Bernie said what?

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/18/rand-paul-slams-bernie-sanders-assertion-that-the-us-is-not-compassionate/

Here is an exchange between Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) took Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to task Wednesday during a hearing for HHS Secretary-designate Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) after the Vermont lawmaker boldly asserted the U.S. is “not a compassionate” nation.

Sanders’ comment came during a discussion with Price before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee about health care in the United States. During Sanders’ advocacy for socialized medicine, Price interjected the the U.S. is “a compassionate society” — a remark with which the senator vehemently disagreed.

“No, we are not a compassionate society,” Sanders charged. “In terms of our relationship with poor and working people, our record is worse than virtually any other country on earth.”

Moments later, when Paul was given the opportunity to question Price, he used a portion of his time to lecture Sanders and explain why, in his view, is wrong about American compassion:


One of the things that’s extraordinary about our country is just two years ago, in 2014, we gave away $400 billion — privately, not the government, individually — to churches and to charities. We’re an incredibly compassionate society. This was misplaced in sort of the wonky numbers of this number and that number within health care how much we do help each other.

Not only do we help each other within our own county, I’d bet you most — half the physicians in my community in Bowling Green have gone on international trips and done international charity work and all that is lost in saying that we’re this heartless, terrible country, and I would just argue the opposite. I think the greatness of our country and the greatness in the compassion of our country — we give away more than the gross domestic product of most of these socialized countries around the world.

Price was grilled by Democrats on the Republicans’ promise to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act. When Sanders argued for a more socialized system, guaranteeing health coverage as a “right,” Price reminded him that there are “consequences” for countries that have chosen to have entirely government-run health care.

“If you want to talk about other countries’ health care systems,” Price said, “there are consequences to the decisions that they’ve made, just as there are consequences to the decisions that we’ve made.”

“I believe, and I look forward to working with you, to make certain that every single American has access to the highest quality care and coverage that is possible,” he added.

As the Republicans move forward to scrap outgoing President Barack Obama’s signature health care legislation, 45 percent of Americans — the highest percentage since April 2009 — say Obamacare is a good idea while 41 percent say it is a bad idea, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Half of Americans — 50 percent — say they have little to no confidence that GOP proposals to replace the law will make things better.

So who here agrees with Sanders? Obviously, we already know who, just cut to the chase and say why you think Americans are lacking in compassion and need the state to do it for them.

Also, what makes those in government so much more compassionate that the rest of the country?

And lastly, should the Pope make Bernie a Catholic saint even though he does not believe in God? What makes Bernie so much better than the rest of us?

Originally posted by whodey
So who here agrees with Sanders? Obviously, we already know who, just cut to the chase and say why you think Americans are lacking in compassion and need the state to do it for them.

Also, what makes those in government so much more compassionate that the rest of the country?

And lastly, should the Pope make Bernie a Catholic saint even though he does not believe in God? What makes Bernie so much better than the rest of us?

The US has an embarrassment of riches.
The private money we raise might, indeed, go toward the disenfranchised, but it also fattens those who really should be watching what they eat.
There's a lot of right hand letting the left hand know what it's doing when it comes to dropping our trinkets in the plate.
We've subsidized war on an unprecedented and entirely unnecessary scale; why not get back to the Monroe Doctrine and then split the proceeds amongst those in actual need?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The US has an embarrassment of riches.
The private money we raise might, indeed, go toward the disenfranchised, but it also fattens those who really should be watching what they eat.
There's a lot of right hand letting the left hand know what it's doing when it comes to dropping our trinkets in the plate.
We've subsidized war on an unprecedented and ent ...[text shortened]... hy not get back to the Monroe Doctrine and then split the proceeds amongst those in actual need?

I think what is interesting is that this is the one area that pretty much everyone here agrees.

However, the approach is all different. My thinking is, if you create an all powerful Frankenstein then don't get to bunged out of shape when he breaks free and terrorizes the neighborhood. Those in the GOP support big government abroad and those in the DNC support big government at home. Both have helped form the Frankenstein we have all grown to know and love, but don't expect to control it now that it has been created. Neither side seems to get it, or at least, maybe that was the plan all along.

Originally posted by whodey
So who here agrees with Sanders? Obviously, we already know who, just cut to the chase and say why you think Americans are lacking in compassion and need the state to do it for them.

Real compassion is wanting the people in need to genuinely be helped. It is not making a show of helping people. The former is best achieved through taxation and government programs.
I think that you will find that the US is near the bottom of the list for developed countries in terms of actual money spent on the less fortunate (proportionate to incomes).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Real compassion is wanting the people in need to genuinely be helped. It is not making a show of helping people. The former is best achieved through taxation and government programs.
I think that you will find that the US is near the bottom of the list for developed countries in terms of actual money spent on the less fortunate (proportionate to incomes).

I think that government entitlements have made society less compassionate.

For it used to be that those who gave money to the poor felt compassionate, which encouraged more of it later on. Then those that received it felt gratitude and were thankful.

But when the state steps in and mandates money to be given, we lose part of our humanity. It is no longer giving money to the poor, it is simply paying a tax, a tax that most try to get out of paying. Those receiving it then no longer feel grateful, rather, they feel as if it is not enough, thus being grateful is replaced with entitlement.

Then there is the mismanagement of funds. Money taken in taxes to help the poor is mostly absorbed by those in government.

The issue is large sums of money being collected either in government or the private sector seems to lend itself to mass greed.

Originally posted by whodey
What makes Bernie so much better than the rest of us?

He's from Brooklyn.

Originally posted by whodey
I think that government entitlements have made society less compassionate.

For it used to be that those who gave money to the poor felt compassionate, which encouraged more of it later on. Then those that received it felt gratitude and were thankful.

But when the state steps in and mandates money to be given, we lose part of our humanity. It is no lon ...[text shortened]... y being collected either in government or the private sector seems to lend itself to mass greed.

The real handouts in the U.S. are given to corporations in the form of tax breaks. When workers are paid so little they need any form of public assistance and earn so little that they do not pay taxes, it is the corporations who are actually getting our welfare tax dollars. Compared to other industrialized nations, we have a dwindling middle class and it is much more difficult for individuals in the US to move into the middle class due to the cost of education and the crummy schools in certain zip codes.

Originally posted by Phranny
The real handouts in the U.S. are given to corporations in the form of tax breaks. When workers are paid so little they need any form of public assistance and earn so little that they do not pay taxes, it is the corporations who are actually getting our welfare tax dollars. Compared to other industrialized nations, we have a dwindling middle class and it is ...[text shortened]... into the middle class due to the cost of education and the crummy schools in certain zip codes.

I believe this to be intentional.

I think that corporate America and the government have a cabal where they wish to destroy the middle class so essentially you have a nation of poor slaves who grovel from crumbs.

Through the oppression of legislation and regulations coupled with monopoly type mergers the middle class will eventually be eradicated. In the interim, the slave labor force will be pointing fingers at each other as to whether the GOP did this or the Dims.

What we have now is corporate socialism that trickle down crumbs to the slaves.

God help us once the computer and robotic era makes slaves obsolete. They may just do away with us all.

Originally posted by whodey
I think that government entitlements have made society less compassionate.

And I think you have zero actual evidence to back that up.

For it used to be that those who gave money to the poor felt compassionate, which encouraged more of it later on. Then those that received it felt gratitude and were thankful.
Yes, I am sure that there were plenty of snobs during slavery who felt great about their compassion and plenty of slaves who felt grateful.
But to claim that society was genuinely more compassionate back then is nonsense.

But when the state steps in and mandates money to be given, we lose part of our humanity. It is no longer giving money to the poor, it is simply paying a tax, a tax that most try to get out of paying.
Only selfish republicans see it that way. I believe Swedes are quite proud that they pay taxes to help the less fortunate.
I know for a fact that I was happy to pay higher school fees here in South Africa with the knowledge that it was being used to subsidise some less fortunate students, and I preferred that system to one where people are asked to donate.

Then there is the mismanagement of funds. Money taken in taxes to help the poor is mostly absorbed by those in government.
Not true. Government is often more efficient than charities.

The issue is large sums of money being collected either in government or the private sector seems to lend itself to mass greed.
Yet you advocate the private sector which has demonstrably more greed than government.

Originally posted by whodey
So who here agrees with Sanders? Obviously, we already know who, just cut to the chase and say why you think Americans are lacking in compassion and need the state to do it for them.

Also, what makes those in government so much more compassionate that the rest of the country?

And lastly, should the Pope make Bernie a Catholic saint even though he does not believe in God? What makes Bernie so much better than the rest of us?

Enforced compassion by way of mandatory charity is oxymoronic.

Either Sanders knows better but will say whatever it takes to maintain his own comfortable existence, or he believes his own BS because he's an oxygenated moron.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Enforced compassion by way of mandatory charity is oxymoronic.

Either Sanders knows better but will say whatever it takes to maintain his own comfortable existence, or he believes his own BS because he's an oxygenated moron.

He obviously thinks he is morally superior to the average American.

If only he were king we could finally know social justice.

Originally posted by whodey
I think that government entitlements have made society less compassionate.

For it used to be that those who gave money to the poor felt compassionate, which encouraged more of it later on. Then those that received it felt gratitude and were thankful.

But when the state steps in and mandates money to be given, we lose part of our humanity. It is no lon ...[text shortened]... y being collected either in government or the private sector seems to lend itself to mass greed.

yes, because the hungry, the sick, the disabled, they can wait for you to be magnanimous. they can wait until some random charity manages to find the money to help them.


we don't need a transparent, government (that's you, dumbass, you are the government, and all the other people) run program that gathers resources and gets them to those in need. the unfortunate don't need that soulless, compassionless money, they would much rather see their children starve than accept tax payer money.

"Then there is the mismanagement of funds. Money taken in taxes to help the poor is mostly absorbed by those in government."
so instead of better managing those money you would rather there were no money and just wait for someone awesome to awesomely manage some money that magically appeared from some philantropist.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, because the hungry, the sick, the disabled, they can wait for you to be magnanimous. they can wait until some random charity manages to find the money to help them.


we don't need a transparent, government (that's you, dumbass, you are the government, and all the other people) run program that gathers resources and gets them to those in need. the u ...[text shortened]... someone awesome to awesomely manage some money that magically appeared from some philantropist.

Wait....wut? I'm the government?

Ok then, free health care for everyone! 😵

Originally posted by whodey
Wait....wut? I'm the government?

Ok then, free health care for everyone! 😵

Hows about free Cuban cigars?
Not the cheap ones, or phoney label knock offs. I'm talkin' about the el primo cigars Ahnald smokes... the good ones. If you can swing that for me you will have a loyal supporter for life.
So, how does "Long live King Whodey" sound, eh?


Just remember... cigars.