Bernie Asked About Failures of Socialism in Venezuela and Refuses to Comment

"Spain's Socialist leader has lost a bid to form a government after both main rival parties voted down his attempts to form a coalition"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35703462

"Danes apparently have grown weary of Sen. Bernie Sanders insulting their country. Denmark is not a socialist nation, says its prime minister. It has a “market economy."

http://www.investors.com/politics/c...-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/

"Sweden has become the first of the Western European nations to take a major step away from socialism. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), “Sweden spent years as a statist economy, with marginal tax rates above 90 percent. With nationalized healthcare and welfare programs, Sweden had a budget deficit worth 13 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) in 1993 and a government debt at 71 percent of its national output.” These deficit and debt levels should sound familiar to anyone paying attention to what has happened to America’s economy over the last several decades and particularly during the first six years of the Obama administration.

In the 1990s Swedes began to realize what socialism and statism were doing to the quality of life in their country. As a result, they elected Sweden’s first conservative government since the end of World War II. Knowing precisely what needed to be done to pull their nation back from the abyss of economic ruin, Sweden’s new conservative government quickly went to work cutting taxes on businesses and individuals. Things began to change for the better almost immediately. Consider the following improvements Sweden has enjoyed since beginning the long, hard road "

http://patriotupdate.com/sweden-leads-way-dumping-socialism/

 

You can say whatever you want, but facts just do NOT support your ideology.
If you were confident in yourself making it on your own, you wouldn't have to demand money from successful Americans to help you in life, that is a fact.

 

I can't get much sense, rationality, from your post. Sanders believes in democratic socialism. Not the socialism that never worked out. You know, no private sector, no capitalism. Sanders is nothing more than a FDR Progressive, who gave us a bit of what is called democratic socialism today.. Like adding to the Commons, to include Social Security, unemployment insurance, the rights of workers to collectively bargain. As capitalism stayed in place, as you see in several Nordic nations. Where is has worked out quite well. And better than greed driven predatory, unregulated capitalism which destroys a people almost as badly as pure socialism.. Now notice, I said pure socialism, and not democratic socialism... Perhaps I should repeat that 10 times to get it through some very thick skulls?

Surely we have enough experience by now to use our intellect and discern which economic model works out the best, in the interests of the People and the common good of this nation. What FDR put into place, as a reaction to the devastating result of neoliberalism in the 1920s, helped to create the largest middle class in world history. So, its success cannot be negated. But beginning basically in 1981, that model was slowly dismantled, and the model we have now, unregulated capitalism, has created this election cycle, driven by the failure of neoliberalism, as it failed and crashed in 1929.

So Sanders is a return of FDR Progressivism. And not socialism proper. So stop trying to throw dirt in the water and muddy it up, to attempt to attack sanders, falsely. Your argument does not hold water. The bucket does not have a bottom.

 

One has nothing to do with the other. The topic is about Bernie not commenting about the failures of Socialism. I explained that thoroughly. How Venezuela runs its oil reserves or squanders money has nothing to do with the philosophy behind Socialism. You are trying to conflate what the U.S. did to them, and whatever their own mistakes may or may not be and tie them all in to Socialism being a failure. Lol! That argument can't fly, because your examples between the two are not related.

And yes, it is America's fault. If we hadn't intervened pushing our own agenda of Imperialism with these countries, Central and South American countries would be much better off. As it stands now, since we have had this Imperialist campaign going on for decades now, we end up with an immigration/refuge problem because of the takeover of politics, resources, and jobs; https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/us-interventions-in-latin-american-021/ We are absolutely 100% at fault.

 

All of those countries have many more socialist programs than we do and those programs are not going anywhere. That is a simple fact. We do not have to be a socialist country.....we just need a few more socialist programs

 

Thanks! They do not understand the difference between pure Socialism and democratic Socialism. Can't wait to see the rebuttal for this post.

 

You personally have benefitted from many socialist programs. Welcome aboard. LOL

 

No, it's corruption! George Bush took $2 Trillion dollars from S.S. to fund wars for profit. Socialism is not at fault for corruption, and has nothing to do with dragging the country down. Corruption is.

 

As I said, Europe is rejecting socialism.

 

Venezuela is Democratic socialism,its government was elected. Venezuela is an abject failure

 

They are not rejecting socialism as seen by their MANY socialist programs. LOL

- - - Updated - - -

Are you suggesting there are no successful democratic socialist countries? LOL

 

Yes it's Bush's fault. all you know is what the liberal media spoon feeds you, how pathetic.


FUNDS

The following excerpt is from the 1998 Senate Budget Committee session. Note the underlined portions


HOLLINGS: Well that's all right, because your Greenspan Commission report in section 21 says just exactly what you're saying here. That was in 1983; here now, in 1999, on page two, "simply put, enough resources must be set aside over a lifetime of work to fund retirement consumption." Now that section 21 said set it aside. President Bush, in section 13 3 01 on November the 5th, 1990 signed that into law. And we making headway. Let's understand, though, that we're still running deficits. 'Cause I'm not going along with this monkeyshine about unified. 'Cause unified is not net, the debt still goes up, is that correct?

GREENSPAN: If you're...it depends on whether or not you wish to create the savings...

HOLLINGS: I'm not asking what you're trying to create. The simple fact is the debt has been going up at least $100 billion for the last several years.

GREENSPAN: Outside, on budget, that is correct.

HOLLINGS: That's right, on budget, you're spending a hundred billion more than you're taking in.

GREENSPAN: Correct.

HOLLINGS: And this president's budget spends another hundred billion more than we take in.

GREENSPAN: I haven't seen it yet.

HOLLINGS: You haven't seen it? You're testifying about it now.

GREENSPAN: I haven't seen the budget. You haven't seen it either.

HOLLINGS: Well, you know his plan. Look you think he's going to spend less than a hundred billion more?

GREENSPAN: I will wait to see what the numbers look like.

HOLLINGS: Well, the truth is...ah, shoot, well, we all know there's Washington's math problem. Alan Sloan in this past week's Newsweek says he spends 150%. What we've been doing, Mr. Chairman, in all reality, is taken a hundred billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund, transferring it over to the spending column, and spending it. Our friends to the left here are getting their tax cuts, we getting our spending increases, and hollering surplus, surplus, and balanced budget, and balanced budget plans when we continue to spend a hundred billion more than we take in.

That's the reality, and I think that you and I, working the same side of the street now, can have a little bit of success by bringing to everybody's attention this is all intended surplus. In other words, when we passed the Greenspan Commission Report, the Greenspan Commission Report only had Social Security in 1983 a two hundred million surplus. It's projected to have this year a 117 million surplus. I've got the schedule, I'll ask to put in the record the CBO report: 117, 126, 130, 100, going right through to 2008 over the ten year period of 186 billion surplus. That was intended; this is dramatic about all these retirees, the baby boomers. But we foresaw that baby boomer problem, we planned against that baby boomer problem. Our problem is we've been spending that particular reserve, that set-aside that you testify to that is so necessary. That's what I'm trying to get this government back to reality, if we can do that.

We owe Social Security 736 billion right this minute. If we saved 117 billion, we could pay that debt down, and have the wonderful effect on the capital markets and savings rate. Isn't that correct? Thank you very much, Sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

END EXCERPT

It should be obvious from the above that the government has for decades been taking the money intended to pay Social Security benefits and spending it as general revenue. The Social Security trust fund is filled with Government IOUs, and those people who insists Social Security is solvent are operating in the faith that T-bills are always good, because the taxpayer can always be forced to redeem them.






Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE2/budget.php#ixzz4A4DmbeQj

 

If Sanders wants enough to make him President he'd answer the question.

 

No, he won't want to learn the difference.

 

Yes of course, and how's that social security and medicare working out now since the GOVERNMENT sunk their cancerous teeth into it? Socialism described by the left is amazing, because none of you have an answer for how all of this socialism is going to be paid for without ripping off what is left of the middle class? Maybe you can tell us how many of those Wall Street crooks our government has put in jail? Try 1

You won't get any praise from me for FDR, that chicken in the pot bull(*)(*)(*)(*) has now become a way of life for millions sucking off the teat of government

Corruption on both sides of the aisle, but considerably more from the left with now paying SS and welfare to people who aren't citizens of this nation, and have never paid a dime into it.

 

No, wrong-but give yourself a pat on the back for a employing a completely irrelevant analogy.

 

And we are 100% responsible. Sanctions in place, because we were unsuccessful in completing the coupe of Hugo Chavez to overthrow their country and take control of their oil. It's as simple as that.

 

SS and medicare are programs that have never missed a payment and never will. They are examples of socialist programs that are a MAJOR success. They should be expanded

 

I really hope you never come to England and injure yourself because the free treatment you would receive would really grate against your lofty principles. But then I guess someone as principled as yourself would rather refuse treatment than be grateful that a socialised healthcare system would have mended you.

 

So you want him to bring up our dirty past and what we did to Venezuela;

Venezuela: Recent U.S. intervention in Venezuela manifests itself as millions of dollars in contributions to political opponents of leftist President Hugo Chavez. The short-lived 2002 coup d’etat that kidnapped the democratically elected president was orchestrated by groups who had received funding from the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED). When the opposition took power, they dissolved all of Venezuela’s democratic institutions, including the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, the Constitution, the General Attorney, and the Public Defender’s office. Meanwhile, their plan promised a return to free market economic policies. The coup only lasted two days before a popular resistance reinstated Chavez.

* Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile have all elected left governments within the last 5 years.

 

Rubbish. Where is it you live? Obviously not Europe.

 

Once again, your ignorance is without boundaries. You are trying to conflate the use or abuse of S.S. as a failure of Socialism, when the use or abuse is all about corrupt practices. You're trying to blame the abuse of S.S. and Socialism on itself, when corruption is the only factor to blame. Democratic Socialism in and of itself when applied as it should be, can and has, always worked.

 

Sanders was an independent. Tough to get support from congress as an independent.

Regardless, any way you slice it or dice it. Red and Blue establishment has been horrific and a force for evil.

 

Wow, you talk about arrogance and ignorance on steroids. Holy cow!

 

The last sentence was true in 2002.

https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/us-interventions-in-latin-american-021/

Besides what does that have to do with Bernie following in their footsteps?