• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sanders More New Deal Liberal than Socialist

Left Vendetta said:
Welfare as old as humanity? Do you believe what you had just said?
Click to expand...



A Brief History of the Welfare State - Quiet Mike
quietmike.org/2014/07/23/brief-history-welfare-state/‎
Jul 23, 2014 ... Sean Everett takes a look at the history of state welfare programs and explains ... stretching far back to the Ancient Egyptians and Babylonians) demonstrate quite ... Government support for the poor in times of high inflation or when food became ... Throughout the history of China there have been competing .
 
James972 said:
Jefferson and Madison were very very clear about their conclusion that liberal govt had been the source of evil in human history!! IN fact they founded the Republicans Party in 1793 because they were convinced that the tiny tiny govt of George Washington was too big. Now do you understand what is obvious??
Click to expand...

The reason they opposed the State is precisely that the Federalists were too elitists and too closely-aligned to the aristocrats. By opposing the State, the peasants were empowered. And yes, the Founding Fathers were not a monolithic block (Republicans vs Federalists).
 
Left Vendetta said:
Founding Fathers were not a monolithic block.
Click to expand...

monolithic block such that they created a tiny tiny tiny govt the exact opposite of what treasonous modern liberals want. Don't forget our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb when he was slowly starving 60 milllion to death. Our founders would not even allow an income tax because it gave them too much power over the individual. Instead they used an excise tax that people could avoid by just not buying the taxed items. Now you understand American history.
 
James972 said:
A Brief History of the Welfare State - Quiet Mike
quietmike.org/2014/07/23/brief-history-welfare-state/‎
Jul 23, 2014 ... Sean Everett takes a look at the history of state welfare programs and explains ... stretching far back to the Ancient Egyptians and Babylonians) demonstrate quite ... Government support for the poor in times of high inflation or when food became ... Throughout the history of China there have been competing .
Click to expand...

A disgusting piece of liberal article. The entire articles follow the logic of "hey, these things in the past look similar, so we are just the Roman Empire!" The context of the modern welfare is distinct from the ancient society of giving out foods to quell peasant unrest. The modern welfare state is formed to quell the working class under wage-labor and capitalism. Not something like giving breads to starving peasants.
 
James972 said:
monolithic block such that they created a tiny tiny tiny govt the exact opposite of what treasonous modern liberals want. Don't forget our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb when he was slowly starving 60 milllion to death. Our founders would not even allow an income tax because it gave them too much power over the individual. Instead they used an excise tax that people could avoid by just not buying the taxed items. Now you understand American history.
Click to expand...

First of all, the entire Soviet population before Stalin was something like 140 million, no way 60 million are starved to death. Such death is merely the price for the transition into modern capitalism. Second, it is not surprising that there are many socialist sympathizers within the Manhattan Project. Oppenheimer himself was one. Why? Because capitalism was in crisis.

Thomas Paine certainly argued for the income tax. But look at our modern economy today? What does it mean for us if there is no income tax? Unlimited accumulation of capital by the rich capitalists, our modern day aristocrat.
 
Sanders is a socialist who honeymooned in Russia and never earned a paycheck until he was 40 years old.

That deserves its own classification altogether.
 
Erod said:
Sanders is a socialist who honeymooned in Russia and never earned a paycheck until he was 40 years old.

That deserves its own classification altogether.
Click to expand...

why would he be a socialist when China instantly eliminated 40% of the world's poverty by switching to Republican capitalism
 
James972 said:
why would he be a socialist when China instantly eliminated 40% of the world's poverty by switching to Republican capitalism
Click to expand...

or perhaps Democrat capitalism. China doesn't exactly have a tiny government.

But, capitalism in China has brought their standard of living up, no doubt about it.
 
Dittohead not! said:
China doesn't exactly have a tiny government.

.
Click to expand...

very very tiny compared to what it was, and, as it has shrunk, instead of starving to death in the millions people are getting rich in the millions!! As China is switching to capitalism our libs want us to switch to socialism despite it having killed 120 million in USSR and Red China
 
James972 said:
very very tiny compared to what it was, and, as it has shrunk, instead of starving to death in the millions people are getting rich in the millions!! As China is switching to capitalism our libs want us to switch to socialism despite it having killed 120 million in USSR and Red China
Click to expand...

In 2004, of Chinese enterprises ranking in the world's top 500, 14 enterprises of China's mainland were all state-owned. Of China's own top 500, 74 percent (370) were state-owned and state stock-holding enterprises, with assets of 27, 370 billion yuan and realizing profit of 266.3 billion yuan, representing 96.96 percent and 84.09 percent respectively of the top 500 corresponding values.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
In 2004, of Chinese enterprises ranking in the world's top 500, 14 enterprises of China's mainland were all state-owned. Of China's own top 500, 74 percent (370) were state-owned and state stock-holding enterprises, with assets of 27, 370 billion yuan and realizing profit of 266.3 billion yuan, representing 96.96 percent and 84.09 percent respectively of the top 500 corresponding values.
Click to expand...

care to tell us what your point is. Do you have any idea??
 
James972 said:
care to tell us what your point is. Do you have any idea??
Click to expand...
Oh, Okay, I'll tell you how to understand that when you say "the chinese govt is not big, is now capitalist" and I show that the top 74% of chinese companies are state owned.....well...oh well....forget it.....it doesn't matter, continue with yer "its tiny now and capitalist!" notions of the chines govt.

I could care less.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Oh, Okay, I'll tell you how to understand that when you say "the chinese govt is not big, is now capitalist" and I show that the top 74% of chinese companies are state owned.....well...oh well....forget it.....it doesn't matter, continue with yer "its tiny now and capitalist!" notions of the chines govt.


I could care less.
Click to expand...

Do you want a reading list??

In his new book titled Markets over Mao: The rise of private businesses in China, Lardy argues that even though SOEs still enjoy monopoly positions in some key sectors in China, such as energy and telecommunications, their role in the overall economy has diminished significantly over the years. Here are some of the facts he presents to back his thesis: in 2011, China’s state-controlled firms only accounted for about a quarter of the country’s industrial output; and their share in exports has dropped to about 11% today; in 2012, state firms were only responsible for about one-tenth of fixed investment in manufacturing. And in terms of employment, SOEs employed about 13% of China’s labor force in 2011, a dramatic decline compared with the 60% figure recorded in 1999.
 
James972 said:
Do you want a reading list??

In his new book titled Markets over Mao: The rise of private businesses in China, Lardy argues that even though SOEs still enjoy monopoly positions in some key sectors in China, such as energy and telecommunications, their role in the overall economy has diminished significantly over the years. Here are some of the facts he presents to back his thesis: in 2011, China’s state-controlled firms only accounted for about a quarter of the country’s industrial output; and their share in exports has dropped to about 11% today; in 2012, state firms were only responsible for about one-tenth of fixed investment in manufacturing. And in terms of employment, SOEs employed about 13% of China’s labor force in 2011, a dramatic decline compared with the 60% figure recorded in 1999.
Click to expand...
Yer argument was about the absolute size of the chinese government, not about the growth of "private" firms.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
He's merely citing some of those dry, dull, old facts that counter your ideology. Pay them no mind.
Click to expand...

please tell us the facts that counter conservatism. Thanks
 
countryboy said:
Well, that depends what kind of "liberal" you are talking about. If you are talking about the classic liberal, the type of people who founded this once great nation, then yes, I am closer to that. If you are talking about the modern lib/progressive/socialist/commie, then no, I am as far from that as one can get.

You can talk about whatever you wish, the end result is the same. A leftist is a leftist is a leftist.
Click to expand...

This is intellectually lazy thinking. If you are honestly claiming that there is zero difference in ideology between Bernie Sanders and Josef Stalin, then you're beyond hope.
 
Kobie said:
This is intellectually lazy thinking. If you are honestly claiming that there is zero difference in ideology between Bernie Sanders and Josef Stalin, then you're beyond hope.
Click to expand...

Our Founders honestly claimed that!!


Thomas Jefferson:
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
 
Kobie said:
No, they did not.
Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson:
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power[i.e.,libsocialists] have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
 
James972 said:
Thomas Jefferson:
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power[i.e.,libsocialists] have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Click to expand...

Jefferson didn't use the term "libsocialists". That's your spin on that Jefferson said. Anyway, it's not even a real word.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Jefferson didn't use the term "libsocialists". That's your spin on that Jefferson said. Anyway, it's not even a real word.
Click to expand...

its real now that liberals and open socialists are in the Democratic party. Do you understand? Also, very in keeping with Jefferson since he hated those in power especially those like Sanders who want a great deal more power!!

Thomas Jefferson:
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom