Sanders: Universal Healthcare and Free College Aren’t Radical Ideas, They Are ‘Human Rights’

[the_human_being]

 

[regent]

I remember reading a tome called Utility of Poverty. It explained to people the benefits of poverty for those with money. The labor pool was large and always willing to work harder and longer hours than others. Governments were easier to influence with money. Money was worth much more in a period of poverty than in prosperity. No labor unions and people were much easier to control. Education was a no-no except for the wealthy, and on and on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I remember reading a tome called Utility of Poverty. It explained to people the benefits of poverty for those with money. The labor pool was large and always willing to work harder and longer hours than others. Governments were easier to influence with money. Money was worth much more in a period of poverty than in prosperity. No labor unions and people were much easier to control. Education was a no-no except for the wealthy, and on and on.

It explained to people the benefits of poverty for those with money.

Is that why the rich Dems want to import millions of illegal aliens?

 

[Arizona Willie]

I remember reading a tome called Utility of Poverty. It explained to people the benefits of poverty for those with money. The labor pool was large and always willing to work harder and longer hours than others. Governments were easier to influence with money. Money was worth much more in a period of poverty than in prosperity. No labor unions and people were much easier to control. Education was a no-no except for the wealthy, and on and on.

===========
Republicans are trying their darndest to kill Public Education.

They believe education is for the children of the Elite and the children of Commoners should only go to school through the 7th or 8th grade and then go to work in the factories like in the good old days of the 1800's.

Educated people don't buy into their line of crap of giving all the money to the wealthy and virtual starvation for the masses.

 

[dblack]

I remember reading a tome called Utility of Poverty. It explained to people the benefits of poverty for those with money. The labor pool was large and always willing to work harder and longer hours than others. Governments were easier to influence with money. Money was worth much more in a period of poverty than in prosperity. No labor unions and people were much easier to control. Education was a no-no except for the wealthy, and on and on.

===========
Republicans are trying their darndest to kill Public Education.

They believe education is for the children of the Elite and the children of Commoners should only go to school through the 7th or 8th grade and then go to work in the factories like in the good old days of the 1800's.

Educated people don't buy into their line of crap of giving all the money to the wealthy and virtual starvation for the masses.

I can't speak for Republicans, but your assumption doesn't seem valid. I know lots of people who are opposed to government control of education and it has nothing to do with a desire for exclusive privilege.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I remember reading a tome called Utility of Poverty. It explained to people the benefits of poverty for those with money. The labor pool was large and always willing to work harder and longer hours than others. Governments were easier to influence with money. Money was worth much more in a period of poverty than in prosperity. No labor unions and people were much easier to control. Education was a no-no except for the wealthy, and on and on.

===========
Republicans are trying their darndest to kill Public Education.

They believe education is for the children of the Elite and the children of Commoners should only go to school through the 7th or 8th grade and then go to work in the factories like in the good old days of the 1800's.

Educated people don't buy into their line of crap of giving all the money to the wealthy and virtual starvation for the masses.

Republicans are trying their darndest to kill Public Education.

Here in Chicago, the Dems, who have been in charge of public education, for decade after decade, have done a decent job of killing public education.

They believe education is for the children of the Elite and the children of Commoners should only go to school through the 7th or 8th grade

It's true, Rahm Emanuel and Obama refused to send their children to the Chicago public schools.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

==========

The rich RECEIVE much more from society than the poor or middle classes therefore they OWE more TO society.
============

What do the rich receive from Society that the poor do not?

Mansions / gated estates / yachts / Golden Parachute pensions / police protection ( personal ) / caviar / champagne / personal chefs to make out their menu and do the shopping and cooking / personal shoppers who go buy stuff for them / that's just a few things for starters ... I'm sure I and the other people with brains on here could go on for hours about what the rich receive that the poor don't.

BUT YOU DON'T REALLY GIVE A DAMN ANYWAY.

You are out for yourself and don't give a crap about anyone else.

The Foxbots have brain washed you that everyone is trying to fuck you and you aren't getting your fair share and you don't even want to open your eyes and look for the truth.

I am so glad you aren't a member of my family and I feel so sorry for yours.

So somebody looks out for themselves. What's wrong with that? Do you think Democrats take money from some people to give to others because they are not looking out for themselves?

Nobody gives anybody else their "fair share." You earn your fair share in this country if you want to be successful.

"People ask if I feel guilty about leaving others behind. The idea of getting ahead IS to leave others behind. After all, if everybody moves ahead the same distance at the same time, then nobody gets ahead."
Andrew Wilkow

 

[regent]

I remember reading a tome called Utility of Poverty. It explained to people the benefits of poverty for those with money. The labor pool was large and always willing to work harder and longer hours than others. Governments were easier to influence with money. Money was worth much more in a period of poverty than in prosperity. No labor unions and people were much easier to control. Education was a no-no except for the wealthy, and on and on.

===========
Republicans are trying their darndest to kill Public Education.

They believe education is for the children of the Elite and the children of Commoners should only go to school through the 7th or 8th grade and then go to work in the factories like in the good old days of the 1800's.

Educated people don't buy into their line of crap of giving all the money to the wealthy and virtual starvation for the masses.

I can't speak for Republicans, but your assumption doesn't seem valid. I know lots of people who are opposed to government control of education and it has nothing to do with a desire for exclusive privilege.

There are thousands of governments in the United States that control education.

 

[Cecilie1200]

==========

The rich RECEIVE much more from society than the poor or middle classes therefore they OWE more TO society.
============

What do the rich receive from Society that the poor do not?

Mansions / gated estates / yachts / Golden Parachute pensions / police protection ( personal ) / caviar / champagne / personal chefs to make out their menu and do the shopping and cooking / personal shoppers who go buy stuff for them / that's just a few things for starters ... I'm sure I and the other people with brains on here could go on for hours about what the rich receive that the poor don't.

BUT YOU DON'T REALLY GIVE A DAMN ANYWAY.

You are out for yourself and don't give a crap about anyone else.

The Foxbots have brain washed you that everyone is trying to fuck you and you aren't getting your fair share and you don't even want to open your eyes and look for the truth.

I am so glad you aren't a member of my family and I feel so sorry for yours.

Rich people get mansions and estates and yachts and pensions from society? Could have sworn they either bought them themselves or, in the case of pensions, got them as compensation for work.

I'm not sure I understand the semantic dispute here. Isn't being compensated for work getting something from society? If not, what would you characterize as something one "gets" from society?

No, dear. "Getting from society" would refer to things that are paid for and provided by society as a whole, such as police and fire protection, infrastructure building and maintenance, and of course the ever-beloved social programs.

Selling your labor to an employer for an agreed-upon sum is an act of commerce.

 

[Cecilie1200]

==========

The rich RECEIVE much more from society than the poor or middle classes therefore they OWE more TO society.
============

What do the rich receive from Society that the poor do not?

Mansions / gated estates / yachts / Golden Parachute pensions / police protection ( personal ) / caviar / champagne / personal chefs to make out their menu and do the shopping and cooking / personal shoppers who go buy stuff for them / that's just a few things for starters ... I'm sure I and the other people with brains on here could go on for hours about what the rich receive that the poor don't.

BUT YOU DON'T REALLY GIVE A DAMN ANYWAY.

You are out for yourself and don't give a crap about anyone else.

The Foxbots have brain washed you that everyone is trying to fuck you and you aren't getting your fair share and you don't even want to open your eyes and look for the truth.

I am so glad you aren't a member of my family and I feel so sorry for yours.

Rich people get mansions and estates and yachts and pensions from society? Could have sworn they either bought them themselves or, in the case of pensions, got them as compensation for work.

I'm not sure I understand the semantic dispute here. Isn't being compensated for work getting something from society? If not, what would you characterize as something one "gets" from society?

======

These assholes know quite well that the rich receive much more FROM society because of their wealth and position but they wouldn't say " shit " if they had a mouthful.

The TRUTH holds no interest for them.

They are REPUBLICANS AND THEY DON'T NEED NO DAMN TRUTH.

Not this stupid shit again.....

Yeah, it's him again.

Oh, wait, you were probably referring to Willie's post, not Willie himself.

 

[Staidhup]

Bernie wants to reallocate wealth, better stated as eat the rich, however, once they are gone, who will he propose eating next? Bernie believes that landscapers and burger flippers should be paid as mush as an engineer, banker, teacher, policeman.....face it between the dried up old hag and burn out they are both out to lunch.

 

[dblack]

==========

The rich RECEIVE much more from society than the poor or middle classes therefore they OWE more TO society.
============

What do the rich receive from Society that the poor do not?

Mansions / gated estates / yachts / Golden Parachute pensions / police protection ( personal ) / caviar / champagne / personal chefs to make out their menu and do the shopping and cooking / personal shoppers who go buy stuff for them / that's just a few things for starters ... I'm sure I and the other people with brains on here could go on for hours about what the rich receive that the poor don't.

BUT YOU DON'T REALLY GIVE A DAMN ANYWAY.

You are out for yourself and don't give a crap about anyone else.

The Foxbots have brain washed you that everyone is trying to fuck you and you aren't getting your fair share and you don't even want to open your eyes and look for the truth.

I am so glad you aren't a member of my family and I feel so sorry for yours.

Rich people get mansions and estates and yachts and pensions from society? Could have sworn they either bought them themselves or, in the case of pensions, got them as compensation for work.

I'm not sure I understand the semantic dispute here. Isn't being compensated for work getting something from society? If not, what would you characterize as something one "gets" from society?

No, dear. "Getting from society" would refer to things that are paid for and provided by society as a whole, such as police and fire protection, infrastructure building and maintenance, and of course the ever-beloved social programs.

Selling your labor to an employer for an agreed-upon sum is an act of commerce.

You seem to be equating society with government. I'm not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bernie wants to reallocate wealth, better stated as eat the rich, however, once they are gone, who will he propose eating next? Bernie believes that landscapers and burger flippers should be paid as mush as an engineer, banker, teacher, policeman.....face it between the dried up old hag and burn out they are both out to lunch.

Liberals refuse to believe in the philosophy of Acton/ Reaction. In the little makeup world in their heads, they think that if the government comes to take money away from rich people, they will sit there, open their wallet, and then make more wealth.

Liberals don't think like normal people, so it's difficult trying to communicate with them.

But if the federal tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect 0 dollars. If the federal tax rate were 100%, the federal government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?

 

[Londoner]

Single payer health care would cover everyone for less than we are paying now.

How can we expect to stay on top of the world economy if we treat education as an extra cost option?

During the postwar years, the USA had the best educated lower and middle classes in world history. FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower supported a robust tax structure that invested revenue into more than just subsidies for the corporations that finance our elections.

Strong support for education not only gave us a highly skilled labor pool, but it also gave poor people the tools of upward mobility.

Making education available to the poor separated us from the 3rd World where being born poor meant that you stayed poor.

And then came Ronald Reagan. He was sent to Washington to lower the taxes on the wealthy. This resulted in an organized assault against affordable education and, on some levels, the upward mobility that came with it.

One consequence of making education less accessible is that we have a smaller pool of skilled workers. China is starting to eat our lunch, as the center of global production has clearly shifted.

The Right benefits from having a less educated population. It makes the population more susceptible to religion, fear and nationalism, which are the key ingredients to rightwing populism.

(The fact that wealth and privilege didn't dictate one's access to education meant that Americans could ascend the ladder of success based on effort and merit. Indeed, broadly accessible education is one of the things Conservatives use to brag about when they compared us to the old Soviet Union, where everyone was poor and lacked the tools for advancement. But then the wealthy bought a political party and got rid of one the very keystones that separated us from tyrannies).

 

[Cecilie1200]

==========

The rich RECEIVE much more from society than the poor or middle classes therefore they OWE more TO society.
============

What do the rich receive from Society that the poor do not?

Mansions / gated estates / yachts / Golden Parachute pensions / police protection ( personal ) / caviar / champagne / personal chefs to make out their menu and do the shopping and cooking / personal shoppers who go buy stuff for them / that's just a few things for starters ... I'm sure I and the other people with brains on here could go on for hours about what the rich receive that the poor don't.

BUT YOU DON'T REALLY GIVE A DAMN ANYWAY.

You are out for yourself and don't give a crap about anyone else.

The Foxbots have brain washed you that everyone is trying to fuck you and you aren't getting your fair share and you don't even want to open your eyes and look for the truth.

I am so glad you aren't a member of my family and I feel so sorry for yours.

Rich people get mansions and estates and yachts and pensions from society? Could have sworn they either bought them themselves or, in the case of pensions, got them as compensation for work.

I'm not sure I understand the semantic dispute here. Isn't being compensated for work getting something from society? If not, what would you characterize as something one "gets" from society?

No, dear. "Getting from society" would refer to things that are paid for and provided by society as a whole, such as police and fire protection, infrastructure building and maintenance, and of course the ever-beloved social programs.

Selling your labor to an employer for an agreed-upon sum is an act of commerce.

You seem to be equating society with government. I'm not.

Sorry, hon, but government is the active arm of society. It is the medium, by and large, through which society as a whole does things.

And whether you accept that or not, it doesn't change the fact that selling your labor is still a private act of commerce, not "getting from society".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Single payer health care would cover everyone for less than we are paying now.

How can we expect to stay on top of the world economy if we treat education as an extra cost option?

During the postwar years, the USA had the best educated lower and middle classes in world history. FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower supported a robust tax structure that invested revenue into more than just subsidies for the corporations that finance our elections.

Strong support for education not only gave us a highly skilled labor pool, but it also gave poor people the tools of upward mobility.

Making education available to the poor separated us from the 3rd World where being born poor meant that you stayed poor.

And then came Ronald Reagan. He was sent to Washington to lower the taxes on the wealthy. This resulted in an organized assault against affordable education and, on some levels, the upward mobility that came with it.

One consequence of making education less accessible is that we have a smaller pool of skilled workers. China is starting to eat our lunch, as the center of global production has clearly shifted.

The Right benefits from having a less educated population. It makes the population more susceptible to religion, fear and nationalism, which are the key ingredients to rightwing populism.

(The fact that wealth and privilege didn't dictate one's access to education meant that Americans could ascend the ladder of success based on effort and merit. Indeed, broadly accessible education is one of the things Conservatives use to brag about when they compared us to the old Soviet Union, where everyone was poor and lacked the tools for advancement. But then the wealthy bought a political party and got rid of one the very keystones that separated us from tyrannies).

And then came Ronald Reagan. He was sent to Washington to lower the taxes on the wealthy. This resulted in an organized assault against affordable education and, on some levels, the upward mobility that came with it.

That's awful! How much has spending on education dropped since then?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Single payer health care would cover everyone for less than we are paying now.

How can we expect to stay on top of the world economy if we treat education as an extra cost option?

During the postwar years, the USA had the best educated lower and middle classes in world history. FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower supported a robust tax structure that invested revenue into more than just subsidies for the corporations that finance our elections.

Strong support for education not only gave us a highly skilled labor pool, but it also gave poor people the tools of upward mobility.

Making education available to the poor separated us from the 3rd World where being born poor meant that you stayed poor.

And then came Ronald Reagan. He was sent to Washington to lower the taxes on the wealthy. This resulted in an organized assault against affordable education and, on some levels, the upward mobility that came with it.

One consequence of making education less accessible is that we have a smaller pool of skilled workers. China is starting to eat our lunch, as the center of global production has clearly shifted.

The Right benefits from having a less educated population. It makes the population more susceptible to religion, fear and nationalism, which are the key ingredients to rightwing populism.

(The fact that wealth and privilege didn't dictate one's access to education meant that Americans could ascend the ladder of success based on effort and merit. Indeed, broadly accessible education is one of the things Conservatives use to brag about when they compared us to the old Soviet Union, where everyone was poor and lacked the tools for advancement. But then the wealthy bought a political party and got rid of one the very keystones that separated us from tyrannies).

Our public schools as well as advance schools are all mostly run by the left. They've made it so expensive to attend college that many question the investment.

Our public schools are certainly no help as we have mediocre results for pumping in the most money per capita of any industrialized country in the world.

The problem with the left is that if somebody else does't pay for it, they believe it's not available to them which is utter bull.

Any kid can get a job for a few years to pay for some of their college. It may take a while, but it can be done. Loans are available now through our government even though many don't repay them, but the are there.

My niece and nephew are both college graduates, and they will be repaying their loans for many years. My sister started saving for their education the day they were born, and even though her and her husbands contributions were not much at the time, that money certainly helped considerably 18 years later.

Government not providing everything is not the end of our country; cradle-to-gravers will be.

 

[Uncensored2008]

View attachment 58268

Were you born mentally retarded, or did excessive exposure to ThinkProgress rot away your brain?

 

[Uncensored2008]

During the postwar years, the USA had the best educated lower and middle classes in world history. FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower supported a robust tax structure that invested revenue into more than just subsidies for the corporations that finance our elections.

What complete bullshit.

Like most Communists, you make shit up and present it as if it were fact.

Strong support for education not only gave us a highly skilled labor pool, but it also gave poor people the tools of upward mobility.

The greatest impediment to upward mobility is Barack Obama and the anti-liberty left.

But Comrade, if we no longer have strong support for education, can you point to how much spending for education has declined?

No?

Why not?

Oh, because it has astronomically increased since the 1950's and you're posting absurd lies with no regard for reality?

Making education available to the poor separated us from the 3rd World where being born poor meant that you stayed poor.

And then came Ronald Reagan. He was sent to Washington to lower the taxes on the wealthy. This resulted in an organized assault against affordable education and, on some levels, the upward mobility that came with it.

Holy shit but you're a lying retard.

What did Reagan do to make education less affordable? Specifically?

One consequence of making education less accessible is that we have a smaller pool of skilled workers. China is starting to eat our lunch, as the center of global production has clearly shifted.

Smaller pool of what? Comrade, you may be a fucking retard but you do post shit that has no place in reality.

Shitferbrains, what is the per capita GDP of China? Are they "eating our lunch?"

The Right benefits from having a less educated population. It makes the population more susceptible to religion, fear and nationalism, which are the key ingredients to rightwing populism.

(The fact that wealth and privilege didn't dictate one's access to education meant that Americans could ascend the ladder of success based on effort and merit. Indeed, broadly accessible education is one of the things Conservatives use to brag about when they compared us to the old Soviet Union, where everyone was poor and lacked the tools for advancement. But then the wealthy bought a political party and got rid of one the very keystones that separated us from tyrannies).

So our population is less educated, fucktard? Care to back that up with some facts?

Another lying fucking commie.[/quote][/quote]

 

[the_human_being]

View attachment 58268

Were you born mentally retarded, or did excessive exposure to ThinkProgress rot away your brain?

Well, actually I have a degree from VPI in electrical engineering and hold a minor in mathematics. And you?