Politics EAT THE RICH! Vote for Bernie!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
VanillaGorilla said:
He's not a communist at all.
Click to expand...
O'Reily????

During Bernie’s mayoral tenure, Burlington formed an alliance with the Soviet city of Yaroslavl, 160 miles northeast of Moscow. When in 1988 he married his wife, Jane, the mayor decided it would be a perfect place for his honeymoon. In a tape of his interview with Yaroslavl’s mayor, Alexander Riabkov, Sanders acknowledges that housing and health care appear to be “significantly better” in the U.S. than in the socialist paradise. “However,” he added, “the cost of both services is much, much, higher in the United States.” Sanders made further globe-trotting expeditions to socialist countries. He visited Cuba, scoring a meeting with Havana’s mayor. In 1985 he attended the celebrations marking the sixth anniversary of the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. “In a letter addressed to the people of Nicaragua, penned in conjunction with that trip, Sanders denounced the activities of the Reagan administration, which he said was under the influence of large corporations,” the Guardian notes. “In the long run, I am certain that you will win,” Sanders wrote, “and that your heroic revolution against the Somoza dictatorship will be maintained and strengthened.” (The Sandinistas were ousted by Nicaragua’s voters in 1990).

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420228/bernie-sanderss-soviet-honeymoon-john-fund
 
magnifier661 said:
O'Reily????

During Bernie’s mayoral tenure, Burlington formed an alliance with the Soviet city of Yaroslavl, 160 miles northeast of Moscow. When in 1988 he married his wife, Jane, the mayor decided it would be a perfect place for his honeymoon. In a tape of his interview with Yaroslavl’s mayor, Alexander Riabkov, Sanders acknowledges that housing and health care appear to be “significantly better” in the U.S. than in the socialist paradise. “However,” he added, “the cost of both services is much, much, higher in the United States.” Sanders made further globe-trotting expeditions to socialist countries. He visited Cuba, scoring a meeting with Havana’s mayor. In 1985 he attended the celebrations marking the sixth anniversary of the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. “In a letter addressed to the people of Nicaragua, penned in conjunction with that trip, Sanders denounced the activities of the Reagan administration, which he said was under the influence of large corporations,” the Guardian notes. “In the long run, I am certain that you will win,” Sanders wrote, “and that your heroic revolution against the Somoza dictatorship will be maintained and strengthened.” (The Sandinistas were ousted by Nicaragua’s voters in 1990).

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420228/bernie-sanderss-soviet-honeymoon-john-fund
Click to expand...

.. That doesn't make him a communist in any way..
 
magnifier661 said:
Not gonna happen. He probably won't even win primary. He's too communist
Click to expand...

He's also not even a socialist in the truest sense of the word, because socialism is the opposite of capitalism and Bernie is not against capitalism. He talks about Scandinavian countries a lot, and most of them would be described as social democracies. Social democracy is about universal welfare being placed into the context of a capitalist economy, where the means of production are owned by individuals rather than society or the government (i.e. not socialism or communism).
 
But before you say I posted a right wing site, I present a left wing media interpretation

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-25-best-things-we-learned-bernie-sanders-book

18. He used to be a “Sandernista.” As mayor, Sanders attracted national attention and controversy for supporting the socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua, which was fighting a proxy war with the United States under Ronald Reagan.

In 1985, he became the highest-ranking American official to visit Nicaragua at the time, and met with President Daniel Ortega. In his book, he called the trip “profoundly emotional” and praised Ortega. Burlington and Managua, Nicaragua’s capital, became sister cities.

19. Sanders honeymooned in the USSR.Sanders married his current wife, Jane, in May of 1988 and the next day left for their “romantic honeymoon” to Yaroslavl, in the then-Soviet Union. The trip was an official delegation from Burlington to cement the two cities’ sister-city relationship. “Trust me. It was a very strange honeymoon,” Sanders writes.



“Trust me. It was a very strange honeymoon.”


He also visited Cuba with Jane in 1989 and tried to meet with Fidel Castro, but it didn’t work out and he met with the mayor of Havana and other officials instead.
Sanders is proud of Burlington’s international diplomacy efforts. “Burlington had a foreign policy because, as progressives, we understood that we all live in one world,” he writes.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
He's also not even a socialist in the truest sense of the word, because socialism is the opposite of capitalism and Bernie is not against capitalism. He talks about Scandinavian countries a lot, and most of them would be described as social democracies. Social democracy is about universal welfare being placed into the context of a capitalist economy, where the means of production are owned by individuals rather than society or the government (i.e. not socialism or communism).
Click to expand...
During the debate he made it perfectly clear that he is not a capitalist.
 
He's against giant corporations that own everything. Just because he doesn't call himself a capitalist doesn't mean he is 100% against capitalism. He is not proposing that the United States should have a socialist (workers controlling the means of production) economy.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
He's against giant corporations that own everything. Just because he doesn't call himself a capitalist doesn't mean he is 100% against capitalism. He is not proposing that the United States should have a socialist (workers controlling the means of production) economy.
Click to expand...
But he truly is, which is why he will never make it past primaries. He doesn't have the clout to muscle past the DC establishment, whom are the big money people you say he hates. He should have run independent IMO.
 
Bernie's main confusion seems to me to be conflating ownership with taxable income. Just because the top .1% own as much as the bottom 80 to 90% (or whatever the hell the figure he keeps throwing around) doesn't mean that there's this huge bonanza of taxable income to be picked up by raising taxes. First, a good chunk of that wealth is in the capital infrastructure that makes our economy work. Second, the top .1% can afford the best tax advisers around. Some of the truly wealthy don't even have taxable income. They reinvest what they make and they live off of loans against their assets.
 
e_blazer said:
Bernie's main confusion seems to me to be conflating ownership with taxable income. Just because the top .1% own as much as the bottom 80 to 90% (or whatever the hell the figure he keeps throwing around) doesn't mean that there's this huge bonanza of taxable income to be picked up by raising taxes. First, a good chunk of that wealth is in the capital infrastructure that makes our economy work. Second, the top .1% can afford the best tax advisers around. Some of the truly wealthy don't even have taxable income. They reinvest what they make and they live off of loans against their assets.
Click to expand...

I wonder if he knows? If he could take all their money, they run out before his give away is well under way.

Geez, this is sickening to watch. People pandering to those that want stuff, want to vote to take from people, so they can receive some stuff.
It wasn't all that long ago, Democrats did not do this, it was only the communist.

What worse is, people like it! "Hope" for it!
 
VanillaGorilla said:
giant corporations that own everything
Click to expand...

Wow! What a thing to be against. I had a house built once, paid for about 60% of it by selling stock that I bought with a payroll deduction every pay day. Seems like a decent system to me.
WTF makes a man think in such a bent way?
 
VanillaGorilla said:
He is not proposing that the United States should have a socialist (workers controlling the means of production) economy.
Click to expand...

HA! Well you don't need to OWN it if you intend to confiscate all the profit.

Ought to hang a SOB with that in plan.
 
I've never understood the indignation on the left about corporations. They're just business structures that allow groups of investors to accomplish collectively what would be too much individually. (Yes, I know that small corporations can be owned by individuals, but I'm talking about the big, "EVIL" corporations). Look around your house, heck look at your house itself and just about everything you own and tell me how much of it wasn't made by a corporation. While I agree that the tax code needs to be reworked to take care of some obvious inequities, this anti-corporation baloney is like trying to kill the golden goose.
 
e_blazer said:
Bernie's main confusion seems to me to be conflating ownership with taxable income. Just because the top .1% own as much as the bottom 80 to 90% (or whatever the hell the figure he keeps throwing around) doesn't mean that there's this huge bonanza of taxable income to be picked up by raising taxes. First, a good chunk of that wealth is in the capital infrastructure that makes our economy work. Second, the top .1% can afford the best tax advisers around. Some of the truly wealthy don't even have taxable income. They reinvest what they make and they live off of loans against their assets.
Click to expand...
This. So much this.
 
e_blazer said:
I've never understood the indignation on the left about corporations. They're just business structures that allow groups of investors to accomplish collectively what would be too much individually. (Yes, I know that small corporations can be owned by individuals, but I'm talking about the big, "EVIL" corporations). Look around your house, heck look at your house itself and just about everything you own and tell me how much of it wasn't made by a corporation. While I agree that the tax code needs to be reworked to take care of some obvious inequities, this anti-corporation baloney is like trying to kill the golden goose.
Click to expand...
This. Too.
 
e_blazer said:
I've never understood the indignation on the left about corporations. They're just business structures that allow groups of investors to accomplish collectively what would be too much individually. (Yes, I know that small corporations can be owned by individuals, but I'm talking about the big, "EVIL" corporations). Look around your house, heck look at your house itself and just about everything you own and tell me how much of it wasn't made by a corporation. While I agree that the tax code needs to be reworked to take care of some obvious inequities, this anti-corporation baloney is like trying to kill the golden goose.
Click to expand...
It's not just above pooling money to achieve something. It's about forming capital and eliminating liability for the investors from the corporation's lawsuits.
 
Denny Crane said:
It's not just above pooling money to achieve something. It's about forming capital and eliminating liability for the investors from the corporation's lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but that wasn't the point I wanted to make. Rather, I was pointing out that corporations are essential to our modern society and all of the things we wear, eat, play with, ride in, amuse ourselves with, etc.
 
e_blazer said:
Agreed, but that wasn't the point I wanted to make. Rather, I was pointing out that corporations are essential to our modern society and all of the things we wear, eat, play with, ride in, amuse ourselves with, etc.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I'd add that the corporations are tax collectors and write really big checks to the government all the time. Payroll withholding and employer contributions to FICA, etc.

Without them, we would be in a situation worse than the Great Depression. Way more unemployment than back then.

Also, the stocks of the corporations are held by common people, and more importantly, their retirement funds and 401Ks.
 
Denny Crane said:
Agreed.

I'd add that the corporations are tax collectors and write really big checks to the government all the time. Payroll withholding and employer contributions to FICA, etc.

Without them, we would be in a situation worse than the Great Depression. Way more unemployment than back then.

Also, the stocks of the corporations are held by common people, and more importantly, their retirement funds and 401Ks.
Click to expand...

Tiny companies collect payroll taxes, too. 1000 companies with $100,000 payroll each, collect as much tax as 1 corporation with 1000 times as much, $100,000,000.

A nation of many small companies results in permanent Depression? Nonsense.
 
e_blazer said:
Agreed, but that wasn't the point I wanted to make. Rather, I was pointing out that corporations are essential to our modern society and all of the things we wear, eat, play with, ride in, amuse ourselves with, etc.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, we'd be naked without corporate clothes. In no way are big corporations essential to capitalism, much less modernism.
 
e_blazer said:
I've never understood the indignation on the left about corporations. They're just business structures that allow groups of investors to accomplish collectively what would be too much individually. (Yes, I know that small corporations can be owned by individuals, but I'm talking about the big, "EVIL" corporations). Look around your house, heck look at your house itself and just about everything you own and tell me how much of it wasn't made by a corporation. While I agree that the tax code needs to be reworked to take care of some obvious inequities, this anti-corporation baloney is like trying to kill the golden goose.
Click to expand...

Nobody is against corporations. They are against the greed associated with some of them, in the forms of paying no taxes and treating their employees unfairly. They are also against the profit at any cost mantra, which puts profit over public health and the environment. The stuff they make is usually pretty cool and nobody wants to kill the "golden goose" but we dont want to get golden shit on either.
 
If it saves them taxes, rich conservatives want less collectivism, less economy of scale, more rugged individualism. If it increases their profits, they want bigger corporations, more conformity, more militarism.
 
jlprk said:
A nation of many small companies results in permanent Depression? Nonsense.
Click to expand...

Big corporations support many individuals that have some work skills, but do not have enough skills necessary to own and operate a small business. To be a small business owner requires wearing a lot of different hats.

The smaller a business is, the more all of their employees also need to have multiple skills for the business to be successful, not just the owner.

Without large corporations, people with limited working skills that would not be productive in a small business environment would need to work for the only large employer left, some governmental agency.

Not sure if a nation of only small businesses would result in a depression? However, a lot of people would either not have a job while living off of the governments tit, or, would need to work for the government.

I do not see how a country of only small businesses would result in a healthy environment, let alone be an improvement over a system that includes both large and small corporations, especially in this global business age we now live in.
 
jlprk said:
Tiny companies collect payroll taxes, too. 1000 companies with $100,000 payroll each, collect as much tax as 1 corporation with 1000 times as much, $100,000,000.

A nation of many small companies results in permanent Depression? Nonsense.
Click to expand...

The big corporations employ at least 18,000,000 people. Unemploy (SIC) them and you have depression era numbers.

Walmart employs at least 2M employees and pays $70B in payroll (as of 2009). That's 700 times bigger than your example of a big corporation.

So you need only 700,000 of your $100K payroll sized companies to replace just the one corporation.
 
oldfisherman said:
Big corporations support many individuals that have some work skills, but do not have enough skills necessary to own and operate a small business. To be a small business owner requires wearing a lot of different hats.

The smaller a business is, the more all of their employees also need to have multiple skills for the business to be successful, not just the owner.

Without large corporations, people with limited working skills that would not be productive in a small business environment would need to work for the only large employer left, some governmental agency.

Not sure if a nation of only small businesses would result in a depression? However, a lot of people would either not have a job while living off of the governments tit, or, would need to work for the government.

I do not see how a country of only small businesses would result in a healthy environment, let alone be an improvement over a system that includes both large and small corporations, especially in this global business age we now live in.
Click to expand...

Not only is all that true, but if you have a big corporation like Google, it has sufficient money to invest in things like self-driving cars (one example). Those things are not what $100K payroll companies can afford in R&D.

Without big Pharma... A lot of people would die much younger or live with debilitating health issues the drugs those companies invest R&D into and come up with.
 
MarAzul said:
I wonder if he knows? If he could take all their money, they run out before his give away is well under way.

Geez, this is sickening to watch. People pandering to those that want stuff, want to vote to take from people, so they can receive some stuff.
It wasn't all that long ago, Democrats did not do this, it was only the communist.

What worse is, people like it! "Hope" for it!
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top