Destroy Socialism. No, Bernie isn't your savior

I like the constitution. I like free markets. I like people having control of their own fate. I like when working hard is rewarded. I often wonder what happened to the Democrats that like a free market republic. When did they turn from a party that famously said "Ask not what your country can do for you but what can you do for your country" to the party that now says college education, birth control, healthcare, cell phones, and other things should be free and provided by the government? The Republicans are not much better either. Both parties seem to always grow government and speed up the march toward globalization. (We'll see in due time if it grows or shrinks under Trump)

As much as I despised Globalist Hilary Clinton, I was no less perturbed at the embracing of Bernie Sanders, an open admitted socialist, by many on the left. Some even went as far as to say he was the Democrats Ron Paul. Maybe in terms of a candidate to be stamped out by the establishment but no where near Ron Paul in terms of the issues.

Socialism destroys societies. Socialism has failed so often, socialists of every stripe bend over backwards to disassociate themselves from the many other disasters created by their ideology. As Winston Churchill once said "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

The more socialism you have, the less freedom you will have. Socialism can't survive if people are free to choose whether they want socialism or not. People who are free to say what they want will criticize socialism's many failures. So, socialism requires a massive bureaucracy that inevitably grows. As government grows, it inevitably becomes more centralized, more distant from the people and freedom & liberty are lost.

When you punish the successful and give to the unsuccessful you inherently encourage people to stop trying to be successful, to stop working harder. Why would you? Why work hard when you can just get everything for free? You'll get the same as everyone else no matter how hard you work. The problem is, more and more people adapt this attitude and you run out of people to take from.

This has been proven time and time again. One of the earliest times it was tried and failed was the Pilgrims. Led by William Bradford they first tried a socialist society and it failed miserably. Many of them died due to hunger and disease. He changed how it worked to a free market system where they were free to keep and sell everything that they produced, and they flourished. There was abundance. You can read William Bradford's journals that describes all of this in great detail.

Next you can look at Venezuela, Brazil, North Korea, all socialist state controlled economies failing miserably.

At the Mercal, a dozen eggs cost 450 bolivars in December. The official price is now 1,020 bolivars. But Linares said she never finds eggs at the Mercal. So she buys them from street vendors for around 1,500 bolivars -- a staggering $150 at the official exchange rate

But the proponents of socialism love to say well look at Scandinavia, countries like Denmark and Sweden. That's the model we should adopt. Would you ever like to purchase a new car? Well in Denmark a new cars comes with a 180% tax!!!

Danish car and motorcycle owners have paid RA on registering their vehicle of 105 percent of its value for vehicles bought for under 81,700 kroner, and 180 percent of the value for vehicles bought for over this price.

What they aren't telling you is that these Scandinavian countries are turning away from socialism. And they did not become wealthy countries because of socialism either. The free market is what gave them the success to be able to turn to socialism which is now taking is toll on them.

No one remembers, but Scandinavia wasn’t always a watchword for social democracy. Indeed, Sweden was such a free-market success story that Republicans should be citing it in their debates. It started as a poor country in the late 19th century, then achieved take-off under a dynamic capitalist system into the middle of the 20th century. Its boom coincided with the time when its taxes were lower than those in the United States and the rest of Europe.

Thanks socialism

In Sweden, the effective marginal tax rate topped 100 percent in some circumstances. There is a reason that IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad fled the country in 1973. Sweden instituted a scheme to confiscate corporate profits and hand them over to labor unions. The idea was, in the words of a Swedish economist, to have “a market economy without individualist capitalists and entrepreneurs.”

This was about as logical as it sounded — and delivered predictable results. The socialist Golden Years weren’t so golden for economic performance. Entrepreneurship plummeted. Job creation and wages sputtered. The Scandinavian story the last few decades has been a turn against socialism. Taxes have fallen and markets liberalized. Kamprad returned to Sweden. It became obvious that generous-enough welfare benefits can undermine the initiative of even the heartiest Scandinavian stock, and these countries have been adjusting accordingly.

An article in The New York Times a couple of years ago recounted the backlash against welfare dependence in Denmark. It cited a study that projected in 2013 only three of 98 municipalities would have a majority of residents working.

I doubt that any of this will change the mind of any liberal / socialist / communist (who can tell the difference these days?) I find it telling that even JFK could not win a Dem primary these days. He would be considered a conservative now.

JFK pushed for a huge tax cut saying: “By removing tax roadblocks to new jobs and new growth, the enactment of this measure next year will eventually more than make up in new revenue all that it will initially cost.”

He spent on the military instead and kept spending at home flat

Kennedy inherited a major recession (a contraction at an annualized rate of five percent in the fourth quarter of 1960) but kept domestic spending basically flat while ramping up military and overseas spending.

But he still was a democrat doing things like raising the minimum wage 25 percent and started food stamps and medicare but he harbored deep suspicions of the creeping influence of the state.

Albert Jay Nock’s anti-New Deal book “Our Enemy, the State” was a volume JFK kept at his Boston home in the 1950s and he sometimes echoed the book in public statements. “I do not believe in a super state,” he said in a 1960 speech in which he declared himself a liberal, with heavy qualifiers that made him sound more like one of today’s conservatives. “I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned,” he continued, smartly summarizing the voodoo economics of Keynesianism. “I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well.”

So, here's to hoping socialism will be destroyed and burnt from the hearts and minds of the people.



Don't hold your breath.

Socialist arguments destroyed
Modern Dems would consider JFK a conservative nut job
Sorry Bernie, Scandinavia is no socialist paradise

a reply to: FauxMulder

But but what about parks and freeways and condoms????

Good article, star and flagged.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Destroy socialism? Replace the word socialism with the word jews, and your basicly hitler...

Iam from Denmark, and yes, we have insane taxes, but the money doesnt go to welfare, but to greedy capitalist stealing from the people

I live in scandinavia, and i can tell you it doesnt sounds like you know anything about how we live here, but please fell free to destroy whatever you want, as long as you do it in your own country

a reply to: FauxMulder

I never considered him a savior. I disagree with your harsh depiction of socialism. Anything would be better than what is happening now.

If a Republican got the nomination, I was partial to Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham. They made sense and seemed to not have mental disorders. The bar is now set very low.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
I like the constitution. I like free markets. I like people having control of their own fate. I like when working hard is rewarded.

These were nice ideas in the old days when there were still "free resources" around, that only required your effort and labor to acquire and manage.

When Europeans landed in the Americas, it was the Wild Wild West. Lots of open spaces, unclaimed lands, mineral deposits to be had, oil to be dug up, all sitting there just for the taking.

The founders sat down and wrote down their ideals based on the realities of the environment they lived in.

Today, all plots of land have been allocated already, all mineral deposits have claims, any open space is "protected" by the government as nature reserve, etc...things are quite different. It's not just up to the individual anymore. He needs the full cooperation and agreement of the society and neighborhood he happens to be born into, or wants to live in.

It's no longer about "me", it's always about "us."

It's not about what "I can do", but about what "I will be allowed to do".

Everything you want to do now requires "permission."

Things are quite different.

We are no longer equal. We are each born with unequal opportunities, based on our family or network that provides access to "claimed resources", available to some, denied to others.

We cannot simply go out and grab a piece of land, and farm it.

This is the reason for socialism.

Once you take away the rights of the individual to find and take whatever resources they can, you have to give them back something in return.

So, you give them medicare, and medicaid, and food stamps, etc..so that they don't simply walk onto the farms and pick whatever fruit and vegetables they "see" to feed their hunger.

a reply to: reldra

yea like hillary was any better u cheated poor bernie outa the nomination ....bad dems ...

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU
a reply to: FauxMulder

Destroy socialism? Replace the word socialism with the word jews, and your basicly hitler...

Iam from Denmark, and yes, we have insane taxes, but the money doesnt go to welfare, but to greedy capitalist stealing from the people

I live in scandinavia, and i can tell you it doesnt sounds like you know anything about how we live here, but please fell free to destroy whatever you want, as long as you do it in your own country

The idea not the people.

What did Nazi stand for? National-Socialist German Workers' Party.

Also Denmark's population is about 5 million. That's less than New York City. Its a little bit easier to do those things there. As I pointed out though, the Scandinavian countries have been turning away from the socialist model for some time now and are no where near what they used to be. Though like you said they still have really high taxes.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Two words!


"Cultural Marxism"


Operation Paperclip brought the Nazi's into our country and surprisingly enough it's those who are buying into the nonsense who are calling others Nazis!

Let's go a step further. Those who hate Capitalism and the 1% are those who are marching in lockstep to the plans of the 1% they march in protest to on the streets!

The only oppression they are suffering from is that which was injected into their minds by those they hate! How weird is that?

originally posted by: AMPTAH

These were nice ideas in the old days when there were still "free resources" around, that only required your effort and labor to acquire and manage.

When Europeans landed in the Americas, it was the Wild Wild West. Lots of open spaces, unclaimed lands, mineral deposits to be had, oil to be dug up, all sitting there just for the taking.

Farming is not the only job there is. Like i said in the OP, the socialist model has been tried many times in the past when land was unclaimed and resources were everywhere and it fails every time.

The founders sat down and wrote down their ideals based on the realities of the environment they lived in.

Today, all plots of land have been allocated already, all mineral deposits have claims, any open space is "protected" by the government as nature reserve, etc...things are quite different. It's not just up to the individual anymore. He needs the full cooperation and agreement of the society and neighborhood he happens to be born into, or wants to live in.

Again there are millions of different jobs and new industries popping up all the time. Just look at all of the overnight millionaires the internet has produced. Many of the people that are very rich and successful came from nothing.

It's no longer about "me", it's always about "us."

It's not about what "I can do", but about what "I will be allowed to do".

Everything you want to do now requires "permission."

As JFK said "a rising tide lifts all ships". A big labor participation force and a larger economy lifts all people up.

Things are quite different.

We are no longer equal. We are each born with unequal opportunities, based on our family or network that provides access to "claimed resources", available to some, denied to others.

We cannot simply go out and grab a piece of land, and farm it.

This is the reason for socialism.

Again why do you keep referring to farmers? Steve Jobs started Apple in his garage. Everyone has the opportunity to be an entrepreneur and that is because of the free market. Socialism does not allow for this.

Once you take away the rights of the individual to find and take whatever resources they can, you have to give them back something in return.

So, you give them medicare, and medicaid, and food stamps, etc..so that they don't simply walk onto the farms and pick whatever fruit and vegetables they "see" to feed their hunger.

I still don't understand why you think having resources and land is the only way to make money. You can make millions with a few strokes of a key board if you are dedicated and smart enough.

a reply to: seeker1963

Well said

It's like Lenin Said "But democracy is by no means a limit one may not overstep, it is only one of the stages in the course of development from feudalism to capitalism, and from capitalism to Communism."

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: FauxMulder

I never considered him a savior. I disagree with your harsh depiction of socialism. Anything would be better than what is happening now.

If a Republican got the nomination, I was partial to Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham. They made sense and seemed to not have mental disorders. The bar is now set very low.

What is it about socialism that you find attractive or worth doing?

Rand is pretty good, I'm not a fan of Lindsey Graham though.

originally posted by: FauxMulder

I still don't understand why you think having resources and land is the only way to make money. You can make millions with a few strokes of a key board if you are dedicated and smart enough.

That was just an example.

There are always some "frontiers".

Before the rules and regulations come in to protect the established interests, there's indeed a period of time when some "free resources" still exist. That's your frontier.

Right now, the frontier is the internet.

But, already giants have dominated the field, like google and Facebook, crowding out all others, and there's a movement against "net neutrality" which gives the little guy a chance to find the next successful startup and become big like google.

So, this frontier will be closed soon, also, just like the farmland and mineral deposits.

The problem, though, is that we all have to put our physical body somewhere. Even if we're only doing "mind work". So, plots of land is still an issue for each individual, and that is no longer a free resource.

Soon, you won't be able to buy or sell without internet access.

And internet access itself will become expensive and require permissions.

So as we move forward, the old resources of yesteryear are not obsolete, we still need them, only now we have to pay dearly for them, while requiring yet other newer resources, just to survive.

When you're surfin the wave, you don't see how deep the ocean is. Until the wave stops.

SOME socialism is required - not everyone is able to work (hard), not everyone has assets or money - or family.

A LITTLE BIT of socialism goes a long way towards stabilizing society. Unbridled capitalism destabilizes.

Health care for profit doesn't work for anyone except CEOs, investors & insurance companies.

Socialism as a model for an entire modern society has been proven ineffectual.
Socialism as a model for health care services --- well, just ask the rest of the first world about their health care costs.

If you're like me, it's a monthly battle between medicines/doctors and housing, food, utilities, etc.
I spend about 40% on health care costs, not including hospitalizations (4 in the past year).

ganjoa

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU
a reply to: FauxMulder

Destroy socialism? Replace the word socialism with the word jews, and your basicly hitler...

Iam from Denmark, and yes, we have insane taxes, but the money doesnt go to welfare, but to greedy capitalist stealing from the people

I live in scandinavia, and i can tell you it doesnt sounds like you know anything about how we live here, but please fell free to destroy whatever you want, as long as you do it in your own country

That has to be the most asinine response possible.

Comparing a political ideology with a race of people.

He could change the word socialism to termites and be an exterminator, or change it to crab grass and he'd be a gardener.

a reply to: AMPTAH

The problem is not large companies. The problem is when there becomes a revolving door between these large companies and the government. This is called corporatism not capitalism. Then they write there own laws and regulations to take down their competition. We see it all the time. How many people in the last couple administrations came from big banks? How many times did Eric Schmidt visit Obama's white house?

But regardless large companies are not evil, they employ thousands of people, some of which will have careers that advance them all the way to the top.

Like you said there will always be new frontiers and as long as people are free to be an entrepreneur and make their own path, things will always progress.

A LITTLE BIT of socialism goes a long way towards stabilizing society. Unbridled capitalism destabilizes

Exactly, it's no coincidence that as our country becomes more and more capitalistic there's more unrest and more people suffering.

And countries like Venezuela aren't socialist, they're dictatorships- completely different.

Europe has been socialist for decades and it was fine until they got the Euro and Wall Street subprime investments.

Suddenly, one day, last summer, a visitor approached. He had just got an MRI, was pleased with the results.
Next thing I knew, a trip through an MRI tube was being solicited. Just to see

You know,
just to see if there's any cancer...holes in my haid, or maybe just a stray root that may be migrating through my brainstem.

I could tell he was in a hurry, and there was only one beer in the whole compound to act as anchor, so I was careful to let him guide the topix.

The medical part of the sojourn ended with his mouth shrugging 'eat more garlic',
and seamlessly he segued into politics.

I noticed a powerful, and unexpected, acute need to itch my calf.

'OK', I said. 'If you say so, I will'

The beer was about a sip and a glug from being drained, and he wasted no time trying to dredge up Donald's obvious folly.

'How about them Cubs', I deflected, as they were working on a midseason losing streak now 5 or 6 games in a row.

It was no use. The Donald feelers were out, and the visitor, he wanted to know what I thought about that. I could feel the tempo was quickening, and like a nervous stand up act that went on too late, it was interspersed with random, confused barbs. Glances toward the exit, the gate, The
Sanctuary of getting away, of being surrounded by walls.

'What a materialist', I finally blurted.
He looked at me.

'We need a strong materialist, America needs him, we all do.
By that, I mean Sanders!'

Some milld confusion. 'Hmmm?'

'Isn't that all he talks about...taking materials from one group and handing them to another? Yup,
that will work. Sure. It's what I've been waiting for my whole life. It's been holding me back, as a matter of fact. Bernie is the answer!', I said.

Discretely, I rolled back my pants leg and was a little surprised to see a circle where I wanted to scratch.

Then he was gone. A lot has happened since then which we will be selective to discuss, if at all.

#655

a reply to: ganjoa

With healthcare, we do not have a free market system for that. Companies are not allowed to compete across state lines, minimizing competition, and maximizing the opportunity for monopolies to form, which makes prices ridiculous.

First, Congress should give Medicare enrollees a voucher and the freedom to choose any health plan on the market. Vouchers would be means-tested, would contain Medicare spending, and are the only way to protect seniors from government rationing.

Second, to give workers control over their health care dollars, Congress should reform the tax treatment of health care with “large” health savings accounts. Large HSAs would reduce the number of uninsured Americans, would free workers to purchase secure health coverage from any source, and would effectively give workers a $9.7 trillion tax cut without increasing the federal budget deficit.

Third, Congress should break up state monopolies on insurance and clinician licensing. Allowing consumers to purchase health insurance licensed by other states could cover one-third of the uninsured without any new taxes or government subsidies.

Finally, Congress should reform Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program the way it reformed welfare in 1996. Block-granting those programs would reduce the deficit and encourage states to target resources to the truly needy. The great advantage of a free market is that innovation and more prudent decision making means that fewer patients will fall through the cracks.

check out these free market solutions if you have the time

Capitalism is no savior either. By it's very nature when it comes into conflict, profit will always win over what's actual better for humanity.