Run Bernie, Run!

[SimpleDon]

I don't know much about Sander's positions on the issues. I never paid much attention to him, calling himself a socialist is not inviting the vast majority of Americans to take him very seriously.

Advocating the extreme of reorganizing our largely successful, capitalistic, mixed private and government economy to one operated solely by the government is nearly as crazy as the other extreme of a self-regulating free market capable of operating largely independent of government and taking over to a large degree most of the current functions of the government. Both extremes ignore the large body of real life evidence that they are wrong, both positions are based on fantasies.

I have now read quite number of his speech transcripts and his interviews. I would say that he is more of a classic social democrat than a socialist, possibly he has stood still in his beliefs while the rightward movement of the country has made him a radical. In much the same way that I find myself, a moderate, committed capitalist and pro-corporate advocate, labeled a liberal.

Labels aside, I could have written most of his speeches. This one is representative of most of them about his general philosophy.

It was given on the floor of the US Senate in the presidential election year of 2012. Mitt Romney was running as the presumptive Republican party nominate against Obama. Please point out those places that brand him as a socialist, where he has made an error of fact or where he makes errors of omission or where he draws illogical conclusions.

Excerpts from the speech.

... the American people are angry.

They are angry because they are living through the worst recession since the great depression.

... What the American people are angry about is they understand that they did not cause this recession. Teachers did not cause this recession. Firefighters and police officers who are being attacked daily by governors all over this country did not cause this recession. Construction workers did not cause this recession. This recession was caused by the greed, the recklessness and illegal behavior of the people on Wall Street.

These people on Wall Street spent billions of dollars, billions of dollars, trying to deregulate Wall Street and they got their way. $5 billion in ten years is what was spent, and then they were able to merge investment banks with commercial banks, with insurance companies. They got everything they wanted. They said get the government off the backs of Wall Street. They got it. And the end result was that they plunged this country into the worst recession since the great depression.

... The American people are looking, and they are angry not just because unemployment is high, they're angry not just because millions of people have lost their homes and their life savings. They are angry because they understand that the middle class of this country is collapsing, poverty is increasing, while at the same time the people on top are doing phenomenally well. They, the taxpayers of this country, bail out Wall Street, and Wall Street recovers. Wall Street does well, but now we have kids in this country graduating college deeply in debt, can't find a job. We have older workers losing their jobs and people are saying what is going on in America?

The American people ultimately, I believe, are angry because they are looking at this great country, a country which many of our veterans fought and died for and what they are seeing is that this nation is losing its middle class, is losing its democratic values, and, in fact, is moving toward an oligarchic form of government where a handful of billionaires control the economic and political life of this nation.

... Today the wealthiest 400 individuals in America own more wealth than the bottom half of America, 150 million people.

Today, the six heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune now own more wealth than the bottom 30% of the American people. ... 90 million Americans.

... The top 1% owns 40% of all the wealth in America. What do we think the bottom 60% of the American people own? ... they own less than 2%.

... According to a new study from the Federal Reserve, median net worth for middle-class families dropped by nearly 40% from 2007 to 2010, primarily because of the plummeting value of homes.

... The last study on income distribution showed us that between the years 2009 and 2010 -- 2009 and 2010 -- 93% of all new income created went to the top 1%, while the 99% had the privilege of enjoying the remaining 7%. In other words, the wealthy people in this country are becoming wealthier, the middle class is disappearing and poverty is increasing.

 

[KeepTalking]

He did an interview with George Stephanapolus on ABC yesterday, where he makes it clear that he is a Democratic Socialist, rather than a straight Socialist. Too many people, I think, are not going to get the distinction. I would vote for him over Hillary, but I won't get the chance, since I live in a state with closed primaries, and declared myself as Independent.

 

[SimpleDon]

He did an interview with George Stephanapolus on ABC yesterday, where he makes it clear that he is a Democratic Socialist, rather than a straight Socialist. Too many people, I think, are not going to get the distinction. I would vote for him over Hillary, but I won't get the chance, since I live in a state with closed primaries, and declared myself as Independent.

I saw the ABC interview. Here is a pdf of a Playboy interview that he did in the October 2013 issue. It is more in depth than the ABC one obviously.

The Democrats need to find their own voice. They have to go back to their roots to find a message. They have spent twenty years trying to box the Republicans, moving to the right trying to claim votes that the Republicans are leaving behind in the center right in their march to be a full bore, batshit crazy, rollback the clock reactionary party.

The Republicans have already won the debate when the Democrats' greatest accomplishments are fiscal responsibility, enacting a Heritage Foundation health care system and wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid less than the Republicans.

 

[NobleSavage]

It seems we have forgotten all the numerous socialist utopias that were tried in the US. I'll come back with a list a litter later tonight.

No, no one has forgotten anything. Chosen to ignore the successes of a mixed economy perhaps. Socialism is a process that works well for some things, not so well for others, like capitalism.

That does make sense, doesn't it?

Socialism is by definition the government ownership of the means of production. It doesn't work. A nice welfare state paid for by capitalism is what works. Government ownership of natural monopolies -- power plants, roads, sewer systems, -- works. I'm all for a guaranteed minimum income, but I want free markets.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

No, no one has forgotten anything. Chosen to ignore the successes of a mixed economy perhaps. Socialism is a process that works well for some things, not so well for others, like capitalism.

That does make sense, doesn't it?

Socialism is by definition the government ownership of the means of production.

No, not really. That is A definition, not THE definition.

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

It doesn't work. A nice welfare state paid for by capitalism is what works. Government ownership of natural monopolies -- power plants, roads, sewer systems, -- works. I'm all for a guaranteed minimum income, but I want free markets.

The difference between free enterprise and capitalism

 

[NobleSavage]

Dictionary.com

Socalism
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Wikipedia

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

Merriam-Webster

A way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

To run a free enterprise someone has to risk their capital and or time.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Dictionary.com



Wikipedia

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

Merriam-Webster

A way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

To run a free enterprise someone has to risk their capital and or time.

None of these definitions say what you said.

And what are your thoughts on free enterprise vs capitalism (not capital, but the economic structuring known as capitalism)

 

[Derec]

You do realize that should Sanders get the nomination he'd perform about as well as Mc(Doesn't)Govern did, right?

 

[dismal]

You do realize that should Sanders get the nomination he'd perform about as well as Mc(Doesn't)Govern did, right?

The trick will be getting the Republicans to run Hospers.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You do realize that should Sanders get the nomination he'd perform about as well as Mc(Doesn't)Govern did, right?

I don't think that even Bernie Sanders thinks that there's a risk of Bernie Sanders winning the nomination. What having him in the race does, however, is give the left wing of the Democratic party a voice to raise the issues which are important to them. Just like Romney had to take a positive position on the right wing issues because he was forced to answer questions from right wingers during the debates, Clinton will have to take a position on the left wing issues and talk about them. This is a good thing.

 

[NobleSavage]

Dictionary.com



Wikipedia




Merriam-Webster

A way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

To run a free enterprise someone has to risk their capital and or time.

None of these definitions say what you said.

And what are your thoughts on free enterprise vs capitalism (not capital, but the economic structuring known as capitalism)

Are you reading in English?
To start a business you need capital. Or a lot of time. Usually both. Go by a share of stock and you can be an evil capitalist. You complaint is the distribution of wealth.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Dictionary.com



Wikipedia




Merriam-Webster

A way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

To run a free enterprise someone has to risk their capital and or time.

None of these definitions say what you said.

And what are your thoughts on free enterprise vs capitalism (not capital, but the economic structuring known as capitalism)

Are you reading in English?
To start a business you need capital. Or a lot of time. Usually both. Go by a share of stock and you can be an evil capitalist. You complaint is the distribution of wealth.

I read english fine, but evidently you don't click links.

Capital and CAPITALISM are not the same thing. Did I say something about evil capitalists? or distribution of wealth?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

From the link some dare not click

At its core, the economic system we have here in the United States is based on two basic things: 1) the right of any person or group of people to run and operate a business and 2) the right of any person or group of people to buy goods or services from the business of their choice.

This system is called the free enterprise system and is designed to give people the broadest choice of goods and services possible and reward those people (we call them entrepreneurs) who provide the best goods and services.

If you ask someone like Rand Paul, he'd say somebody participating in this sort of system is a "capitalist." But the cleanest definition of a capitalist is someone who uses their money – their capital – to make more money. Some capitalists do this by investing their capital in the stock market; others do it by investing in other people's start-up businesses: they are called venture capitalists.

These kinds of capitalists do play their part in our society. Sometimes, they help small businesses get off their feet. But here's what you won't hear on Fox Business or CNBC: capitalists aren't that productive and they aren't actually necessary. Many are just like Paris Hilton: they sit around on their butts by the pool all day waiting for their dividend checks to come in. They make money while contributing absolutely nothing to the rest of society.

And here's the thing: free enterprise works just as well without capitalists, capitalism, or even venture capitalists. Worker-owned cooperatives are just as successful as any business backed by a massive Wall Street loan. The Mondragon Cooperative in Spain, for example, employs more than 90,000 people, includes more than 250 companies, and generates a yearly revenue of around $25 billion. There are NO capitalists involved; it's entirely owned by its workers.

As long as the people running a business are committed and customers like what that business sells, it will succeed. Again, free enterprise works whether capitalists make money or not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the answer would be NEVER.

I thought so.

NEXT!

If you don't comply then you get the actual gun pointing.

And this is a guaranteed certainty in all cases? No other actions need apply? IRS agents show up at your accountant's office with guns drawn?

This worries you?

I'm fascinated you think this distinction matters. A credible threat of force is enough to get most people to comply.

If a woman is raped by a guy who tells her he has a gun do you ask if she saw the gun and maybe asked him to fire a couple test rounds to prove it was loaded?

...

 

[NobleSavage]

From the link some dare not click

At its core, the economic system we have here in the United States is based on two basic things: 1) the right of any person or group of people to run and operate a business and 2) the right of any person or group of people to buy goods or services from the business of their choice.

This system is called the free enterprise system and is designed to give people the broadest choice of goods and services possible and reward those people (we call them entrepreneurs) who provide the best goods and services.

If you ask someone like Rand Paul, he'd say somebody participating in this sort of system is a "capitalist." But the cleanest definition of a capitalist is someone who uses their money – their capital – to make more money. Some capitalists do this by investing their capital in the stock market; others do it by investing in other people's start-up businesses: they are called venture capitalists.

These kinds of capitalists do play their part in our society. Sometimes, they help small businesses get off their feet. But here's what you won't hear on Fox Business or CNBC: capitalists aren't that productive and they aren't actually necessary. Many are just like Paris Hilton: they sit around on their butts by the pool all day waiting for their dividend checks to come in. They make money while contributing absolutely nothing to the rest of society.

And here's the thing: free enterprise works just as well without capitalists, capitalism, or even venture capitalists. Worker-owned cooperatives are just as successful as any business backed by a massive Wall Street loan. The Mondragon Cooperative in Spain, for example, employs more than 90,000 people, includes more than 250 companies, and generates a yearly revenue of around $25 billion. There are NO capitalists involved; it's entirely owned by its workers.

As long as the people running a business are committed and customers like what that business sells, it will succeed. Again, free enterprise works whether capitalists make money or not.

And Truth Out is making up their own definitions:
Dictitonary.com

noun
free enterprise:
an economic and political doctrine holding that a capitalist economy can regulate itself in a freely competitive market through the relationship of supply and demand with a minimum of governmental intervention and regulation.

Again, anyone can be a capitalist by buying stock. Your beef is with the distribution of wealth.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

From the link some dare not click

And Truth Out is making up their own definitions:

Not necessarily. Words, if they have been around for some time and have been used by more than one person, do tend to have more than one definititon.

Dictitonary.com

noun
free enterprise:
an economic and political doctrine holding that a capitalist economy can regulate itself in a freely competitive market through the relationship of supply and demand with a minimum of governmental intervention and regulation.

Again, anyone can be a capitalist by buying stock. Your beef is with the distribution of wealth.

You would do better reading what I actually post and not trying to read my mind.

 

[arkirk]

From the link some dare not click

And Truth Out is making up their own definitions:
Dictitonary.com

noun
free enterprise:
an economic and political doctrine holding that a capitalist economy can regulate itself in a freely competitive market through the relationship of supply and demand with a minimum of governmental intervention and regulation.

Again, anyone can be a capitalist by buying stock. Your beef is with the distribution of wealth.

So what does Athena's or your opinion on the definition of Capitalism have to do with Bernie's candidacy? I like Sanders. He is advocating a more democratic society. I like a society that cares about all of its members. Surely, you know there are a lot of rich bitches who have been buying politicians and taking our government away from the common man. The issue is one fairness and I don't think you think about that too much. Distribution of democratic power IS DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. That is what the supreme court has decided. If our government continues to shed its functions and unravel, we might as well move it to Wichita KS and locate its offices downstairs from the bosses upstairs...the Koch Bros.

Bernie at least deals with this insanity we are calling our government today in a rational manner. I will probably vote for Bernie. How about you?

 

[NobleSavage]

And Truth Out is making up their own definitions:

Not necessarily. Words, if they have been around for some time and have been used by more than one person, do tend to have more than one definititon.

Dictitonary.com

noun
free enterprise:
an economic and political doctrine holding that a capitalist economy can regulate itself in a freely competitive market through the relationship of supply and demand with a minimum of governmental intervention and regulation.

Again, anyone can be a capitalist by buying stock. Your beef is with the distribution of wealth.

You would do better reading what I actually post and not trying to read my mind.

I did read the article. They start off trying to play with definitions. That always irritates me. You are free to start or go work for a cooperative. It's not like they are illegal.

 

[NobleSavage]

Again, anyone can be a capitalist by buying stock. Your beef is with the distribution of wealth.

You would do better reading what I actually post and not trying to read my mind.

I did read the article. They start off trying to play with definitions. That always irritates me. You are free to start or go work for a cooperative. It's not like they are illegal. Oh, wait you were a teacher, so you did work for a government funded enterprise.

 

[arkirk]

Not necessarily. Words, if they have been around for some time and have been used by more than one person, do tend to have more than one definititon.

Dictitonary.com

noun
free enterprise:
an economic and political doctrine holding that a capitalist economy can regulate itself in a freely competitive market through the relationship of supply and demand with a minimum of governmental intervention and regulation.

Again, anyone can be a capitalist by buying stock. Your beef is with the distribution of wealth.

You would do better reading what I actually post and not trying to read my mind.

I did read the article. They start off trying to play with definitions. That always irritates me. You are free to start or go work for a cooperative. It's not like they are illegal.

You are playing the definition game and still not directly addressing the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. Truth Out is a pretty good outfit but is not running for office.