then isn't it?

This is the first guy in a long time who isn't paid for by an oligarch who keeps it all for himself.

This is the inherent flaw in capitalism.

It consolidates wealth creating an oligarchy and maximizes efficiency which destroys jobs.

...and what do they do with that wealth? Build a money vault and swim in gold coins?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

So Bush didnt go back with his energy policies and coal?

Right now its no better than socialism. There is a complete fascade of a free market and democracy. We are an oligarchy. Which is every bit as bad as socialism.

The best thing that could happen is Sanders brings attention to the oligarchy has a Republican Congress that makes his legislation stall or fail and we get some new people running without the oligarchs backing them in the next election.

What is your plan to stop the oligarchy that already rules the legislation? To you believe we have a free market or the people have any rights that are not given to us by them


The market was free when the Rockefellors ruled the day and children worked in coal mines because they were cheaper to hire than men. That isn't good either.

I think you are asking good questions. If you are interested in a truly free market as I am, the solution has to be the severe restriction of governmental authority and dramatic reduction of taxation.

"Every ingenious man is free to start new business projects. He may be poor, his funds may be modest and most of them may be borrowed. But if he fills the wants of consumers in the best and cheapest way, he will succeed by means of "excessive" profits. He ploughs back the greater part of his profits into his business, thus making it grow rapidly. It is the activity of such enterprising parvenus that provides the market economy with its "dynamism." These nouveaux riches are the harbingers of economic improvement. Their threatening competition forces the old firms and big corporations either to adjust their conduct to the best possible service of the public or to go out of business.

But today taxes often absorb the greater part of the newcomer's "excessive" profits. He cannot accumulate capital; he cannot expand his own business; he will never become big business and a match for the vested interests. The old firms do not need to fear his competition; they are sheltered by the tax collector. They may with impunity indulge in routine, they may defy the wishes of the public and become conservative. It is true, the income tax prevents them, too, from accumulating new capital. But what is more important for them is that it prevents the dangerous newcomer from accumulating any capital. They are virtually privileged by the tax system. In this sense progressive taxation checks economic progress and makes for rigidity. While under unhampered capitalism the ownership of capital is a liability forcing the owner to serve the consumers, modern methods of taxation transform it into a privilege."

-Ludwig von Mises

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

No I don't. And if you don't understand the terms read a book.

Oligarchy.

That means we have no control over policy.

How is that better?

That's pretty much what we have now.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: luthier
...
The market was free when the Rockefellors ruled the day and children worked in coal mines because they were cheaper to hire than men. That isn't good either.

The market wasn't free...it was heavily regulated by the State who had favorites and made fortunes for a few people...

You only have to look at "the Rockefeller foundation" and what it promotes to see that rich families like the Rockefellers want socialism...

Just take a look at what they promote...

Universal healthcare, Global partnerships, etc. They want global socialism...

www.rockefellerfoundation.org...

Through socialism the true rich elite like the Rockefeller family will control every aspect of people's lives...

Promoting the well being of all humanity around the world... That's the motto the Rockefeller foundation has in it's front page...

It really scares me that so many on ATS want Corporations to rule the world. To answer a poster earlier, in my 55 years on this earth, I don't think there has been a president that positively affected my life.