How Do Conservatives Feel About Bernie Sanders?

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
He's simply too old to be president. He turns 74 in September which means he'd be well over 75 if he were to take office in January 2017.

Age an issue?

Reagan


Bernie Sanders is a turd because of what he believes and what he wants to do. He wants to increase the speed started by Obama and Boehner in driving this car over the cliff.
 

gcthomas

New member
Socialists give themselves away every time.

"Wealth equality!" "Income equality!"

Not socialism, but self preservation should drive a nation to limit the proportion of the wealth that seems up in the hands of a small proportion of the population.

Remember, those with low to middling wealth vastly outnumber those with high wealth, so the rich can only accumulate more of the majority permit it. To much obvious difference will drive social conflict and possibly rebellion. Then all that wealth will be lost anyway.
 

PureX

New member
Not socialism, but self preservation should drive a nation to limit the proportion of the wealth that seems up in the hands of a small proportion of the population.

Remember, those with low to middling wealth vastly outnumber those with high wealth, so the rich can only accumulate more of the majority permit it. To much obvious difference will drive social conflict and possibly rebellion. Then all that wealth will be lost anyway.
Not to mention that it's wildly ineffective and inefficient to have all that wealth, with it's requisite opportunities and possibilities, locked up in the hands of a few people who cannot put it to much positive use. And instead use it simply to accumulate more of it.

When the wealth is spread around, so are the opportunities and possibilities that come with it, allowing far more people to take advantage of them, for more positive effect. New products get invented, new methods of doing things can be developed, and creative ideas that would otherwise have gone unexplored, get explored.

It's better for society and humanity in general not to have the wealth piled up in the hands of a few, because wealth is the fuel of new possibilities.
 

Cons&Spires

BANNED
Banned
We don't have to worry about Hillary because America isn't ready to vote in a female president yet.
I'm really hoping for a conservative, because I've just about gotten sick and tired of the past several years of sensationlized, progressive nonsense and exploits.
Common sense and sobriety needs to do a once over on America again.
 

PureX

New member
We don't have to worry about Hillary because America isn't ready to vote in a female president yet.
I'm really hoping for a conservative, because I've just about gotten sick and tired of the past several years of sensationlized, progressive nonsense and exploits.
Common sense and sobriety needs to do a once over on America again.
America elected a black man, president, but you think it's not "ready" to elect a white woman?
 
Last edited:

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Socialists give themselves away every time.

"Wealth equality!" "Income equality!"

Not socialism, but self preservation should drive a nation to limit the proportion of the wealth that seems up in the hands of a small proportion of the population.

It's the redistribution of wealth, taking from the haves (most of who worked hard and honestly for it, unless you're a Kennedy) and giving to the have not's.

Remember, those with low to middling wealth vastly outnumber those with high wealth, so the rich can only accumulate more of the majority permit it. To much obvious difference will drive social conflict and possibly rebellion. Then all that wealth will be lost anyway.

The reason there is a huge discrepancy is because of government's involvement in the free enterprise system. They're wiping out the middle class and not only causing poverty, but encouraging it (through welfare and handout programs).

You and your socialist friends really should take a class in basic economics.
 

gcthomas

New member
The reason there is a huge discrepancy is because of government's involvement in the free enterprise system. They're wiping out the middle class and not only causing poverty, but encouraging it (through welfare and handout programs).

You and your socialist friends really should take a class in basic economics.

You have evidence of your claims?
 

Cons&Spires

BANNED
Banned
The growing contrast between the poor and the wealthy can be observed, it doesn't need to be backed up. The state of the country has gone in that direction for a good while now.
 

gcthomas

New member
The growing contrast between the poor and the wealthy can be observed, it doesn't need to be backed up. The state of the country has gone in that direction for a good while now.

When anyone suggests that a claim goes without saying, I get immediately suspicious about its veracity.
 

gcthomas

New member
And when anyone suggests that they need proof of something so easily seen, I immediately assume a dubious agenda.

The median income in the UK had risen by 15% in the last 15 year while in the US is has barely changed. The UK has had a socialist government that has raised the wages of the poor while the US hasn't. The US still taxes the wealthy far less than the UK and the American wealth had not declined for the top earners.

So, your claim appears to be both false and self serving. The US middle classes seem to be suffering more from the poor education system that prevents companies from developing as they should and your companies redistribute less of their profits to their poor and middle income workers, giving a far larger share to their senior employees.

Sweden has a high tax regime but has heavily invested in education, so its companies have grown quickly with educated workers, such that Sweden's economy has grown faster than the US's for the last thirty years.

Still think you're right, with your 'goes without saying' no-data approach?
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Sweden has a high tax regime but has heavily invested in education, so its companies have grown quickly with educated workers, such that Sweden's economy has grown faster than the US's for the last thirty years.

Since 1992, Sweden has, across the board, seen consistent government cutbacks while increasing restrictions on welfare policies, deregulating markets, and privatizing former government monopolies. The country has instituted an overall new incentive structure in society making it more favorable to work. The national debt tumbled from almost 80 percent of GDP in 1995 to only 35 percent in 2010.

How Government Cutbacks Ended Sweden’s Great Depression by Per Bylund.
 

gcthomas

New member
Since 1992, Sweden has, across the board, seen consistent government cutbacks while increasing restrictions on welfare policies, deregulating markets, and privatizing former government monopolies. The country has instituted an overall new incentive structure in society making it more favorable to work. The national debt tumbled from almost 80 percent of GDP in 1995 to only 35 percent in 2010.

How Government Cutbacks Ended Sweden’s Great Depression by Per Bylund.

Sweden, and the other European large economies, still have much higher taxation of the rich than the US and they have more social security and universal health care. The claim was made that tax and spend destroys middle classes and causes poverty. It is clear that the declines in the US substantially due to company behaviour and education policies and not the tax system.

Even with the cuts, Sweden is a very high and high tax socialist system and it is growing faster than the US and it isn't riven with the income inequality and poverty of the US.

Socialism is not panacea, but dismissing anything designed to alleviate the system of wide scale poverty you have is blaming the wrong thing.
 

Cons&Spires

BANNED
Banned
The median income in the UK had risen by 15% in the last 15 year while in the US is has barely changed. The UK has had a socialist government that has raised the wages of the poor while the US hasn't. The US still taxes the wealthy far less than the UK and the American wealth had not declined for the top earners.

So, your claim appears to be both false and self serving. The US middle classes seem to be suffering more from the poor education system that prevents companies from developing as they should and your companies redistribute less of their profits to their poor and middle income workers, giving a far larger share to their senior employees.

Sweden has a high tax regime but has heavily invested in education, so its companies have grown quickly with educated workers, such that Sweden's economy has grown faster than the US's for the last thirty years.

Still think you're right, with your 'goes without saying' no-data approach?

I hope you realize the false dichotomy you just raised :rotfl:
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Sweden, and the other European large economies, still have much higher taxation of the rich than the US and they have more social security and universal health care. The claim was made that tax and spend destroys middle classes and causes poverty. It is clear that the declines in the US substantially due to company behaviour and education policies and not the tax system.

Even with the cuts, Sweden is a very high and high tax socialist system and it is growing faster than the US and it isn't riven with the income inequality and poverty of the US.

Socialism is not panacea, but dismissing anything designed to alleviate the system of wide scale poverty you have is blaming the wrong thing.

Arise, ye proletarians!
 

rexlunae

New member
Arise, ye proletarians!

All of the large economies in the world are some kind of hybrid between socialism and capitalism, because the extremes of both are undesirable. Ideological commitment to one or the other, while it feels good for the purity factor, is simply unrealistic, unproductive, and vastly impoverishing.
 

The Horn

BANNED
Banned
Conservatives in America mistake the existence of a social safety net for socialism, even though they are NOT the same thing at all .
This safety net is absolutely essential for any civilized country , and if the government dismantles and destroys it , the results will inevitably be disastrous for that nation .
This is exactly what the Republican party is so stupidly and foolishly trying ot do , in the name of "self-reliance" and "personal responsibility ", which are nothing but code words for destroying the safety net .
Conservatives say that help for the poor and those out of work through no fault of their own etc should be provided by private charities and churches . This sounds nice in theory, but there's just one problem with it, because it's totally unrealistic . Church charities and private philanthropy are all well and good, and liberals aren't opposed to them in the least bit . But to assume they can help everybody in need until they can find decent jobs is to delude one's self .
Conservatives, if you support the social and economic policies of the GOP , be careful of what you ask for !
 
Top