Log In | Register
In a masterful take down, Sen. Bernie Sanders took apart the 2012 GOP presidential field and called them the fringe of American society.
On HBO’s Real Time, host Bill Maher asked about a question about the Republican primary and Sen. Sanders went off,
"One of the problems that I see in the Republican primaries is that these guys are so out of touch with the reality that the American people are going through that it is really quite amazing. We are seeing a middle class collapsing. We are seeing poverty increasing. We’re seeing a nation in which the rich are getting richer and we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country.
Do they have one word to say about this issue?
We have 50 million people without any health insurance. We are the only country, major country on earth that does not guarantee healthcare to every man, woman, and child as a right. Do you know what their solution is? Cut Medicare cut Medicaid. You got Social Security, the most successful government program in the history of our country. A program which has not resulted in one penny of deficit for this country, and you know what they want to do? They want to cut Medicaid. They want to cut Social Security. They want to privatize these important programs.
These guys are way, way out of touch from where the American people are, and I think when you look at them issue by issue, tax breaks for the rich, cut Social Security, more money on defense spending, they are literally a fringe element in American society.
Last but not least, you’ve got virtually every scientist in this world who studies the issue who tells us global warming is a huge, huge problem. We’ve got to move in a very aggressive way to break our dependence on fossil fuel, move to sustainable energy, energy efficiency. These guys don’t even acknowledge the reality of global warming."
Bernie Sanders delivered Barack Obama’s reelection campaign stump speech for him. Sen. Sanders was correct. These Republican candidates aren’t just conservative. They are the far right fringe. As Mitt Romney has discovered, a moderate can’t win the 2012 Republican nomination. It doesn’t matter if the Republican establishment understands that they have to move to the middle. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul represent the fringe.
Bernie Sanders Takes Down Every Single GOP Presidential Candidate
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (339)
These candidates don’t just represent the fringe of American politics. They are the fringe of American society, and the path to victory for Democrats and progressives is by making sure that they spread the message of Bernie Sanders to every American voter to make them understand just how extreme these Republican candidates are.
Bernie Sanders tells the truth..plain and clear....as usual.
- 100 votes
Bernie Sanders - 2016
Why aren't these words coming from President Obama. He needs to slam this TeaNut TRASH.
America first - TeaNuts last.
- 69 votes
Love Bernie
And watched him on Maher also: Wow, he is super! Righton and sincere for all Americans
Obama/Biden 2012
Sanders/Warren for 2016 You bet!
- 51 votes
I am ready to start the movement for 2016. We will grow,
Sanders - Warren 2016
- 41 votes
Bernie is a real and true patriotic American. He does not talk out of both sides of his mouth, and what he says is the truth. Pure and simple. What is stunning is that the people who support the GOPTeaBags candidates, the ones the candidates pander to and lie to and misrepresent to, are so totally party-line blind to see them for what the really are. SC is and always has been a very racist and religious extremist state, where the education level of a large part of the working class and poor is far below the national average in most areas. And their scope of reality is pretty much limited to their own backyard. Romney really did not relate to the people there, and they recognized that he is as phony as a 3 dollar bill. Santorum just did not relate to the Southern mode. Being as Gingrich is from GA, and knows how to say the right words to mentally manipulate the people, his win there does not in the least surprise me.
- 54 votes
Bernie's pointing to the symptoms, the cause of Republican weirdness is the bankruptcy of a monolithic position. Look at Fox News...
Fox News is in the business of creating a congregation. They spin everything around to ultimately one position. To be successful they must sway opinion and support to that position. Fox panders to fear, racism, sexism and essentially the reactionary social platform of Jim Crow.
History show us thatit is the wealthy folks who use these tools to divide and conquer the large masses they have come to control. So when these tools are in play we know the position behind their usage.
So, this is why the Republican ideas are so fringe.
This is why their cast of characters is so bluntly drawn.
There is nothing behind the Republican philosophy but Richie Rich piling up his gold reveling in capitalist fantasies...
- 48 votes
If only we could get 150 Bernie's in Congress, we could change the world. Pres. Obama needs to listen to Bernie, who speaks for and of the needs of the people. Bernie is the standard of measurement we should judge all potential candidates by, for the good of the nation, and the future of sanity in the US.
- 42 votes
Jim44,
Okay now you've popped my cork. :)
"You want to use a Socialist as the Standard for American politicians? Really ? WoW !!!!!"
I wonder why you don't have a similar reaction to the fact that almost every other politician seems to be a capitalist...?
Pretty monolithic of you.
(For some reason monolithic seems to be my new favorite word. Prolly cuz I intentionally went on Fox News today.)
I formally release you from the weekend restriction. :D
- 36 votes
Comment collapsed by the communityWhen your 0.1% with money, you're not fringe, you're masters.
People at a$$ end of Bell Curve are the fringe. They're the ones needed to be put down.
The top follow the Golden Rule, those who have the gold make the rules. That's how feudalism works.
Get with the program!
- 36 votes
redsfan,
Bernie was brilliant on Maher. I really love that man - he's a national treasure. I wish he were 20 years younger. We're going to need him for a long time. Truth To Power.
I was a little surprised that Bernie talked about the need for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United, but didn't mention the fact that he currently has a petition drive that he'll be presenting to the U.S. Senate - showing the American public's support for this thing.
Since he didn't do it on Maher, I'll post it here:
The Saving American Democracy Amendment states that:
- Corporations are not persons with constitutional rights equal to real people.
- Corporations are subject to regulation by the people.
- Corporations may not make campaign contributions or any election expenditures.
- Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.
Go here to sign the petition, and please spread it around. I have, and told my Rep and Senators that I expect them to support the Amendment.
Socialism has never worked on a large multi-racial multi- ethnic society
I'm not sure what ethnic makeup has to do with the viability of instituting Democratic Socialism, but you might want to take a look at Germany. Their ethnic makeup percentages are pretty close to ours. They also recently (1990s) absorbed a huge, impoverished East Germany into their economy.
And yet everyone in Germany has healthcare, Germany's economy is doing far better than ours, and Germany's modern infrastructure (and emphasis on renewable energy) absolutely puts us to shame.
I was just there in October. Not a single homeless person, roads in perfect condition, solar panels and windmills everywhere - we look positively impoverished by comparison.
The last experiment of socialism to attempt to do that was the Soviet Union
The U.S.S.R. was a communist country, not a socialist one. There's a very big difference. See North Korea.
Great seed, redsfan - thanks.
- 46 votes
Jim44,
Our country wasn't founded on Capitalism, it was founded on slavery, and a bit of fuedalism.
But rather than argue that. I'd say so what. I'm not coming out in favor of socialism, though I could. Rather I was saying how ironic it is that we have free speech but so little free thought.
We do have a lot of socialist modeled programs and they do seem to be working in a country of 300 million.
Russia's fall was not a condemnation of socialism, it was a condemnation of communism.
The small European countries are going broke because they bailed out banks. No kidding. The banks transferred all their debt to their governments and now the people are being forced to bear the cost through reduced social programs. Austerity programs are fueling rage in Europe.
Meahwhile the banks themselves are solvent and their shareholders just as wealthy as ever.
So, It appears that you are blaming this situation on socialism when it is actually capitalism that caused the problem...
Free at last?
Probably not, but at least we can argue about it. :) I was deathly afraid that you were gonna hit me with like twenty-five pages refutating of every thing I said betwen Friday and Monday.
- 47 votes
Great seed Redsfan thank you, Bernie hit the nail on the head.
...these guys are so out of touch with the reality that the American people are going through...
PR - Good comment and thanks for the additional information, always of interest to me.
- 26 votes
I was just there in October. Not a single homeless person
Hummmmm Really ...
Homelessness in Germany
The visible form of true poverty
An analysis of how/why some 860,000 people are homeless in Germany, which like most nations, has no governmental structure to address this human rights problem
Munich, Germany
They are known as "tramps", "winos", "hobos", "street people", "bums", or simply homeless. They are the poor within our rich society, unemployed and with no resources, living on the fringes. In official terms they are called "people in social distress" or more commonly "homeless". In the terms of social federal welfare laws they are classified as "people who roam with no secure form of income, singles without a home-address and regular employment capable of being taxed for social security, without a secured mode of existence and often without a sound relationship to either family or other community members.... people whose social problems prevent them from participating in community life."
http://www.share-international.org/archives/homelessness/hl-abGermany.htm
In a nation of 82 Million...
- 3 votes
These guys are way, way out of touch from where the American people are, and I think when you look at them issue by issue, tax breaks for the rich, cut Social Security, more money on defense spending, they are literally a fringe element in American society.
Excellent seed, redsfan!
- 25 votes
Bernie Sanders was fun to watch an Bill Mahers show.
One of the few that stands for us. All of us.
- 22 votes
#1.14. Thank you! I signed the petition and forwarded it to ALL my fellow Progressives.
After the GOP is soundly defeating in November, the Republicans will spend the next four years doing everything they can to build Chris Christie into "GOP-GOD" status and then force him to run. This due to the fact that, out of the whole party, they have absolutely no-one of any substance that can lead our nation. They truly are the fringe party for all the angry racists and haters and of course, the Christian right, that doesn't know how to practice a single Christian principle.
Obama-Biden 2012 followed by Sanders-Warren 2016 OR Warren-Sanders 2016.
The next 12 years MUST be Democratic to turn this Republican created mess around.
- 21 votes
You want to use a Socialist as the Standard for American politicians? Really ? WoW !!!!!
Jim44, have you ever read the Constitution? The United States is a Constitutional Republic and socialism is built right in to the Constitution. Of course the right doesn't want to accept that part of the document. You really should take a civics class, you wouldn't look so ill informed. The whole point of every man being equal under the law is a socialistic ideal. The fact that the minority has constitutional protection is socialistic. The health and welfare clause of the constitution is blatantly and intentionally socialistic. For all those on the right that are supposed to be constitutionalists, they are more like evangelical Christians than Americans, only believing parts of theirholy book that support their evil, so to is the right, only believing and preaching parts of the constitution that allow for their greed, selfishness and hate. That is the real problem with our government, not that it is to socialistic, but it has become to rooted in capitalism, for this country to be strong, vibrant and healthy, it must embrace equal amounts of capitalism and socialism. Prue capitalism is more readily recognized by it's true name, Fascism.
- 32 votes
PR your #1.14 is a great comment. Thank you. Dispassionately said and quite well worded. It is OK to get all frothy at the mouth now and again over a topic but that does not make a point very well. When you simply lay it out and tell it like it is, as you did in your comment, it makes it rather difficult for anyone to white wash the facts with impassioned drivel. While I have no particular problem with Capitalism I have always felt that it should not be everything but rather just a component of any government and Socialism should make up the other part.
Many people bash China because of their Communistic background but if you look rather closely they are trying to move ever so carefully toward a balanced government made up of Capitalism and Socialism. This permits a certain amount of prosperity across the spectrum of their society while providing for everyone fairly despite their economic status. We here in America seem to be moving in almost the complete opposite direction. With Homeland Security and all of the other various bureaucratic agencies we have formed (DEA, TSA, ATF, CIA, FBI, FDA, CDC, and a host of others) we are virtually dictated to death in much the same way as China was under Mao Tse Tung and the Red Guard.
Every day our governmental system moves closer to controlling every aspect of our lives right down to our sex lives but is gradually selling us all out to our corporate masters. They will ultimately become our dictatorial rulers if we continue on this path and permit them to get away with it. Just imagine an America where everyone becomes essentially the property of one major industry or another and our every waking moment is spent serving that industry. We live in company supplied housing, buy our needs from the company owned store, and when we become sick or disabled we are ejected from the community to die because we are no longer useful. Sounds rather bizarre doesn't it? However we have been there before in our mining industry in this country. Henry Ford tried to create a similar situation at Ford Motor Company but his workers organized, rose up, and put a stop to his plans. After that he had to settle for just becoming a billionaire rather than King.
Personally I do not want to see America return to that kind of social order and I am pleased to see our young people beginning to show signs of recognizing this trend. We keep asking ourselves why our government refuses to take a different approach in the war on drugs. I am beginning to think that it is not only a great revenue generator for our government but is also a means of control being used by our government to keep the populace disorganized. I seem to recall from history that the Chinese people suffered from this problem when various imperialists fostered the growth of opium dens to pacify and mollify their population and keep them under control. Now I have to ask myself the question "could this be happening here?"
So again, thank you for a very well stated comment that struck home quite nicely. I also think that Mr. Sanders stated his case very well and it pretty much agrees with my sentiments. I presently share my home with a high school honor student and I am really amazed at the attitudes of her and her friends. I call them our future 'Conserberals' since in conversation they seem to have a natural balance of Conservatism and Liberalism that rings true to me as an old man in my late 60s. I really hope that they do not lose their ideas and enthusiasm as they mature into our future leadership.
- 17 votes
flameaway
Unfortunately you provided an entire post full of nothing but your OPINION...
Sorry I can't argue against your opinion .... Try supporting some of the things you say and I would be glad to comment !!!
As an example like ....when P-r said
And yet everyone in Germany has healthcare, Germany's economy is doing far better than ours, and Germany's modern infrastructure (and emphasis on renewable energy) absolutely puts us to shame.
sounds good when they said it ...but ...
Germany Strains to Fund Health Care for All
- 1 vote
Bernie Sanders has said to the public, to the nation, to the world, what so many of us, here on NV have been saying for months.
It's sad that generally what's said on NV, stays on NV.
But, Bernie Sanders rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How sad there's only one of him.
- 28 votes
Jim,
You link is from a website that features UFOs and the coming Rapture.
http://www.share-international.org/
I don't see any credible analysis there. But to be clear, I meant that I didn't see any homeless in Germany - even in large cities like Cologne and Munich. I didn't mean to imply that no one in Germany is homeless.
By contrast, I can't walk 2 blocks in Philadelphia without seeing homeless people - even in Center City.
- 35 votes
Jim,
Germany Strains to Fund Health Care for All
Your article shows that heathcare costs are rising in Germany. Amazing, but true.
It says nothing to change the fact that everyone there has healthcare coverage. People in Germany do not regularly lose their homes or go bankrupt due to medical bills, as they do here. They don't have critical (but untreated) illnesses. They don't have to go to emergency rooms for symptoms that could easily have been managed with regular care.
We have 50 million people without health insurance in this country - and that's a disgrace.
You are 2 for 2 with misleading links on this thread so far. Credibility is everything, Jim.
Jenni - thanks for passing that on. It's more important than anything else you'll do today (or probably most days) ;-)
Lebowsky and Shepherd, thanks.
- 29 votes
Comment collapsed by the communityJim44,
Like I said, I hate getting into cut and paste wars. PR's comment concerning taking info from pages with UFO and the rapture, illustrates the point I made earlier. Such debates often seem to end in a refutation of the other person's sources.
BTW common knowleges is not an opinon. It is stuff that is generally known. Like when the U.S.S.R. fell it was the fall of communism. Or that banks in Greece got a bailout and stuck citizens with the bill, causing socialized programs to run out of money.
One generally doesn't have to source common knowledge - unless Fox News is involved.
Opinion is different. That's an interpretation. Like this, "The example so many Progressives like to use of European countries does not and can not apply to a nation with 300 million people of different races religions and ethnic origins..."
So why do you get to have opinions and I can't have common knowledge?
- 26 votes
Unfortunately you provided an entire post full of nothing but your OPINION...
Sorry I can't argue against your opinion .... Try supporting some of the things you say and I would be glad to comment !!!
Um no. It's definitely not opinion. No government can be founded on capitalism. Any Government in general is an anathema to capitalism (which is why conservatives and big business talk about making it so small). Any government typically offers some form or another a group of what we call the Commons. These are assets that are owned by us all. These are:
- The military (depending on the type of government, but one could argue even in a dictatorship they are still apart of the commons as tax revenue is what funds it)
- Bridges, roads, infrastructure, etc
- Air (which is why government can regulate air quality)
- Land (which is why government can regulate pollution in the ground)
Even before the Federal Income tax, State taxes existed to help pay for upkeep, and investment towards the people and capitalism doesn't have much to do with that....much to the chagrine of conservatives. If this country was truly founded on captialism then every service would have been privatized since it's inception. This is obviously not the case.
This really isn't debatable. You might not like it, but the reality is this country and it's government was not founded on capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system, not a type of government, and not a religion (to anyone who is sane).
- 21 votes
P - r
What you call the Wall Street Journal a misleading source ? Interesting ... Not liking the contend does not make the information untrue... How about you provide something other than your opinion !!!!
P - R
before you sing the praises of these systems you might want to take a look at this study ... Check into cost sharing ... Then remember one very important thing ... all these systems are mandatory in order to fund them just like Obama Care...and we do have a case coming before SCOTUS that would make that part of the Act unconstitutional and therefore UNFUNDED !!!
Cost Sharing for Health Care:
France, Germany, and Switzerland
http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7852.pdf
Start here ...
Background on the Health Care Systems of France, Germany, and Switzerland
- 1 vote
I am ready to start the movement for 2016. We will grow,
Sanders - Warren 2016
Unfortunately, Bernie would be 76 years old when starting his first term as President. I agree he would be a good choice otherwise. It's become a rare thing to see a politician who consistently demonstrates a desire to do what is best for his or her own constituents!
- 12 votes
Shepard,
What was Thomas Paine's value to the American Revolution?
Emotional appeal has it's place; if it is tempered by deep knowledge. Martin Luther King, Jr. was another excellent example.
Some people sway, other's convince. One is heart, the other is head. It takes both in proper proportion to create deep change.
- 15 votes
Jim44,
How does a diversity of races, religions, and ethnicities have any bearing on the viability of Socialism in the U.S.? It's kind of humorous that you would think that, since the purpose of Socialism is to remove the socio-economic barriers that separate us. I suppose since it's anathema to your ideology, you will resist this notion till the end.
The example so many Progressives like to use of European countries does not and can not apply to a nation with 300 million people of different races religions and ethnic origins...
- 14 votes
Jim,
Here's what healthcare for everyone does.
The medical journal Social Science & Medicine looked at the impact that universal healthcare had in East Germany after it was incorporated into the West German system. The results are astounding:
East Germany experienced an increase in life expectancy at birth of 2.4 years in men and 2.3 years in women between 1992 and 1997
That happened in just the first 5 years.
The European Journal of Public Health also recently published a study on life expectancy in Germany. One of the things that they looked at was the impact of newly-implemented healthcare for East Germany, which had just been absorbed into the German system. And they found this:
Convergence of living conditions between West and East Germany resulted in a very rapid increase of life expectancy in the new federal states, which added up to about 3.2 years in men and women over a period of just 7 years.
You want to argue against universal healthcare. Fine - just be honest about the consequences of that. People die younger without access to healthcare. Period.
- 27 votes
Or how about being completely honest about the real reasons conservatives refuse to support universal healthcare? Instead of proffering the pathetic argument that universal healthcare somehow presents a danger to your idealogy (socialism, oh my!), why not come clean for once? The real reason that many conservatives refuse to support the healthcare coverage is that they don't want to spend one thin dime of their personal money on someone else's health. So much for "Love thy neighbor."
- 21 votes
Jim 44, not to be nit picky, but that article about the homeless in Germany is a touch old.
From the March 1999 issue of Share International
Nearly 13 years old, anything current?
- 13 votes
This discussion of capitalism, government, health care etc. is very good and I appreciate the calm and rational tone in most of the comments. It's a complex issue and one that is discussed and explained very well in Jeffrey Sachs' The Price of Civilization...
The market system must be complemented with government institutions that acomplish three things: provide public goods such as infrastructure, scientific research, and market regulation; ensure the basic fairness of income distribution and long-term help for the poor to escape from poverty; and promote sustainability of the earth's fragile resources for the benefit of future generations.
It's an excellent book...I highly recommend it.
- 10 votes
flameaway
Our country wasn't founded on Capitalism,
First a question ... Do you think Ben Franklin might have been one that had an understanding of what our nation was founded on?
He was quoted to have said ....
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Correct?
If you agree with that then Please enlighten yourself and read something Dr Franklin wrote... Then tell me if he spoke of Capitalism or Socialism as a way of life in early America...
On the Price of Corn, and Management of the Poor
- 1 vote
While I did mis speak as to the nature of the "General Welfare Clause" of the Constitution, and for that I stand corrected. I have no excuse. However, the premise of my argument is intact and well founded. I notice you did not refute any conclusion I have made, only my stupid misquote. When you can refute the premise, you may claim superiority, until then, you are still woefully uneducated in what American economics means. My statement as to the socialist nature of our constitution is correct, and it has served this country well.
Your fear of a civil society is typical of the right wing and I am sure that your self serving masters are proud of your rhetoric, even tho it serves not you but those that own you.
- 18 votes
Jim44
Yes Ron I have ... Have you?The health and welfare clause of the constitution is blatantly and intentionally socialistic.
After your "Health and Welfare Clause" comment I question if you have? Being there is no such thing !!!!
Sorry I don't take Constitution lessons from people that really have a problem understanding the Constitution!!!
Am I will assume you meant the General Welfare Clause !!!!
Really you wanted to school me on the Constitution ...Geeezzzzzzzzzzz! Health and Welfare Clause .... LOL Is that before or after the Good and Plenty Clause? (smiles)
You really should take a civics class, you wouldn't look so ill informed.
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA says the man that wants to point out something that DOESN'T EXIST IN THE CONSTITUTION !!!!! While talking down to someone that has to correct him !!!!
Feeling "ill informed" ?????? You Should !
You ridiculed the mistake, but never addressed the point. When you're done laughing at and beating up the straw man, maybe you will...
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
- 18 votes
Jim in your #22.24 you say that "Germany Strains to Fund Health Care for All." I say so what? I strain to provide for my family but just because it is becoming more difficult than ever does that mean that I should cease trying? Nations are no different than individuals in that regard. All that they can do is the best that they can. To simply ignore a need is cruel and inhumane. Consider this. You encounter a homeless family on the street. You could say that they are there because they are just lazy and won't work to support themselves. However you do not know why they happen to be homeless or what circumstances brought them to that condition. It is entirely possibe that a huge medical bill bankrupted them and caused them to lose their home and the bill was for the family breadwinner who is now unable to work. Furthermore that condition is not the fault of their little children who have to try and survive in a cardboard box somewhere eating scraps from some dumpster.
You, and others like you can jump up and down and call me a liberal Socialist all you want to but it does not disguise the fact that such an attitude as yours is cruel and heartless. It may sound great to a fit 20 year old for us to resort to a "Soylent Green" kind of society but they invariably change their tune when they approach the magic age of 55. LOL Someone once said "there, but for the grace of God go I." Now I don't believe much in the grace of God notion but I do believe that I should be very grateful for that which I am fortunate enough to have and should never criticize or condemn the less fortunate. And yes, where possible, I do believe that we are all our brother's keepers.
Unless you are one of the 1% my friend you had better hope that at least some social programs remain in place because as the middle class continues to shrink it could very well engulf you in poverty like so many others. Think beyond the end of your nose lest you wind up falling off a economic cliff somewhere. LOL Farsightedness is much better than myopia when you are in a mine field. At least you can spot the trigger mechanisms a little better and avoid disaster.
- 13 votes
Jim44, I recall going round and round with you over the health care debate. You kept referring to me as a caring person, but.... inferring that I was an emotional person and my opinion was perhaps coming from a purely emotional place, and the idea of "death panel" rhetoric was not. I told you that I have worked in the health care field as a professional working with people with severe disabilities, both in the public and private sectors for over 35 years, but you still implied that I was not an expert. But Sarah Palin is. When I have had other conversations with supposed other Republicans, I am called a tree-hugger, environmentalist, extreme animal rights activist protesting to protect beetles, anything to dismiss my opinion as petty. It was demanded of me that I send links to information over a comment I made where I said that I am not a climate scientist and could not interpret the data, but I did know that the planet supplies me with life, not the other way around. I was mocked to no end as a religious nut and so forth and "show me the links." You are right about one thing, I am a caring person, but you can be sure that I only have one agenda, and that is to fight with everything I have for clean water, clean air, to take my grandchild to the National parks one day, and work together as a people to establish a new mentality of working together, because truthfully I am ashamed of a country who touts profits over pollution, profits over human dignity, rewards tax cheats as successful, applauds who can fry the most people in the electric chair, and gives standing ovations to vile and nasty rhetoric and chest thumping. Don't ask me for data or statistics to validate my opinion, it is purely visceral, and to tell ya the truth, I trust my instincts at this point over anything anyone else could ever say. I know what I see, I hear what people around me are saying, and to tell ya the truth, some of it is just nauseating and disheartening.
- 22 votes
Jim44
If you agree with that then Please enlighten yourself and read something Dr Franklin wrote... Then tell me if he spoke of Capitalism or Socialism as a way of life in early America...
On the Price of Corn, and Management of the Poor
Neither. He's talking about the right of Free Trade.
- 11 votes
You are right about one thing, I am a caring person, but you can be sure that I only have one agenda, and that is to fight with everything I have for clean water, clean air, to take my grandchild to the National parks one day, and work together as a people to establish a new mentality of working together, because truthfully I am ashamed of a country who touts profits over pollution, profits over human dignity, rewards tax cheats as successful, applauds who can fry the most people in the electric chair, and gives standing ovations to vile and nasty rhetoric and chest thumping.
Bravo, Lola. If this makes anyone here think 'liberal', you should be shocked at yourself and your tenets. I remember a time when Democrats and Republicans embraced these concepts as basic human truths. That anyone can forget them in the name of partisanship is disgusting.
- 15 votes
Jim44,
Ben was a cool old boy, bit of a hound-dog. Subtle as hell and he sure believed in the free market.
Not sure what that proves, since Ben was only one guy. Not only that he's not the guy you should be talking about. The guy that best fits your argument would probably be James Madison. He did the bulk of the early work on banking and finance.
Still our country wasn't founded on capitalism, as you point out it was founded as a Republic...
- 10 votes
Jim44,
I've been thinking about your views on socialism and the USSR. That nation was a combination of founding principal and economic strategy. I think you are confusing the two.
Here in the States; we are a democratic republic with a capitalist economy.
It's possible to be a Democratic Republic using a socialist model for our economy.
- 14 votes
Jom
That piece was written about the British Empire's protectionist policies, and their demands that American colonists could not sell their goods to other countries. It was published 10 years before our own Declaration of Independence was even written:
The London Chronicle, November 29, 1766
Franklin goes on to say this:
But, it seems, we Farmers must take so much less, that the poor may have it so much cheaper.
This operates then as a tax for the maintenance of the poor. -- A very good thing, you will say. But I ask, Why a partial tax? Why laid on us Farmers only? -- If it be a good thing, pray, Messrs. the Public, take your share of it, by indemnifying us a little out of your public treasury. In doing a good thing there is both honour and pleasure; -- you are welcome to your part of both.
In fairness, Franklin goes on to say that social welfare increases slothfulness. But it really has nothing to do with the foundations of our own nation.
Read, for example, Jefferson's thought on the subject of equality, and the leveling role of taxation on the rich:
The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards.
...the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.
The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on.
- 18 votes
the president is not going after the candidates yet because they themselves have set up a situation within their party to play dirty politics and he can just collect their videos soundbites, etc..in the meantime he can continue to work on the economy, war in afghanistan etc..the president has never been a hot head but a thinker..but his thinking got osama bin laden, healthcare...the republicans are looking for someone to annihilate the president in the election..they are using emotion instead of their head- people who are hot headed, quick tempered, dont make thoughtful decisions and a candidate like that may cause harm to the american people down the road...with the economy the way it is we need a STABLE president not one that flip flops on issues to get votes..
- 9 votes
Well, Senator Sanders had been long enough in Congress that he qualifies for retirement.
I am for a non-salary for the politicians, we pay them. Well, it's time that all the fringe benefits in our Congress should be gone.
I go to the market and I am paying $2.48 for a couple of bones for the beans. The prices for food is going up up and away for the seniors that get their Social Security check and is taxable.
What I read often is this: abo
How come?
Well the Dems/left used in 2004.
- 1 vote
Try to make sense in your next derail comment, determined.
- 12 votes
The real reason that many conservatives refuse to support the healthcare coverage is that they don't want to spend one thin dime of their personal money on someone else's health. So much for "Love thy neighbor."
very true, but the fact is the rightwinger evangelical crowd of fringe misfits (thank you Bernie they are fringe), are already pay for someone elses healthcare thru higher private insurance premiums. Believe me when I say this, I work in the insurance industry.
- 5 votes
Bernie isn't scared of anyone. He speaks his mind and to hell with the consequences.
- 9 votes
Good thing you have that social security check, otherwise you'd be starving.The last depression left millions of young and old starving in tents on the streets. They did have the smarts to know they were all in the same boat, which is more credit than I can afford you, determine.
- 11 votes
On the issue of social justice, here's a link
http://eezzbeat.newsvine.com/_news/2012/01/16/10169266-us-ranks-27th-in-social-justice
The U.S. ranks 27 out of 31 and only ranks higher than Greece, Chile, Mexico, and Turkey.
Link to full report:
http://www.sgi-network.org/pdf/SGI11_Social_Justice_OECD.pdf
Key findings begins on 6/56 using the report toolbar. The social factors used to make the determinations may be found on 14/56 near the bottom of the page.
Capitalism isn't designed with equal rights in mind. So it's not skewed toward the concepts of the Constitution. The fringe would have us believe otherwise. When allowed to go unchecked, we get the inequality results we currently are slapped with day after day.
- 8 votes
and Bachmann will be re-elected to Congress.
If Bachmann is re-elected after all the exposure she has had (read: outing the crazy), we might have to consider kicking Minnesota out of the union until they learn their lesson or make the Bachmann's their queens.
Yeah, I went there... 8)
- 10 votes
#1.54 The real reason that many conservatives refuse to support the healthcare coverage is that they don't want to spend one thin dime of their personal money on someone else's health.
We ought not to confuse "health" insurance with health care. Insurance is a financial instrument. What health insurance protects is not your health, but your wealth, against the ravages of the costs of health care. It is primarily for the wealthy: as a wealthy person, I don't want to pay for health care (which could easily bankrupt me), I want to pay for health insurance (so that I can leave my wealth to my heirs). Poor people have less motivation to buy in to health insurance, which is why "the mandate" was a Republican strategy, until it was adopted by Obama,
In modern societies (in which we value life even to the expensive end), we pay for health care by pooling our resources. We hope that enough healthy people are in the pool, so that, when one of us needs it, there will be money to pay for our need. When our pool is our employer or professional group, it is insurance. When our pool is the whole population, it is so-called socialized medicine.
- 8 votes
Capitalism isn't designed with equal rights in mind. So it's not skewed toward the concepts of the Constitution. The fringe would have us believe otherwise. When allowed to go unchecked, we get the inequality results we currently are slapped with day after day.
Excellent point, skeptic. Capitalism must be paired with reasonable government control or it is extremely destructive. I wish more people understood that.
- 11 votes
#1.38 Jeffrey Sachs' The Price of Civilization
In the mixed-economy America I grew up in, there existed a post-capitalist, post-Marxian vision of middle-class identity. It consisted of shared assets and entitlements, of which the bedrock was public education, access to college, good housing, full employment at living wages, Medicare, and Social Security. These programs, publicly provided, financed, or guaranteed, had softened the rough edges of Great Depression capitalism, rewarding the sacrifices that won the Second World War. They also showcased America, demonstrating to those behind the Iron Curtain that regulated capitalism could yield prosperity far beyond the capacities of state planning. (This, and not the arms race, ultimately brought down the Soviet empire.) These middle-class institutions survive in America today, but they are frayed and tattered from constant attack. And the division between those included and those excluded is large and obvious to all
The predator state: Enron, Tyco, WorldCom and the U.S. government?
- 7 votes
Thank you for the link, rimbauda. Excellent article!
We need to stop the simplistic argument of "capitalism vs. socialism"...that is not even relevant or real. In order for capitalism to work, we need to be able to regulate the "predatory" practices of unfettered capitalism...which means we need government to work. We need both.
- 11 votes
Smith Cassidy @1.59: Hey, I protest your generality!!! There is only one fringed nut district in Minnesota that voted Bachman into office and kept doing it because they got stuck in the 1,800's and don't know how to get out!!!!! I moved back to MN 7 years ago and have heard nothing from where I have lived but people sorrowing about how that wingnut kept getting elected. I do hear that after her Presidential fiasco she intends to retire. I also hear that she is planning to run for a senate seat. If she is dumb enough to do that she will end up just like Mr. Coleman who thought he owned the senate seat until he ran into a guy named Al Franken.
If you want to talk about Minnesota as a whole, we voted for Senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar who are the best of the best!!!!! These two we will happily claim and hang on to for dear life. They not only care about their Minnesota constitutents, they truly care about the whole country. If you throw out Minnesota you will lose them too and they are on a par with Mr. Bernie Sanders and Mr Barney Frank.
In my humble opinion. . .
- 11 votes
grama,
I suspected you were from MN or WI. A native can always tell ;-)
- 9 votes
Right on Bernie Sanders!!!
I just think the idiots need to be told how incredibly stupid it is to continue voting for Re/Teapublicans.
They are no longer Capitalists they are Fascists, wanting to privatise the government so they own it !!!!!!!!!!!
Don't vote for stupidity, by voting for the teapublican/republicans. Vote smart for President Obama/Biden !!!
- 9 votes
Oh, yes, Physicist-retired, born in Wisconsin, spent most of my adult life in Minnesota.
I'm still trying to figure out how these strange people came into power! They aren't the kind of down to earth folk we used to admire and I can't understand where we were thinking.
Thank heaven, we got our Governor Dayton (who is grossly overpowered by our legislature), but there are those of us who hope to see a turn-around in the next election.
- 9 votes
Jim44 - We could rename it ...The US Politburo
First, this is in contrast to the aristocracy we have today. Second, everyone in this country gets an equal vote so there goes your Politburo analogy.
Personally, I would much rather have a government of socialists freely elected by all the citizens of the country than your version of a plutocracy. You really should look to see which form of government is closer to your "feared" Politburo. If you open your eyes you will see you are the one advocating for the Politburo, comrade.
- 12 votes
Smith Cassidy @1.59: Hey, I protest your generality!!! There is only one fringed nut district in Minnesota that voted Bachman into office and kept doing it because they got stuck in the 1,800's and don't know how to get out!!!!! I moved back to MN 7 years ago and have heard nothing from where I have lived but people sorrowing about how that wingnut kept getting elected. I do hear that after her Presidential fiasco she intends to retire. I also hear that she is planning to run for a senate seat. If she is dumb enough to do that she will end up just like Mr. Coleman who thought he owned the senate seat until he ran into a guy named Al Franken.
If you want to talk about Minnesota as a whole, we voted for Senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar who are the best of the best!!!!! These two we will happily claim and hang on to for dear life. They not only care about their Minnesota constitutents, they truly care about the whole country. If you throw out Minnesota you will lose them too and they are on a par with Mr. Bernie Sanders and Mr Barney Frank.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Bravo, great post. Throw out yesterdays trash. It is hard living in a state under attack from the TeaNutters. These clowns need to be buried in the town dump where they came from. America has produced many good people in Washington, not just Bernie and Barney, now we need to take our country back from these TRAITORS.
- 8 votes
You want to use a Socialist as the Standard for American politicians? Really ? WoW !!!!!
You people not only insist on using words and phrases you don't understand, but you insist on using them incorrectly.
- 5 votes
Jim44...I would point out that the article from Share International, that you linked, is from March 1999 and hardly useful for understanding Germany today.
- 7 votes
America has produced many good people in Washington, not just Bernie and Barney
Really?
OMG.
- 1 vote
I'd like to hear Jim's definition of both capitalism and socialism. Until he presents his private definition, his arguments demonstrate nothing but ignorance.
First problem: there are many forms of capitalism. Capitalism in America today is quite different from capitalism in America from 1950 to 1973. American capitalism is different from Scandanavian capitalism. (Since capital is largely privately owned in Scandananvia, it's pure sophistry to call those nations socialist.) Capitalism is Germany is different from capitalism in France, which is different from capitalism in Japan.
What Jim is really arguing for is "free-market capitalism"-- the form of state the neo-liberals advocate and which has led to stagnation and grotesque inequality wherever it takes hold. What Jim doesn't understand is that the neo-lib capitalism is quite different from capitalism prior to Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys. Finally, since capitalism didn't exist in 1776, it's patently false for Jim to say our nation was founded on it.
If Jim wants to argue for "free-market capitalism" (a contradiction in terms), he must rationalize away the last three decades of economic history, which have conclusively shown that, contrary to rightwing dogma, "FM capitalism" slows down the economy, increases inequality and insecurity and leads to frequent and sometime massive financial crashes.
Since the Scandanavian nations outperform the U.S. in virtually every quality of life category, if Jim wants to incorrectly call those nations "socialist", I'm all for bringing socialism to our shores.
- 11 votes
It was all tongue-in-cheek, gramapoetmn-4177227. I don't have a lot of room to talk as I'm from PA...you know, Santorum's home. But we didn't re-elect that tool, so it's not too bad.
- 5 votes
Good comments, Sam Spade.
I'm pretty sure Jim has fled this seed...
- 7 votes
Determined, I think I know what OMG is, but can you clarify what abo means in your other post? Just trying to communicate.
- 3 votes
It is really easy to get yourself out on a limb on the vine... Er, you all know what I mean... It's happened to me a number of times.
Every once and awhile I make an assertion and about fifty pounds of english lands on me. Your only hope then is a bit of clever manuevering or a graceful admission of defeat.
Newsvine can be as brutal as chess...
- 4 votes
Newsvine can be as brutal as chess.
I think hateful words hurt more than a chess defeat
- 1 vote
I'm pretty sure Jim has fled this seed...
No Smith ...
Just sometimes life gets in the way of Vining.... But looking back on what I have missed I see that its about 14 to 1 and there is no way I can sit here and answer everyone...
I see I am asked to give facts to refute opinion... That is not really how this debate process is designed to work... But....
Someone wants to make the statement that the Constitution has socialism built in... or
"The whole point of every man being equal under the law is a socialistic ideal"
And somehow they don't have to prove it I have to disprove it... Is ridiculous ...and it can't be debated with logic... In fact the concept in America that all men are created equal comes from the Declaration of Independence... Not even the Constitution ...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
Sorry that doesn't sound all that Socialist .... Rights and equality given by a Creator ! Not by government or society but by a Creator!!!!
Socialism is a socio-economic system... Capitalism is an economic system , that comes in many forms... That lives within a form of government...
Just way to many to reply to ....
No Smith ...
Just sometimes life gets in the way of Vining.... But looking back on what I have missed I see that its about 14 to 1 and there is no way I can sit here and answer everyone...
Just way to many to reply to ....
Life away from the internet is good.
Agreed and agreed.
And somehow they don't have to prove it I have to disprove it... Is ridiculous ...and it can't be debated with logic... In fact the concept in America that all men are created equal comes from the Declaration of Independence... Not even the Constitution ...
Obviously the 2 are related. Ultimately the point is, nothing is black or white, including our country or its founding principles.
- 5 votes
I'm more interested in the basic laws of nature, that supercedes any human document. I don't know what the founders were thinking, but I can damn guarantee they never intended anything in those documents to supercede commonsense or basic survival 101.
- 4 votes
Capitalism is an economic system , that comes in many forms... That lives within a form of government...
That doesn't tell us much. Socialism, mercantilism, feudalism are all economic systems that "live within a form of government." But at least you admit there are many forms of capitalism.
- 4 votes
Sanders is right, of course, but I am not as confident that the majority of Americans see any issue in this election more important than their party affiliation. I fear the lemmings have no sense of the cliff.
- 32 votes
#2 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:40 PM ESTThis year, 2012 the Lemmings will be the GOP/Tea Party
The Democrats will be at the edge of the cliff looking down and saying
Whoa! You guys ARE crazy! We won without a fight!
- 19 votes
As for party affiliation, Bernie isn't a Dem. He's an Independent. He could still run but he doesn't want to hurt the Obama campaign.
- 6 votes
Let me take a wild guess here and say that when the right wing Republicans show up on this discussion in tandem, they will personally attack Bernie while tap dancing around the substance of his statement.
- 38 votes
No Mike
I just don't put much faith in a self professed Socialist giving political commentary on a Comedy Show!
Honestly To Sen Sanders what Republican would not be in his opinion far fringe Right?
I mean saying Sen Sanders is a Socialist is not or should not be considered an attack, since that's what he calls himself, Correct?
And from the view of a Socialist any Republican would be far Right! ...
You really use Real Time with Bill Maher as a News Source ? WoW !!!
- 2 votes
Gosh, mountainmike, you can predict the future! Impressive.
Although, technically, Jim44 didn't dance around anything, he simply did not address it at all.
- 16 votes
Ah yes quite the typical tactic .... accuse someone of something in a preemptive attempt to control the conversation... Sorry you don't get to control how I comment...(smiles)
they will personally attack Bernie
I attacked No one ...Identifying him as a Socialist can't be an attack ..
HE CALLS HIMSELF A SOCIALIST !
Sanders didn't ...
Takes Down Every Single GOP Presidential Candidate
while tap dancing around the substance of his statement.
Nothing to dance around ....He made a broad brush swipe at all Republicans .... Am I to address that?
Just which Republican candidate did Sen Sanders speak of, or "take down" ? Not one by name ! Yet you say he took them all down ? As if the things he said apply equally to each of them !!!
Ah Bull Crap ! And gladly it was on a comedy show because its a Joke !
Why I don't comment on Comedy Shows ...
Ps Arnold ...
he simply did not address it at all.
Which candidate did Sanders address ? Please be specific and don't tap dance around my question! Exactly which person on which topic he kind of addressed?
This article does not have 1 quotation mark ... so which are Sen Sanders words and which are Jason Easley's are kind of up in the air... But lets presume that the part that is Block Quoted are Sanders ... lets see the most specific he gets is " They" and "These guy's" ...
Its a Joke from a Comedy Show ! But thanks for the laughs....
- 1 vote
I just don't put much faith in a self professed Socialist giving political commentary on a Comedy Show!
Now you understand why we liberals put no faith at all into any commentary reported on by FOX "News". 8)
That being said, it's disingenuous of you to attack the messenger rather than address the points individually.
But, it's hard to defend the indefensible, so I understand. Carry on.
- 28 votes
you to attack the messenger
How did I attack him ??? Please be specific!
rather than address the points individually.
He made general statements about Republicans and you want to hold me to a standard that you don't hold the speaker Sen Sanders to? Can you tell me which candidate he was speaking to in those statements?
But, it's hard to defend the indefensible,
Yea I noticed... I asked specific questions and got no answer and accused of something I never did...
- 1 vote
Is there something wrong with being a socialist? Is it like a disease or something? Must be, we can't really even bring it up in polite company...
- 21 votes
Jim44,
Dude, you seriously crack me up. On the other hand I respect your postion...
<pops Jim44 lightly on the forehead>
I release you from your vow.
Mostly cuz I look like an ass shooting BB's at you when you've promised not to respond.
Pfft.
- 15 votes
Had to bite my tongue and at least attempt to keep my word ...
Is there something wrong with being a socialist?
No !
Is it like a disease or something
No !
Must be, we can't really even bring it up in polite company...
Sure you can... You just shouldn't get your hopes up on it being excepted as the political or economic model of choice in America... Human nature will not allow it it bumps heads with the free spirit of self improvement...
Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money to spend !
Here's your BB gun back :)~ .....
- 1 vote
Jim44
Honestly To Sen Sanders what Republican would not be in his opinion far fringe Right?
How 'bout to a former Republican of 45 years (me), I see every current GOP leader as not on the far fringe but completely over the edge. Care to enlighten me as to one who isn't?
- 19 votes
Jim44,
"Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money to spend !"
[aims]
Well... We haven't tried Socialsim without money yet...
[tink]
Sounds like I might have hit something.
- 17 votes
Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money to spend !
It might also be said that capitalism only works until a few people have all the money. Thus something in-between, a hybrid of the two systems, would be most effective for all.
- 14 votes
Bernie Sanders is indeed, a socialist...he has also worked hard his entire career for the people of his state and indeed, the people of America. Here is a profile about him...(I recommend reading the whole thing)...
Sanders was born in New York to a Jewish mother and father who had come over from Poland. His family struggled and never really broke out of its tough circumstances. Though Eugene V Debs, a leader of the Socialist party of America in the 1900s, is a hero to him, Sanders does not hesitate when asked what his main political influence has been.
"Growing up without lots of money. I didn't have to have a book to tell me how a family gets by when there is not a lot of money. I saw unfairness. That was the major inspiration in my politics," he said.
Bernie Sanders: America's No.1 socialist makes his move into the mainstream
- 13 votes
PaPa23 your #3.13 is quite correct. When the former Soviet Union collapsed they tried to "flip the pancake" and go to a full on Capitalistic society. The people simply didn't know how to adapt so quickly and it failed. Now, on the other hand, China is making a very carefully orchestrated move toward a more Capitalistic society and gently edging away from Communism to more of a Socialist form of leadership. It will ultimately reach a balance that is succeful in providing prosperity for their entire society while also making it possible to advance economically on an individual level. This gradual approach is giving their people the opportunity to adapt and learn how to survive in such an economy.
Many try and make the comparison of China's society today to what American society was and that is a mistake. China is on its way up and we are on our way down as I see it. Like European television; it is far superior to our old antiquated system simply because they came along later and incorporated the latest and greastest technologies into their systems while we were committed to the old technology. Similarly China has the benefit of starting from scratch using only those things that work best in constructing their social order. Am I worried about this? Not at all. In fact I respect their intelligent approach. Am I the least bit frightened? Not really because I really don't think there is any malice intended. They simply want to take their place on the international stage in a leading role just as we once did.
If we do indeed lose our place in the world scene we have no one to blame but ourselves. Simple as that. As the one time undisputed world leader we have squandered our resources and ruined our reputation on fruitless and wasteful adventures in other lands and failed to take care of our own national health. If we collapse it will be purely because of our own ineptitude.
- 7 votes
Capitalism, where the corrupt are rewarded as heroes, and the caring are labeled as stupid.
- 18 votes
"Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money to spend."
Which is exactly how capitalism works. Your business shuts down as soon as you run out of banks and investors money to spend. Whereas libertarianism only works until you run out of your own money to spend.
Either way, they all fall to greed.
Here's your bb gun back. Sorry about the welts.
- 10 votes
Student of Life, you left out a step.
Capitalism (currently in the form of Corporatism) moves from using other people’s money to using government/taxpayers money via privatization.
Of course before they can privatize, they either have break the government or convince others that government is broken.
- 9 votes
The GOPigs blame the sorry economy on poor black people instead of greedy bankers and wall streeters.
- 45 votes
#4 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:08 PM ESTyep Gingrich got away with that kind of talk in South Carolina, but he won't get away with it in places like Texas, California, New York and Florida.
- 8 votes
real,
I think he will in the Republican Primaries. After all it is composed of old scared white guys and their Stepford wives.
Now the general election is a different story. Wait and see the back peddling.
- 9 votes
Right on Bernie Sanders.
I like him, he's a fighter. We need more like this man, fighting for All Americans.
his website:
He's a cool guy.
Peace*
- 35 votes
#5 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:34 PM ESTI am glad to have one person in our government who I actually see as being on the side of the people. We need a lot more like Sanders elected this November so get out there and vote. Unless you are very rich or mentally ill and ignorant of the facts of life, you can't lower yourself low enough to vote for the GOP in the next election. Vote for the lesser of 2 evils because you do have something to lose in November whether you are smart enough to know it or not. Enough poor people are dying each day already because of our health care system. So if you call yourself pro-life, get out there and vote the Hitler GOP out.
- 19 votes
#6 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:36 PM ESTWe need a lot more like Sanders elected this November so get out there and vote.
I agree! I listen to Sanders on a radio show sometimes and he is always smart, reasonable, calm and makes perfect sense! He talks policy and issues and facts and reality...I like it!
- 25 votes
The problem with what Bernie Sanders said is that not a word of it is true. There's not a single candidate running for office who is far right wing. Not one candidate has suggested anything radical like the elimination of Social Security, nor has anyone run on a platform of ending Medicaid.
I'm far right wing, none of the candidates are.
I'd end school lunch programs. Kids are too damned fat.
I'd end Social Security. It's ridiculous that government gives people birthday presents.
I'd end Food Stamps, I'd fast-track the death-penalty to same-day executions as sentencing, I'd drug test every person who gets any check from the government (Judges, Military, Legislators, even the President) without exception and I'd cut the government budget to 18th-Century levels.
Not one of the candidates goes nearly far enough. They're all a bunch of useless moderates.
- 6 votes
Being as we are now in the arena of da da abusrdism, I would designate a tract of land, name it Gaults Gulch, and repatriate all austrians and libertarians to it...no taxes, passports to enter and leave, and let you show us the error of our ways because the theory is you'd thrive and we'd perish. I'm confident enough to test that theory....
- 24 votes
Let's be sure not to collapse MeanGene-3334839's comment #7; I think it needs to stand as an an example of the dangers of self-assured fanaticism.
I wonder how he would react if he or any of his family or friends needed any services? Is Gene mean enough to just let them suffer and/or die?
- 32 votes
"Gaults Gulch" I like it !
Randy threw down the gauntlet at Gaults Gulch, has a nice ring.
- 15 votes
Uthaclena
I wonder how he would react if he or any of his family or friends needed any services? Is Gene mean enough to just let them suffer and/or die?
Are you mean enough to send them to Washington D.C. looking for help? Are you mean enough to make them fill out a stack of forms three feet high in triplicate in order to beg a bureaucrat for a bailout?
Sending people to the government looking for help is the most heartless thing anybody's ever come up with, and liberals act like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
When I my family and friends ask me for help, they get help from me, not sent off hat in hand to some faceless bureaucracy to wait for their number to be called. I have a little bit more compassion than you'd find in the line at the Department of Economic Security.
- 2 votes
Are you mean enough to send them to Washington D.C. looking for help? Are you mean enough to make them fill out a stack of forms three feet high in triplicate in order to beg a bureaucrat for a bailout?
Since I'm employed to help those who cannot help themselves - I fill out the damn forms for them - yeah, I recognize what a bitch bureaucracy can be. And, good for you taking care of others, as we all should.
But since I also donate to food banks and help raise funds for homeless shelters, I know that there are insufficient private resources to help everyone who needs assistance. Read some Charles Dickens if you haven't to get a sense of how well voluntary support works when that's all that's available.
- 23 votes
I'm far right wing, none of the candidates are.
And I'm so glad your policies will never get close to being made reality.
- 21 votes
Mean, I like your craziness. Run and I will vote for you. People need to be one way or another. Far to the right or far to the left. To hell with meeting in the middle. I like your attitude.
Perhaps we should also cut military retirement benefits for people on the right? People on SS at least "paid" money for the benefits they receive! SARC!!!
- 9 votes
Uthaclena,
Since I'm employed to help those who cannot help themselves - I fill out the damn forms for them - yeah, I recognize what a bitch bureaucracy can be. And, good for you taking care of others, as we all should.
Well then, perhaps you'll understand when I state the obvious fact that not all help is money. Owning a pickup truck, I'm occasionally asked to help friends and family move. If I were a heartless bastard, then I'd send them to U-Haul to rent their own truck, but that's not very helpful, is it?
When people ask for help, then throwing a check at them isn't a solution to every problem. It's not even a solution to most problems. It's an ugly attitude which believes that all of the world's ills could be solved by a bank teller cashing in a piece of paper.
But since I also donate to food banks and help raise funds for homeless shelters, I know that there are insufficient private resources to help everyone who needs assistance. Read some Charles Dickens if you haven't to get a sense of how well voluntary support works when that's all that's available.
The worlds Dickens painted with his pen were dark and heartless, but they mostly dealt with the heartless of government. The workhouses of Dickens which Scrooge spoke of, those were government run. That wasn't the inhumanity of men, that was the inhumanity of government. Dickens was no fan of government largess.
When the pilgrims were starving and asked the Indians for help, the Indians taught them how to plant corn and use fish for fertilizer. If the Indians were a stupid government, then they'd have just thrown the pilgrims a check and the pilgrims would be dead.
- 2 votes
The worlds Dickens painted with his pen were dark and heartless, but they mostly dealt with the heartless of government. The workhouses of Dickens which Scrooge spoke of, those were government run. That wasn't the inhumanity of men, that was the inhumanity of government. Dickens was no fan of government largess.
Goverment run??? No government sanctioned, the lassez faire tories had specifally an absolute hands off approach to human suffering while industrialists were profiteering of wage slaves. They were callous to what they saw as the "redundant population"...that means poor people who couldn't be useful to profit from...
In Britain, in 1843, the newspaper The Economist was founded, and became an influential voice for laissez-faire capitalism. In response to the Irish famine of 1846–1849, in which over 1.5 million people died of starvation, they argued that for the government to supply free food for the Irish would violate natural law. Clarendon, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, wrote, "I don't think there is another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering."
- 16 votes
Gene
Dickens ...Great ... I kind of like this from Rudyard Kipling.....
The Gods of the Copybook headings
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm
If your have never read this Poem ... take a minute and do !!!!
- 1 vote
Goverment run??? No government sanctioned, the lassez faire tories had specifally an absolute hands off approach to human suffering while industrialists were profiteering of wage slaves. They were callous to what they saw as the "redundant population"...that means poor people who couldn't be useful to profit from...
That's exactly what Section 8 housing (ghettos, slums, barrios, etc.) have become in modern times. There's no functional difference between "The Projects" and what Dickens wrote of in his novels. There are a group of poor, thrown together in miserable conditions, to be picked apart by opportunists who run liquor stores, overpriced markets full of expired foodstuffs, payday lenders, pawnshops and rent-to-own scammers. Practically all usury in the USA is concentrated around the areas that the Government designate as "low income housing" and the residents are fleeced at astonishing levels.
If somebody offered me a credit card with an APR rate of 150% or more, then I'd tell him where he can swipe his plastic! Yet that's lowball for the APR rate of a typical Rent To Own contract, and where do you find such swindlers? Right near their sweet spot, the poverty pockets set up by heartless and misguided government programs, the low income housing.
Dickens would have just as much fun writing about our heartless government as he did writing about his own.
- 2 votes
Y'all are feeding the troll steak and lobster this morning! LOL!
- 11 votes
lemme just say , I doubt MG has ever helped anyone. ever. Judging by his posts, he thinks nothing of others and is as bitter as can be.
- 8 votes
Gene has some of the same complaints about our attempts at social safety nets that I do. They tend to trap people in poverty and get in the way of human development both in a psychological and economic manner. The difference is that he thinks we should eliminate the attempt and I think we should fix the philosophy and mechanics we use.
Social safety nets for those of working age should focus on rewarding work by first never decreasing total assistance by more than an increase in income. It is amoral outrage to me that a person receiving a $50/mo raise could lose $150/mo just in SNAP. This doesn't even count any other assistance the individual may be receiving. Anyone that is trying to improve their marketable skills through the educational system in this country should have that effort totally reimbursed if they receive assistance of any kind. And those above that level should have it reimbursed on a sliding scale.
Those are just a couple of examples. But they illustrate the approach that builds psychological health and economic independence/self-sufficiency.
Uthaclena, I would love further examples of this problem if you know of any through your work in the field. I look upon these instances as a failure of a system that should be in place and funded adequately. I would also like the application process consolidated so that the applicant only needs to go to one location and deal with one person to receive all the help they are eligible for. This might reduce the number of agencies, but not the number of employees, that is demand controlled. Each worker should have a maximum number of cases that is easy to remain current on.
- 6 votes
Unfortunately, in this day and time, the label "Socialist" is enough of a scare word to make Bernie Sanders unelectable to any national office.
- 6 votes
#9 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:54 AM EST“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
― John Steinbeck
- 26 votes
It's really ironic, you know? Everyone walks around thinking how wonderful it is that we have free speech in this country. Really? Here's an experiment. Next time you go to church or the bowling alley, or the tennis courts:
Come out in support of socialism. Have examples, like police and fire and interstates, military, social security...
The founding fathers really missed something. They guaranteed speech; they forgot to guarantee listening...
- 13 votes
The last time I looked, Sanders is a sitting US Senator. When Voinovich(R) retired recently in Ohio, he made it clear he wanted out, and would be no part of the Republican southern strategy. He even slipped over and voted with the Dems on some legislation. I received news letters from him that kept a running tally of the impending debt that was mounting during the Bush Administration. You know him and others like him were run out of their party.
- 7 votes
Excellent point Lola. The conservatives in the republican party have been replaced by the regressives. Nothing personal, but I don't want to go back to the days of child labor, company towns, and monopolies.
These regressives can kiss my shiny, fleshy ass.
- 11 votes
@Lola-Ohio
The last time I looked, Sanders is a sitting US Senator.
I said he was unelectable to any national office. The people of Vermont love Bernie, but in any national election the label "socialist" would keep his appeal in the Ron Paul range. His following would be passionate, but rigidly limited.
- 4 votes
Arnold,
How many political positions fit you concept of national? I mean, I can only think of one...
- 3 votes
Me too, Flame. It's not been too many years ago, that Obama was in that unelectable category as well, and not because of his policies. Comeon, fine people of Massachusetts, give us your Elizabeth Warren to serve the country.
- 5 votes
President and Vice President are the only nationally-elected offices. My apologies if I wasn't clear; I wasn't trying to be vague or snarky.
And I agree, Lola, I'd love to volunteer for Elizabeth Warren's presidential campaign in 2016. The woman is fabulous.
- 5 votes
Yeah two... I always forget the vice president... since Cheney that is... :)
- 3 votes
We have Sherrod Brown and he has been a staunch advocate in the Senate for the working stiffs, before it was "cool" and the unions were taking a proverbial thrashing from the Republican party divide and conquer the worker's strategy. You better believe he will have a big ole bullseye and outside $$$$$$$$$$ to get him out of office, which would be bad for the Dems. Let's put Sherrod back in for 6 more as well.
- 4 votes
It is sad that the word socialist is more scary to people than Christian. I am much more afraid of fake Christians than I am of sanity.
- 24 votes
#10 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:36 AM ESTJohn, really now, you know Socialists do not believe in God or the devil.
Some would vote for the devil rather than side with an unbeliever.
That’s okay though, because voting for and believing in the devil at least confirms a belief in God.
- 3 votes
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
― John Steinbeck
That may well explain why so many average to poor people kiss the backsides of wealthy republicans and vote for them. It makes no sense, but this sheds some light on totally irrational behavior.
- 17 votes
@Paying Attention:
SOCIALISM HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!!!
Pardon my shouting, but it was clear you haven't been paying attention...
- 9 votes
Thank you Jeff, it was most definitely sarcasam.
I should remember to always add the 'sarc tag'.
- 4 votes
Yes, PA, the sarc tag would've helped.
After all, it's not as if what you wrote would be out of character for some of the RWNJs I see posting here.
Thanks for clearing things up...
- 7 votes
Thanks, leftcoast. I shall try to rephrase:
Since many believers think Socialists are unbelievers, the believers will vote for the devil rather than align with the unbelievers because the believers believe that the devil is also a believer because to believe in the devil is to believe in God.
I believe I clarified; Well perhaps not. (I believe I am just getting more confusing!)
- 1 vote
When you are in the sewer, like Bernie, all you could do is take down somebody else. Know what I mean?
Mike, who from Wisconsin has been banned in the last couple of days?
- 2 votes
Newt and Mitt are definitely going to dissappoint. Both are out of touch with America and live in their own little world. In Newts on words: "I'm a mythical person," says Newt, no stranger to revolutions. "I think you can write a psychological profile of me that says I found a way to immerse my insecurities in a cause large enough to justify whatever I wanted it to." Newt Gingrich who once called himself "a psychodrama living out a fantasy.
"Newtie wants things Newtie's way...If he wants something, he wants it now. Newtie was always for Newtie." According to his mother Kit and Newt's stepmother, Marcella McPherson.
Neither of these two candidates are Presidential or will be President. I doubt if they will win the party nomination. Keep listening to them out on the trail touting their Lies about President Obama. They both will disappoint their supporters.
- 8 votes
#11 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 3:15 AM ESTAh yes quite the typical tactic .... accuse someone of something in a preemptive attempt to control the conversation... Sorry you don't get to control how I comment...(smiles)
Jim44
This is some of what Bernie Sanders raised as issues, not his political affiliation.....
One of the problems that I see in the Republican primaries is that these guys are so out of touch with the reality that the American people are going through that it is really quite amazing. We are seeing a middle class collapsing. We are seeing poverty increasing. We’re seeing a nation in which the rich are getting richer and we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country.
We have 50 million people without any health insurance.
Last but not least, you’ve got virtually every scientist in this world who studies the issue who tells us global warming is a huge, huge problem. We’ve got to move in a very aggressive way to break our dependence on fossil fuel, move to sustainable energy, energy efficiency. These guys don’t even acknowledge the reality of global warming.
These are the issues Bernie Sanders specifically addressed. Do you have one word to say about these issue? NO!!! All you can say is Bernie Sanders is a Socialist and you think you should control the conversation??? Ah yes, quite the classic right wing fascist bullying tactic!
- 22 votes
Excellent post, izzybar.
I'd add that Sanders talked at length about the Republican attacks on the poor, and their efforts to distract the middle class from the real problem (growing wealth disparity and income immonbility) by blaming the poor for all our problems.
He's right - that's exactly what they are doing. Obama is the 'Food Stamp President'. We should privatize Social Secirity, and turn Medicare into a voucher program. If you're poor, blame yourself.
Etc., etc., etc.
America's poor are victims of a largely-unregulated system of Capitalism - not the cause of our current problems. And if Middle America doesn't see that soon, they're next.
- 25 votes
I'd add that Sanders talked at length about the Republican attacks on the poor, and their efforts to distract the middle class from the real problem (growing wealth disparity and income immonbility) by blaming the poor for all our problems.
P-R,
It seems another area where they are out of touch is that the middle class is shrinking and that millions that once made up their ranks are now the poor that these guys are vilifying. I wonder how that will play for them in the fall?
- 9 votes
unfortunately the people that need to see and hear bernie, don't watch bill maher
the people that need to read the excellent posts you all have listed here don't read the vine
the corruption of the truth is allowed by the weakest of minds
- 9 votes
#12 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:45 AM ESTWhat causes me to puke is the religious mind set that the poor need to fend for themselves. When scripture clearly states that the rich are to take care of the poor.
Leviticus 25:35
" 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you.
Luke 12:48 ...from everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
- 9 votes
#13 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:48 AM ESTReligious people often simply ignore the parts of their unquestionable holy book if it doesn't suit their own selfish agenda, hence why I think most of them don't really believe.
- 10 votes
Many of us (people of "faith") do believe in the basic statements of the Bible that ordain that we "care for the poor, the widow, the fatherless and the sojourner among us." In fact, the major reason for the Diaspora was that the Princes, priests and prophets were oppressing those very specific needy people, along with their worship of "idols", their accepting bribes in cases brought by the poor against the rich, and their shortchanging measures on weights, coins, etc.
Many of us (people of "faith") sincerely do believe that when we pray to our Higher Power we do it in the secrecy of our closets - not shouting our faith on TV, or making dumb Prayer days for money and publicity. To me, the TV pastors and prophets are equivalent of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Woe to you hypocrites!).
And sadly, many of us bear the shame of the phonies, frauds and reprobates while at the same time hurting with the poor, the widows, etc. That is the choice we make, but it does hurt when we are bunched in with the liars and phonies. I personally have been helped by some of the real Christians, not just with money, but with kindness, sharing and goodness. I have only been asked to pay it forward to others and do so willingly.
This is not to tout my horn, it's just that there really are good people that are Christians. Please acknowledge them as well.
Thank you.
- 7 votes
gramapoetmn
As a Christian Democrat, I am well aware of this which you speak. We are often called 'bleeding heart liberals'.
The President is proving to have true care and concern for the dwindling middleclass. This is that vast majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, who are suffering the most. The poor in this country have their crosses to bare, but are very much aware that if the middleclass is strengthened, then they, too, will fare better economically, as a result.
Bernie Sanders is always on the stomp for the dwindling middleclass because he knows that the only possible thing will become of this suffering class is that it will add to the numbers of the poor.
Why are the Republican voters racing head over heals to support their front running candidates who are leading them to the bottom? Surely they can't possibly be aware of what awaits them in such dire circumstances. They may not all be priviledged, but they are surely not aquainted with having less than they already do. They are courting legislative and more economic disaster.
Embarassed millionaires.........? On what planet?
- 8 votes
Bernie Sanders takes down every single GOP Presidential Candidate
While I certainly respect this Opinion, I wouldn't call it a "take down". Though I agree with most of His point of view, the phrase "take down" doesn't come to mind. That would implicate that he set them straight or stopped them in their tracks. I don't think he did that. Looks to me like they're still running. Only the American voter has the power to orchestrate a "take Down" and there probably will be a take down in the next election. But not this early. Besides its more fun to watch them take each other down.
- 5 votes
#14 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:14 AM ESTIm an independent and have been accused of being dem. But I got to tell ya, this is exactly how I see it and really dont understand at all those who cannot see it! Look at the mess we got and all we get is more soap opera bs on a daily basis. All I hear is how they hate Obama! Hate government, hate poor people, hate hate hate, and then something like Gingrich walks with SC because aint got nothing that can stand up to him. What a freakin joke! I bet the dems are lovin it tho.
- 15 votes
#15 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:36 AM ESTBut I got to tell ya, this is exactly how I see it and really dont understand at all those who cannot see it!
I struggle with that myself, Linda. It seems so obvious to me that what Bernie Sanders says in this article is glaringly true...obviously true....shockingly true...maddeningly true...How can there be people who deny that this is what is happening in this country? I don't know.
- 14 votes
Linda you are absolutely right. The Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of what President Obama will face in the upcoming election. You have Mr. Gingrich who would be king with a harem and you have Mr. Romney who has strong Mexican connections and is descended from Mormans who left this country because of polygamy. Both now profess that we Americans should deny ourselve the pleasures and benefits of sex of any kind unless we are married and then only for the purpose of procreation. Yep really makes sense to me. LOL Do as I tell you, not as I do. Santorum and Paul are in a class all by themselves with their bigotry and hate and I honestly believe that they mostly believe what they spout. Egads!
So I see another term for President Obama and more recall attempts at the state levels and finally a return to a Democratic Congress in the next mid-terms. All I can say is that I very much hope that they can follow through with what they promise and restore our nation. I am concerned about their continuation of foreign adventurism. Both parties are prone to that mistake as I see it. We need to rebuild our own house before we spend much more time or money on world wide habitat for humanity. LOL Just as religious zealots get in your face and try and sell you their religion we have become just as obnoxious on the world stage trying to sell democracy and capitalism all over the place. It is about time that we realize that other countries may not want our way of life. We need to get over ourselves. LOL
- 5 votes
Well, we did keep our feet of Libyan soil, and we haven't moved into Syria. It seems that our current President isn't as wildly intent on starting other wars as the last whole administration was.
Listening to the "candidates on the conservative wrong side" they would already have us back in Iraq, moving into Iran, and the Good Lord knows who else they would be attacking with the drones. I think part of their hatred of President Obama is that he isn't a flaming hawk. That what he does he does with courage and consistency. That he walks a higher ground than they do and that really bites them hard.
I could never vote for anyone who shows so much blatant hatred for any one or any group. I pray that common man in America feels the same way. Hatred will tear our country apart much worse than anything we have fought in the past.
- 10 votes
Bernie Sanders is my favorite Senator because his number one priority is the people in this country. He is a champion of the poor, middle class, disabled, seniors, and youth. I know of no Senator with such passion for the struggling people of this country. When he speaks I feel as if he is speaking for me, my family, and my community even though he represents a state on the other side of the country from me of which I live in Arizona. It will be a sad day for the people of this country when he retires or dies. There is few other leaders I could say this about but I love the man and I feel he loves the people. He is right on target of his analysis of the GOP candidates as he is virtually always on target of the things he says. If more listened to Bernie this would be a nation that would work for everyone and everyone would have a shot at the American dream!
- 16 votes
#16 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:39 AM ESTWhen he speaks I feel as if he is speaking for me, my family, and my community even though he represents a state on the other side of the country from me of which I live in Arizona.
I feel the same way and I live in New Mexico! I first started listening to Bernie Sanders when he was a guest on a radio show every Friday...couldn't believe how smart, calm and absolutely sensible he is. I thought "who is this guy and how come I've never heard of him before"....
- 12 votes
Sanders is the Woodie Guthrie of politicians. That lone voice of conscience that whispers, Hey, I'm still here, and I'm your brother.
- 9 votes
Lola I liked that, the way you wrote it sounded poetic. Great comment!
- 5 votes
Did anyone watch Bernie Sanders present an ‘old fashioned’ filibuster back in December?
8 hours and 37 minutes of pure stamina.
- 11 votes
Did anyone watch Bernie Sanders present an ‘old fashioned’ filibuster back in December?
8 hours and 37 minutes of pure stamina.
That should be the rule for filibusters. The Senator should have to stand on the floor and talk the whole time. I think the networks should be required to cover it 30 minutes every hour. Let the people hear shat is being said. Then they can go to C-SPAN if they want full coverage. Post the Senate switchboard phone on the screen so that everyone can call. Get the people involved in the process, give them a sense of their stake in our government.
- 5 votes
I always wondered why they didn't make them speak to continue a fillibuster. The cowards can even do it in anonymously so that their own constituents don't know who's doing it, and they take turns. It has been abused to stall government make Obama look incompetent, when it is them playing politics and "showing" the people that government is broke with this new guy.
- 5 votes
And then there are the Senatorial holds. These, too, can be done in anonymity.
Change the rule and make the holds publicly know. Require that the this information be published in a press conference.
- 4 votes
I love Bernie!!
He da Bomb!
But two things:
1. Everythiing he says about elite "Republicans" applies equally to elite Democrats, including BushBama.
2.
Last but not least, you’ve got virtually every scientist in this world who studies the issue who tells us global warming is a huge, huge problem. We’ve got to move in a very aggressive way to break our dependence on fossil fuel, move to sustainable energy, energy efficiency. These guys don’t even acknowledge the reality of global warming."
This is obviously nonsense, and it shows that Bernie doesn't really understand -- or, for his own political reasons, doesn't want to confront -- how the bankers' AGW scam operates.
But I'd actually love to see a Ron Paul/Bernie Sanders ticket. (Or Ron Paul/Kucinich.)
- 5 votes
#17 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:41 AM ESTGee, I want to see a President Obama/Vice President Biden ticket. And I can say it without any smearing or nasty names.
I don't know when it became so popular to disrespect the Office of the President, but I consider it shameful and disgusting. That man is the leader of our country duly elected by the people of our country and personally, I don't think Bernie Sanders would be standing up for your attitude toward our President.
Shame on you.
- 6 votes
gramapoetma:
That man is the leader of our country duly elected by the people of our country
You have no proof of that.
Besides, Bushbama is a lying, genocidal NeoCon, like every other NeoCon.
You might welcome feudalism, in which BushBama's banking puppetmasters are our lords, but I don't.
In fact, I find the thought that someone would want that system of oppression to return to be shameful.
gramap----
Just because you are the president you don't automatically earn respect. Respect is not a right, it's something you have to earn and most Americans feel that Obama had not earned their respect. When you are a lair you don't deserve respect.
- 1 vote
I am very proud of President Obama and he has definitely earned my respect. He continues to work hard for ALL Americans, not just the wealthy and powerful. He is honest, intelligent, treats his wife and kids with care and respect, understands complex issues, is humble, and has a good sense of humor.
President Obama received 69,456,897 votes in the 2008 General Election for President...almost 10,000,000 more votes than McCain received. It wasn't even close.
- 6 votes
I didn't say it was a landslide...I said it "wasn't even close"...
- 4 votes
resfan-
Well, it is fair to say that Obama hoodwinked more people than Mc Cain.
upswing:
I said: "That man is the leader of our country duly elected by the people of our country."
You said: "You have no proof of that."
Wow!!!! What kind of a gunny sack have you been wearing over your head to hide your earmuffs?
Actually I do have proof of that. If you would remove the gunny sack so you can see the words.
#1 - He won by a considerable margin. As redsfan said: "President Obama received 69,456,897 votes in the 2008 General Election for President...almost 10,000,000 more votes than McCain received. It wasn't even close." In our country that constitutes election to office.
#2 - He was inaugurated into office. That doesn't happen unless you have been elected.
#3. He took the oath of office. That doesn't happen unless you have been elected to the office.
#4. He continues to sit in that office. That doesn't happen if you are not elected to that office.
#5 - You have no proof that he wasn't elected into office.
You said: "Besides, Bushbama is a lying, genocidal NeoCon, like every other NeoCon."
And you have no proof of that. The person you are talking about is the President of the United States. He is no a member of the Bush family and if the name is supposed to be racist, you really need to hide your prejudice better. Please give me one instance of his genocidal actions. Give me one instance of his being a NeoCon. Please back up your statement with an occasion in which he hasn't done what he could (considering the obstruction of Congress). If he does lie, (and I personally haven't heard him do that) it certainly makes him no more dangerous that the outrageous lies being told by the Republicans. So what is your excuse for them?
You said: "You might welcome feudalism, in which BushBama's banking puppetmasters are our lords, but I don't."
Please tell us exactly who his "banking puppetmasters" are. It seems to me that if his "puppetmasters" are in fact bankers, he pretty well cut the strings with his committee to protect the people of this country with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was initiated to protect the people from unfair business practices of banks, credit card issuers and payday loan companies (that the Republicans have done everything they could to hamstring.) If the banks are his "puppetmasters" it seems he really cut the strings with the commission that he has initiated to investigate the criminal actions of Wall Street and the Mortgage Companies that caused the crash. Not a good way to treat your "puppetmasters", huh?
President Obama is not a dictator. He can do nothing to change our form of government from his office. Most of what he can do, can only be done with agreement of the Congress, and agreement to the tenets of the Constitution of the United States approved by the Supreme Court of the United States.
You want to talk about feudalism? Talk to the Republicans that already are protecting the wealthiest 1% of our country from paying their fair share of taxes. Talk to the Republicans that uphold the lack of equality of income and benefits towards the working middle class by the tactics of making Union Rights illegal. Talk to the Republicans whose tactics in Congress and the White House caused the financial collapse (that President Obama is trying to get us out of) by wiping out the regulations that kept the banks and Wall Street from using fraud and speculation to destroy our economy. Talk to the Republicans that want to tax the poor (who already have no money to pay taxes) and the disabled and the elderly, rather than their corrupt corporate bosses/lobbyists. In fact talk to the Republicans that call the greedy wealthy and Corporate giants that are hiding their money overseas, the "job creators (that create no jobs!)
You said: "I find the thought that someone would want that system of oppression to return to be shameul."
Obviously, you don't even know what you are saying, since every word I have said here and in my original comments indicates that I have no thought in common with the Republican Party that really is trying to bring a feudalistic society into being. In fact, the comments and support you are professing are more than indicative of wanting the return to feudalism than most of the people here.
Again, I say, shame on you.
- 3 votes
- 1 vote
Hey bore-head, good to see you! Your link would make a good seed, I think.
- 1 vote
gramapoetmn:
I said: "That man is the leader of our country duly elected by the people of our country."
You said: "You have no proof of that."
None of the votes cast using Diebold or similar machines have ever been properly counted. These voting machines are programmed to produce the election results their designers and manufacturers want them to produce.
The days of free and fair elections in the US ended with the introduction of voting machines.
You said: "Besides,
Bushbamais a lying, genocidal NeoCon, like every other NeoCon."And you have no proof of that.
BushBama has perpetuated exactly the same NoCon genocidal policies of preemptive war in the Middle East and elsewhere, and he has now decided that he has the power to assassinate US citizens anywhere in the world, without any due process and for whatever reason he wants.
There is oviously much proof. Yoy just don't want to see it.
He is no a member of the Bush family
He is indistinguishable from Bush in his NeoCon policies as a president.
He is no a member of the Bush family and if the name is supposed to be racist, you really need to hide your prejudice better.
How does the name BushBama have anything to do with race?
Please give me one instance of his genocidal actions. Give me one instance of his being a NeoCon.
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
Pakistan.
Somalia.
You obviously don't understand that BushBama's current policy of perpetuating and adding to (Iran) perpetual preemptive war is a NeoCon policy.
That's not your fault. You are obviously limited in your imagination and your sources for authentic information.
But, down the road, you might want to try to strengthen these weaknesses, so that you are able to participate in a more informed way in conversations such as this that require at least a minimal facility or critical thinking and at least a little background knowledge about the topic under review.
If he does lie, (and I personally haven't heard him do that) it certainly makes him no more dangerous that the outrageous lies being told by the Republicans. So what is your excuse for them?
I don't accept your claim here that lying is okay if other people do it, too.
Presumably, using this same logic, you think it's okay for you to lie because BushBama lies, and it's okay for BushBama to lie because the Republicans lie. And it's okay for the Republicans to lie because ...
Obviously, your critical thinking abilities are not strong enough for you to usefully engage in this aspect of this topic.
Please tell us exactly who his "banking puppetmasters" are.
Goldman Sachs.
JP Morgan.
Citibank.
David Rockefeller.
the Rothschilds.
Ben Bernanke.
It's a long list that you will need to research yourself if you want to participate in an informed and useful fashion in this discussion.
it seems he really cut the strings with the commission that he has initiated to investigate the criminal actions of Wall Street and the Mortgage Companies that caused the crash.
Your naivete is annoying and tiresome.
Name one person he or Holder has held responsible for the so-called "banking crisis."
If you don't understand that global banking is a massive Ponzi scheme that operates solely on fraud and insider trading, then you don't understand the world that you live in.
President Obama is not a dictator. He can do nothing to change our form of government from his office. Most of what he can do, can only be done with agreement of the Congress, and agreement to the tenets of the Constitution of the United States approved by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Again, your naivete and lack of basic information about the topic you are discussing and the workings of the US government is annoying and tiresome.
e.g. BushBama has made it legal for himself to assassinate US citizens without any trial or due process. He has made it legal for himself to declare war without an act of Congress.
He heads up the entire Administrative and military components of the US.
Etc.
This is power.
Right?
I am not going to waste much more of my time providing you with remedial instruction in civics, rhetoric and the basic tenets of banking and geopolitics.
Please do some research and prepare yourself better for these exchanges, and stop just blabbing out statements that have absolutely no substance to them.
You want to talk about feudalism? Talk to the Republicans that already are protecting the wealthiest 1% of our country from paying their fair share of taxes.
Again, the fact that you don't understand that what the Republicans do or don't do is no argument for or against anything BushBama does or doesn't do merely emphasises the lack of basic critical thinking skills inherent in your remarks.
Obviously, you don't even know what you are saying, since every word I have said here and in my original comments indicates that I have no thought in common with the Republican Party that really is trying to bring a feudalistic society into being. In fact, the comments and support you are professing are more than indicative of wanting the return to feudalism than most of the people here.
ibid.
Again, I say, shame on you.
Fine.
I'm going to have put you on ignore now.
Life's too short for me to waste my time with pointless exchanges like this one.
- 1 vote
I want to know one thing... Why haven't we seen from that guy that was on Friday that is running for president? He made sense, he was normal, and he debated rather throwing a tantrum if you had a differing view. Buddy Roemer... It just proves the point that the media is corporately controlled, and as a result, so are we!
- 5 votes
#18 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:51 AM ESTWhy haven't we seen from that guy that was on Friday that is running for president?
Buddy Roemer really was impressive on Friday.
I like the man. He seems quite moderate to me. But the mere fact that he wants to undo the Citizens United ruling, and strongly regulate political contributions, means that he's not going to get any backing from the Republican Party. They won't even allow him at the debates.
Must be very frustrating for him when Bachman, Perry, et al have been highlighted at them. Still, Buddy keeps plugging along.
Interesting side point - every time I see Roemer, it's on a left-leaning media platform. I'm pretty sure he isn't a regular guest on Hannity. But he's been on Maddow a number of times, and most recently on Maher now.
- 16 votes
This is where limiting campaign finance to small donations from individual people would really effect our politics. Unlike public financing which relies on national poll numbers, individual donations not exceeding what 90% of the people can afford really gives a candidate with low name recognition nationally a shot at the candidacy. And it is an indication of the commitment of the people to the ideas of the candidate. They are committed enough to give their money.
It also eliminates the ability of one person like Adelson to create a candidate, like Gingrich. Without the $5,000,000 contribution in SC, Gingrich would not have had the media campaign to create a following. He was not creating it based on his positions until he got the money for his attack ads. So it is not based on the strength of his positions but on the destruction of his opponents.
- 5 votes
Maher is a leftist, but he has many righties on his show. He has had Cain, many writers of Sarah Palin, and tea Party folk. He had Brietbart, and several Republican governors. Michael Steele has been on a couple of times as well. Say what you want about his humor, but he doesn't hide behind a bunch of liberals on his show.
He actually is upset many times when there are no Republicans on his show which doesn't happen very often.
- 4 votes
Not to mention the fact that he rails against the Democratic party almost as much as anything else.
- 4 votes
This speech should be front page news. It is not only right on the mark but critically important to our survival. "That these guys are so out of touch with the reality that the American people are going through that it is really quite amazing". It is not only amazing but painfully obvious and unreported. Voters should relegate this elitist party to the trash pile of history.
The continued cutting of social services and the elimination of jobs rather than increase taxes exasperates our financial downward spiral. Their lack of focus on job creation and obsession with cutting taxes for the elite exasperates the recession.
- 13 votes
#20 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:28 AM ESTBeck,
Yep but that's what the Republican plan is - to exacerbate the recession. This is the Republican plan of "Get Obama" Stall, dely, confuse, misinform.
That is the Republican position.
We are watching the death struggles of the GOP. This is appropriate. For even the Republican's best leaders of history would be offended and embarrassed by what their party has become.
Can anyone picture Teddy Roosevelt being confortable with Republican environmental record over the last 50 years?
Do we believe that Abrahamn Lincoln would look upon the current Republican record on social justice with favor?
- 14 votes
The Republican strategy is a repetitious lie, especially one repeated in a supportive media environment, is a powerful weapon. There are a list of them repeated again and again. Global Warming is a hoax, Creationism is a Science, Obama is a socialist, the rich create jobs, Social Security is bankrupting America... When you add Jesus to the big Lies the sky is the limit.
- 11 votes
#21 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:59 AM ESTYou got Social Security, the most successful government program in the history of our country. A program which has not resulted in one penny of deficit for this country, and you know what they want to do? They want to cut Medicaid. They want to cut Social Security. They want to privatize these important programs.
What an idiot Social Insecurity is the worse thing ever imposed on the American people
#22 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:23 AM ESTYou got Social Security, the most successful government program in the history of our country. A program which has not resulted in one penny of deficit for this country, and you know what they want to do? They want to cut Medicaid. They want to cut Social Security. They want to privatize these important programs.
What an idiot Social Insecurity is the worse thing ever imposed on the American people
History of SSI
Civil War Pensions: America's First "Social Security" Program
Although Social Security did not really arrive in America until 1935, there was one important precursor, that offered something we could recognize as a social security program, to one special segment of the American population. Following the Civil War, there were hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans, and hundreds of thousands of disabled veterans. In fact, immediately following the Civil War a much higher proportion of the population was disabled or survivors of deceased breadwinners than at any time in America's history. This led to the development of a generous pension program, with interesting similarities to later developments in Social Security. (The first national pension program for soldiers was actually passed in early 1776, prior even to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Throughout America's ante-bellum period pensions of limited types were paid to veterans of America's various wars. But it was with the creation of Civil War pensions that a full-fledged pension system developed in America for the first time.)
The Civil War Pension program began shortly after the start of the War, with the first legislation in 1862 providing for benefits linked to disabilities "incurred as a direct consequence of . . .military duty." Widows and orphans could receive pensions equal in amount to that which would have been payable to their deceased solider if he had been disabled. In 1890 the link with service-connected disability was broken, and any disabled Civil War veteran qualified for benefits. In 1906, old-age was made a sufficient qualification for benefits. So that by 1910, Civil War veterans and their survivors enjoyed a program of disability, survivors and old-age benefits similar in some ways to the later Social Security programs. By 1910, over 90% of the remaining Civil War veterans were receiving benefits under this program, although they constituted barely .6% of the total U.S. population of that era. Civil War pensions were also an asset that attracted young wives to elderly veterans whose pensions they could inherit as the widow of a war veteran. Indeed, there were still surviving widows of Civil War veterans receiving Civil War pensions as late as 1999!
In the aggregate, military pensions were an important source of economic security in the early years of the nation. In 1893, for example, the $165 million spent on military pensions was the largest single expenditure ever made by the federal government. In 1894 military pensions accounted for 37% of the entire federal budget. (The Civil War pension system was not without its critics.)
But these figures based on the federal budget exaggerate the role of military pensions in providing overall economic security since the federal government's share of the economy was much smaller in earlier times. Also, there were features of the system which meant that many veterans did not receive any benefits. For example, former Confederate soldiers and their families were barred from receiving Civil War pensions. So in 1910 the per capita average military pension expenditure for residents of Ohio was $3.36 and for Indiana it was $3.90. By contrast, the per capita average for the Southern states was less than 50 cents (it was 17 cents in South Carolina).
Despite the fact that America had a "social security" program in the form of Civil War pensions since 1862, this precedent did not extend itself to the general society. The expansion of these types of benefit programs to the general population, under Social Security, would have to await additional social and historical developments
read more http://www.ssa.gov/history/
Now as people pay into it, it has become a NECESSITY< without it now , thousands would die, or as the GOP call it "Death Pannels"
- 11 votes
MJL
Please do the math run the numbers and tell me it is not a ripoff. If a company sold a plan that performed like Social Insecurity they would be shut down. Social Insecurity makes Bernie Maddoff look like a choir boy.
OK WILDWONDERFUL what then would you propose to replace Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Oh I know. "Soylent Green" where we simply exterminate the useless and turn them into nutrient capsules for the young and well off. LOL Yeah...Yeah... that is a true step forward in our social evolution. It really scares me to discover that George Orwell was not a fiction writer but actually a social prophet when he penned "1984" and "The Animal Farm.". OMG!
- 5 votes
Why do you keep spreading the common lie? Social Security has never cost the American People one dime of their tax dollars, nor has it ever been a source of deficit spending. If it hadn't been for Reagan, Bush and Clinton borrowing from it, it would be solvent for another 100 years. SS is not the problem, and never has been. But like many from the right before, this crop of GOP Teathuglicans see a way to make money off another government program, to go from a deficit neutral entity to a profit making machine for some private company. It won't solve any of our fincancial issues but it will make a tidy profit for the 1%. If it were such a bad idea, why do they want to go public with it? If it were in such bad shape, why do they see dollar signs every time they try to privatize it?
- 11 votes
LOL marthha, whoring your talent I see.
This is the only time I feel comfortable using ignore. Hell, I'm fighting predatory capitalism...
- 5 votes
Social security allows for the elderly to spend the remaining years with a bit of dignity. It is the most Christian program passed by our government. We have not lost a dime from this program and by lifting contribution limits we could avoid future losses. It also helps stabilize the economy and helps prevent some of the effects felt in the last great depression from occurring again.
Sadly it has been opposed by the "religious right" who don't believe in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked or any Christian principles. Sad.
- 3 votes
Sadly it has been opposed by the "religious right" who don't believe in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked or any Christian principles. Sad.
Becks72 ... Who are these "religious right" you speak of? Can you name names or at least organizations ...Please?
- 1 vote
A more complete list:
Political/Advocacy groups
American Family Association
American Life League
Campaign for Working Families
Center for Reclaiming America
Christian Coalition of America
Concerned Women for America
Constitution Party
Eagle Forum
Faith and Action
Family Federation for World Peace and Unification
Family Research Council
Focus on the Family
Focus on the Family, State Family Policy Councils
Moral Majority Coalition
National Right to Life Committee
Priests for Life
Traditional Values Coalition
Vision America
Media
Christian Broadcasting Network
Christian Examiner
Coral Ridge Ministries
Covenant News.com
Insight Magazine
Liberty Channel
Presbyterian Layman
Salem Communications
Ten Commandments News
Washington Times
World magazine
World Net Daily
Think Tanks & Publishers
Acton Institute
American Vision
Chalcedon Foundation
Discovery Institute
Free Congress Foundation
Institute for Creation Research
Institute on Religion and Democracy
Summit Ministries
Wallbuilders
Educational Institutions
Ave Maria Law School
Christ College
Liberty University
New Saint Andrews College
Patrick Henry College
Regent University
University of Bridgeport
Legal Organizations
Alliance Defence Fund
American Center for Law and Justice
Americans United for Life
Foundation for Moral Law
Home School Legal Defense Association
Liberty Counsel
Rutherford Institute
Thomas Moore Law Center
Militant Direct Action Groups
Army of God
God Hates Fags
Missionaries to the Preborn
Operation Save America
StreetPreach.com
- 3 votes
WoW now that is quite a list .... First thank you for your time and effort ....
Now lets look at them and see what we have !
Tea Party .... Come on to ambiguous they are not a religious organization and their motivation spans different things in different locations...
But Becks72 how do these organizations on this list pertain to your comment ...
"religious right" who don't believe in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked or any Christian principles
I mean its a very impressive list and the ones in the Militant Direct Action Groups (MDAG) are some sorry SOB's ... However I don't see even one on that list that fits your description of groups that don't believe in feeding the hungry or clothing the naked.... and that was the point was it not?
Thank you for a list of Religious Right leaning organization and a few radical (MDAG) types.... But nothing that supports that statement ... Sorry !
But again thanks for your eforts ... Have a wonderful Day !
The Republican Party has moved to fascism. This current crop of Republican candidates cannot address America's important issues, not only because they have no desire to fix things, but more to the point, they desire to make things worse for America and the vast majority of Americans. Their agenda is unmentionable, so they substitute crap distractions like being anti-gay (no doubt they're homophobes, but gays are not a problem), or seeking to deny women the choice of abortion, or seeking to cater to racism and authoritarianism. This pandering, while coming from the nasty little Republican heart, does nothing to address America's problems.
If we do not move decisively away from fascism we're done as a free and prosperous people. Bernie Sanders is part of the solution. Newt Gingrich is part of the problem, as are his cronies and fellow fascists.
The greatest good for the greatest number.
Up with democracy. Down with fascism.
- 16 votes
#23 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:38 AM ESTBetter careful-
NO! The republican party has not moved to fascism, but the democratic party is moving to socialism. Obama is a Marxist promoting class warfare. Obama is a socialist. He wants big government, big spending and higher taxes. We now have $15T national debt, and he wants to add another $1.2T to our national debt. That's insane. Obama is insane. Everyone, except liberals, knows that you should not spend money you don't have. That's why Obama has to be stopped, and for sure he'll be out after Nov 2012.
If Obama is given another term, the USA will not the the USA we used to know. So my fellow countrymen, our choice should be clear, socialism or capitalism.
Personally I don't like to draw lines in the sand. It doesn't have to be Democrat or Republican but more aptly should be Democrat AND Republican. We need a suitable balance of the two in order to prevent over indulging in either ideology. Rather like the checks and balances concept. Once it came down to either/or, which is what we see today, our nation began to come apart at the seams.
Republicans have always been in favor of unrestrained and unregulated capitalism. Democrats, on the other hand, have always favored a more socialistic approach where government provides for all no matter the cost. Neither can stand alone. Therefore our choice is to find a balance or create an entirely new party with the inherent characteristics of the best parts of both present parties.
Somehow I think that the American public generally agrees that we need to resussitate our national economy. The question is how we should go about it. This is going to require some mature leadership with the willingness to work out solutions in a bipartisan manner. As long as the children are squabbling over the pail and shovel in the sand box that simply is not going to materialize. LOL Also we really must put aside all of the incidental distractions that are getting in the way of solving the real problems of our society. The sex lives of our population are not relevant to the health and well being of our nation and its economy. Get those discussion out of the debates and tell us what the plan is to put Americans back to work and restore our tax base. THAT is the issue here people. It is not Roe vs Wade, gays and lesbians, birth control, creationism vs evolution. All of that is just smoke and mirrors to deflect our attention away from the facts that these candidates don't have a clue about how to fix our economy and reverse the effects of their predecessors poor decisions and choices. Those issues won't amount to a hill of beans if we are all living on the streets begging for hand outs and scavenging out of dumpsters behind the wealthy people's houses. Seriously people this nonsense is kind of like standing in the passageway as the ship sinks and arguing over what to wear to a ship sinking. Once the water closes over your head it really doesn't matter. LOL
Were the people we call the 'founders' socialist? Did they promote things like universal health care or forcing the populace to purchace items like firearms and medical supplies. And did our first prez sign these things into law? Is our country founded on socialist principles?
- 1 vote
#25 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:46 AM EST"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to
allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community
are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see
America among the foremost nations of justice
and liberality." -- George Washington
- 10 votes
Anyone noticing a trend...
A person from the right makes a statement.
A short liberal smackdown ensues.
We are coming into our message...
- 5 votes
You have no message! lets start with 2010, WHERE ARE THE JOBS all you righties were promising,Instead we the people get nothing nothing at all.the teabag congress has done nothing for the people!!!!!! Only thing they do is stop anything good the president wants to do.Buyers remorse in 2010 by the bunches! Just think what another republican president (like bush)will get us. No thanks! Obama gets our votes.
Dems get out the vote or reap what you sow.
- 13 votes
Feels like I just slammed a couple of Red Bulls...
:)
Voted up yvonne.
- 4 votes
Were the people we call the 'founders' socialist? Did they promote things like universal health care or forcing the populace to purchace items like firearms and medical supplies. And did our first prez sign these things into law? Is our country founded on socialist principles?
You really have no concept of reality and history. At the start of the nation health care consisted almost entirely of herbs and medicinal plants and a sharp knife to amputate. That was universal coverage. Taxes were limited to foreign products and real estate, which in effect limited them to the wealthy. There were few exceptions to this, the Whiskey tax being one of the few. The government was socialist for the time, though Socialism would not be formalized for another 50 to 60 years. What do you think postal roads and post offices are? The founders supported public education, libraries, fire departments, citizen militias, etc. All "socialist" organizations and institutions.
The fact that you can not or refuse to acknowledge that the world has changed since 1787 is not the shortcoming of the rest of us, but is yours. We do not live in an agrarian society anymore with more land than we know what to do with. We live in a highly integrated society where everyone depends heavily on everyone else for their livelihood and well being. We can no longer "give" land to the poor as a social safety net as we did for much of our history. Land for them to produce the necessities of life on their own. This is no longer an option. So what do we do in its place?
Medicine has progressed well beyond an herb garden in the backyard. So what do we do to continue universal access that we had at the start of the country?
- 5 votes
Elhauge on Thursday, January 5th, 2012 in a commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine
Harvard Law professor says early Congress mandated health insurance for seamen and gun ownership for most men
Share this story:
One complaint about President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is that it forces uninsured people to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty -- an argument the Supreme Court will consider when it takes up challenges to the health-care law in oral arguments March 27 and 28. If the court upholds the act, critics argue, what's to stop Congress from forcing us to buy, say broccoli.
Harvard Law School professor Einer Elhauge focused on that issue in a Jan. 5, 2012, commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine titled "The Irrelevance of the Broccoli Argument against the Insurance Mandate."
Some people, he said, "argue that the Constitution's framers could not possibly have envisioned a congressional power to force purchases. However, in 1790, the first Congress, which was packed with framers, required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen; in 1798, Congress also required seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves.
"In 1792, Congress enacted a law mandating that all able-bodied citizens obtain a firearm. This history negates any claim that forcing the purchase of insurance or other products is unprecedented or contrary to any possible intention of the framers."
We wondered whether those early Congresses -- some of whose members helped draft the Constitution -- did indeed mandate health insurance and gun purchases.
First, we wanted to see whether that first Congress was actually "packed with framers."
Fifty-five men are considered the framers. During the first Congress in 1790, only 20 of the 91 senators and representatives were framers. That's not exactly packing them in.
Then we contacted Elhauge about the other parts of his claim. He referred us to three pieces of legislation.
First was the 1790 law, passed by that first Congress, which applied to any U.S. ship that was at least 150 tons or with a crew of at least 10. It required the master or commander to either have a supply of on-board medicines (with instructions) or provide "all such advice, medicine, or attendance of physicians, as any of the crew shall stand in need of in case of sickness" and do it "without any deduction from the wages of such sick seaman or mariner."
Sounds like mandatory health care to us.
Then, in 1792, a Congress that included 17 framers passed a law requiring nearly every "free able-bodied white male citizen" age 18 to 44, within six months, "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges," along with balls and gunpowder. A rifle could be substituted. The purpose was to establish a uniform militia.
Again, that sounds like a mandated purchase to us.
Finally, in 1798, a Congress that included five framers expanded the health coverage mandate, requiring every ship owner or master coming into a port to pay 20 cents per seaman for every month each worker had been employed.
The funds, which could be withheld from the seamen, were used "to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established" in the port. Leftover funds were used to create hospitals for those mariners.
How did the framers vote on these laws?
There was no roll call for the House and Senate bills requiring health care for seamen. But on the proposal mandating the purchase of musket, firelock or rifle as part of the larger bill to establish a uniform militia, 10 of the 14 framers whose votes were recorded endorsed the measure.
One side note: In November 1792, an attempt was made in the House to reconsider the weapon requirement in the militia bill because some people were complaining that it was too onerous, an argument that echoes complaints from critics of the new health-care law. The proposal was defeated 6 to 50. The vote among framers was 1 to 6.
It should also be noted that the president who signed the first two of these laws was our Founding Father-in-Chief, George Washington.
Elhauge, in an e-mail, stood by his characterization that the first Congress was "packed" with framers, saying, "20 framers sounds pretty packed to me. There were only 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention, so 20 is around 40 percent of all the framers present in that Congress."
We disagree. The issue is not how many framers went to Congress, but how many members of Congress were framers. And you can't pack a meeting when you only account for 22 percent of the representatives.
More importantly, he said, "I don’t think anyone objected to any of these laws on constitutional grounds, which presumably someone would have if it was obvious that the original understanding was that such an obligation would be unconstitutional."
Our ruling
Goto FactCheck.org
- 10 votes
#26 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:52 AM ESTIf it were to come down to broccoli being needed to sustain life without sickness, then we the government would MANDATE that everyone, not only buy broccoli but also eat broccoli. We would probably even subsidize broccoli for those who couldn't afford it. The reason for that is the same as the reason for Universal Health Care, a healthy society saving the Taxpayers trillions of dollars over the long haul.
- 11 votes
Shepherd,
Yeah but he wasn't talking about the vegetable. He was talking about the Veggie Tales character...
:D
- 2 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
