Want Bernie? Read This...

[mattmuttsmith]

This is what Bernie wants to do. Socialism at its finest.

[Sky]

What is with you guys and Bernie. Everywhere I look you guys are talkin bout Bernie.

[Steve28]

You think people weren't talking about Lenin in 1917?

[mattmuttsmith]

What is with you guys and Bernie. Everywhere I look you guys are talkin bout Bernie.

Just doing my part to make sure Bernie has a hard time getting elected.

Socialism is the first step to communism. I want our country to be great again. Bernie is dangerous. Not because of him, because of what he represents. If he gets elected then the next time someone is running that is even more radical than him will not seem that bad to the mass of low information voters. Death by a thousand paper cuts type of thing.

[piranha2]

Just more of what we have now. And come to think of it, Kennedy was a socialist, too. IMHO.

[mattmuttsmith]

Kennedy was a democrat. But if you look at the democrat party of that time and compare it to today's democrat party you will see a huge difference. Kennedy actually spent more money on the military. And things like that that no democrat would ever do today. The Democratic Party has went full retard in the past 20 years. It needs to be put down.

[dudeman]

. I want our country to be great again.

The only way that would happen is to give the usa the boot and free the Confederacy of the tyranny.

[mattmuttsmith]

The only way that would happen is to give the usa the boot and free the Confederacy of the tyranny.

You are not far off that's for sure.

[Tactical Knightmare]

too many single issue voters

[Talon]

Now for a political reality check...

If you work for the federal government, you are part of a single payer SOCIALIST system. If you work for the state, you are part of a single payer socialist system. If you are in the military, you are part of a socialist, single payer system. If you work for a government contractor, you are part of a single payer socialist system. If you are on welfare, you are part of a single payer socialist system. Your roads, bridges, highways are all part of a socialist system.

The only time "socialism" is considered bad in the US is when the middle class, non governmental workers want a piece of the action. They are then told (usually by people living off of socialism) to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps!"

Ronald Reagan lived off the socialist system most of his life. Every republican politician is living off of socialism. I have no love for the democrats either, but at least they are honest about what they want, and how they want to go about getting it.

Name one time that the government shrank under a republican? Exactly.

If you think that America is based on "free market capitalism" you better think again. Most giant corporations live off of government contracts. Walmart's bread and butter is welfare and snap.

All countries operate on a socialistic type system, with some free market, and a whole lot of crony capitalism. The answer is to make sure the right balance is struck.

That being said, I don't think that Bernie or Trump is the answer. I actually think that our system is too far gone to be fixed by elections. I think that we will follow the same path as all other empires, and crumble under the weight of our own stupidity and arrogance.

Anyway. Now you know why I wasn't too popular at the old place.

[dudeman]

The only thing that will fix it is, burn it down and rebuild on the principals that the Constitution is based on.

[Tactical Knightmare]

Solid post Talon. Well done sir.

[gamgee]

Now for a political reality check...

If you work for the federal government, you are part of a single payer SOCIALIST system. If you work for the state, you are part of a single payer socialist system. If you are in the military, you are part of a socialist, single payer system. If you work for a government contractor, you are part of a single payer socialist system. If you are on welfare, you are part of a single payer socialist system. Your roads, bridges, highways are all part of a socialist system.

The only time "socialism" is considered bad in the US is when the middle class, non governmental workers want a piece of the action. They are then told (usually by people living off of socialism) to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps!"

All countries operate on a socialistic type system, with some free market, and a whole lot of crony capitalism.

This is incorrect.

Socialism is basically an economic system in which private property is eliminated, and in which the state controls the means of production and distribution of goods.

Not all governments, or economic systems, fall into this category.

Under our Constitution, there are legitimate functions of government, such as national defense and the protection of the rights of the individual. Because these jobs are paid for by the people, does not make our form of government socialistic.

[Tactical Knightmare]

This is incorrect.

Socialism is basically an economic system in which private property is eliminated, and in which the state controls the means of production and distribution of goods.

Not all governments, or economic systems, fall into this category.

Under our Constitution, there are legitimate functions of government, such as national defense and the protection of the rights of the individual. Because these jobs are paid for by the people, does not make our form of government socialistic.

Also agree, but I think, not sure, that the point that Talon has made is that all governments require a certain level of socialism. And those that gain the most from that aspect of socialism are those in the top 1% of the 1%.

To expand...you dont own your land, you own the title, the land is quasi owned by the government with you paying rent every year in the form of Property Tax. If you failed for a few years to pay that tax they will confiscate your land, hence your ownership of that land depends on what the government will allow you to do with it, or what it wants to do with it. For the latter part we can look at Eminent Domain.

The state also to a degree controls the means of production and distribution of goods. It does so through various methods available to them. Whether it is subsidies to companies to stay afloat or subsidies for land development or non-development, subsides to farmer to either harvest or no use the land for a growing season to help control gluts in the market. etc etc.

Now what we have here is nothing like what they have in say Paragauy or Venuzula. But it is present to a certain degree, and rest assured that those that benefit the most from it will deny those benefits exist while at the same time try to ensure that those same benefits are not spread out across the board, since by doing so lessens their own allotment of those same benefits and leaves them with a loss as compared to a greater gain.

So in closing, if we remove the veil of what is presented to us and rather look at the underlying framework...all governments and societies currently fall into that category, at different levels, of requiring some form of socialism to stay afloat.

[gamgee]

Also agree, but I think, not sure, that the point that Talon has made is that all governments require a certain level of socialism. And those that gain the most from that aspect of socialism are those in the top 1% of the 1%.

To expand...you dont own your land, you own the title, the land is quasi owned by the government with you paying rent every year in the form of Property Tax. If you failed for a few years to pay that tax they will confiscate your land, hence your ownership of that land depends on what the government will allow you to do with it, or what it wants to do with it. For the latter part we can look at Eminent Domain.

The state also to a degree controls the means of production and distribution of goods. It does so through various methods available to them. Whether it is subsidies to companies to stay afloat or subsidies for land development or non-development, subsides to farmer to either harvest or no use the land for a growing season to help control gluts in the market. etc etc.

Now what we have here is nothing like what they have in say Paragauy or Venuzula. But it is present to a certain degree, and rest assured that those that benefit the most from it will deny those benefits exist while at the same time try to ensure that those same benefits are not spread out across the board, since by doing so lessens their own allotment of those same benefits and leaves them with a loss as compared to a greater gain.

So in closing, if we remove the veil of what is presented to us and rather look at the underlying framework...all governments and societies currently fall into that category, at different levels, of requiring some form of socialism to stay afloat.

My point is that, and I only quoted part of his post, is that just because governments have employees does not make that government socialist.

Property tax is a problem, but it's not socialism. Nor is eminent domain.

Seizure of property is not only done by socialists.

Government manipulating business is different than complete ownership and control.