Tag Archives: Bernie Sanders

BACK TO RACISM

President Donald Trump was elected President of the United States five months ago. He was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States two and a half months ago. Yet, Democrats still can’t decide why their candidate, Hillary Roddam Clinton, wife of former president, beloved by all Democrats, Bill Clinton, lost.

During the presidential campaign, we heard all sorts of allegations of sexism, or the trendier term, misogyny, against those who did not support the Democrat nominee. Of course, for the eight previous years of Obama, we heard nothing but racism allegations against those who were not supportive of the 44th President of the United States. So, first it is racism for which the right is guilty, then enters candidate Clinton, and it is sexism for which the right is guilty.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. Does anybody focus on issues? It is evident that the Democrats are not focused on issues. Some of them do have enough smarts to know they cannot win on issues, but the rest of the Democrats are too ignorant to focus on the issues. So, there we go. I have called Democrats ignorant, and I am not taking it back. They are ignorant. Notice, I said ignorant, not stupid. If you do not know the difference, look it up in Webster’s.

An article came across my news feed from theintercept.com, a website with which I was not familiar, entitled: Top Democrats are Wrong: Trump Supporters were more Motivated by Racism than Economic Issues. Truth be known, I was not aware that Democrats were even entertaining the idea that their beloved Hillary Clinton lost the President election except for us racist, sexist Republicans.

According to the author of the article, Mehdi Hasan, Bernie Sanders, de facto leader of the Resistance stated, “Some people think that those who voted for Trump are racists, sexists, homophobes and deplorable folks.”

This statement was made at a rally in Boston, alongside socialist/communist Senator, Elizabeth Warren. Can’t believe that Fauxkahontas was silent on this one. Mr. Hasan does not agree with Senators Sanders and Fauxkahontas, I mean Warren. Hasan further indicates that, in the New York Times, three days after the November election, the Vermont Senator claimed that Trump voters were “expressing their fierce opposition to an economic and political system that puts wealthy and corporate interests over their own.”

Mr. Hasan feels that both Sanders and Fauxkahontas, I mean Warren, seem much keener to lay the blame at the feet of the dysfunctional Democratic Party and an ailing economy than at the feet of racist Republican voters. Hasan goes on to state that their deflection is not surprising, nor is their coddling of those who happily embraced an openly xenophobic candidate.

In his article, Hasan says that “He gets it,” and agrees that it is hard to accept that millions of their fellow citizens harbor what political scientists have identified as “racial resentment.” (I have not heard that term before.) He further acknowledges that the reluctance to admit that bigotry, and tolerance of bigotry, is still widespread in society is understandable. Hasan then asks the question, why would senior members of the Democratic leadership want to alienate millions of voters by dismissing them as racist bigots?

What did I get from the above? Some Democrats may be willing to justify Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump because Democrats are out of touch with middle-class America. With respect to the issues, including the economy, foreign policy, immigration, energy, the environment, and health care, Democrats are diametrically opposite to mainstream America, also known as the fly-over country. However, that is a mighty big but, other Democrats are continuing to hurl accusations of racism, sexism, and whatever else they can throw at those who disagree with them.

I was one of the first pundits to label Democrats/ liberals/progressives or whatever they want to call themselves these days as the “tolerant left.” I am sarcastic. The left is anything but open-minded and tolerant. Later Bill O’Reilly also used that term. Maybe I should have had it copyrighted.

As I have indicated in many of my writings, liberals are the real racists, hypocrites, liars, and bigots. If some left-winger hurls the racism accusation at me, I know that I have won the debate, the argument, or whatever. Liberals change the definition or racism to whatever suits their needs of the moment. If they cannot justify the hurling of other accusations at someone with whom they do not agree, they will resort to racism.

Hasan cites American National Election data and a “plethora” of studies that have concluded that since the start of the 2016 presidential campaign that the race was about race. Philip Klinkner, a political scientist at Hamilton College, and an expert on race relations (that’s what the article said), grabbed headlines last summer when he revealed that the best way to identify a Trump supporter was to ask that person if Obama was a Muslim.  If the person said yes and the person was white, 89% of the time that person would have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton. So, anyone who thinks Obama is a Muslim and has white skin, probably a racist.

Wow! That’s what I call scientific.

Hasan also indicated that other surveys and polls of Trump voters found “a strong relationship between anti-black attitudes and support for Trump,” with rump supporters being more likely to describe African Americans as criminal, unintelligent, lazy, and violent. Also, Trump voters were most likely to believe that people of color are taking white jobs, and a majority of them rate blacks as less evolved than whites.

My regular readers know that I am from the state of Alabama and currently live in the Birmingham area. Yes, Birmingham, Alabama. I do not hear or observe any of the attitudes or statements that Mr. Hasan makes in the above paragraphs in this, the second half of the second decade of the twenty-first century. These attitudes may have been common in the late sixties/early to mid-seventies. But not now. Alternatively yet, maybe folks up north have these attitudes, but not here in the south.

Because Trump managed to win white votes regardless of age, gender, income, or education, racial identity and attitudes displaced class as the central battleground of American politics as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have espoused.

Hasan does cover the question, “how can racial resentment have motivated Trump supporters when so many of them voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012?” Klinkner covers that by stating that in 2016, Clinton, unlike Obama, faced a Republican candidate who pushed the buttons of race and nativism in open and explicit ways that John McCain and Mitt Romney were unwilling or unable to do. Did he? I followed the campaign closely, and it did not appear to me that Donald Trump was “pushing buttons of race and nativism in open and explicit ways.” The comments made about Mexicans who crossed the border illegally being criminals and rapists did not appear racist to me, nor did it to most conservatives. Liberals, of course, went ballistic, but what else is new?

So, based on the above notions, which are abstract at best, Mr. Hasan, concludes: “It isn’t the economy. It’s the racism, stupid.” But wait…is Mrs. Clinton not a white woman? Yes, Mrs. Clinton is indeed a white woman, who campaigned on continuing the policies of Barack Obama. So, if the voters, who overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama were pleased with the direction in which the country was heading, but just did not like Obama because of the color of his skin, they should be ecstatic that someone white was running and was promising to continue Obama-style governance.

Mr. Hasan’s reasoning is substantially flawed. Plus, these studies, which he sites sound bogus to me. Remember, though, Mr. Hasan is a liberal, and liberals do not have to be correct. They just have to say something over and over again until the fact that what they are saying is a lie no longer matters. It is now the truth. Liberals no longer have to be consistent. Being hypocritical is accepted in liberal land.

Are liberals ever going to stop hurling false accusations and those who do not agree with them? We all know the answer to that one. Are we ever going to get liberals to change? Of course not! Then why bother? Because we must continue to stand up for what is right. Standing down and letting the left continue to spout forth their lies and hypocrisies, allows them to win in the end.

Facebooktwitter

BLACK LIVES MATTER EXPLAINED

BLM

I shared the above meme from my personal Facebook page stating: “If Black Lives Really Mattered to You, You’d be Gunning Down Gang Bangers and Dope Dealers Instead of Cops.”

This was about the Black Lives Matter movement not hesitating to destroy property, injure people, destroy businesses, and interrupt people’s lives if someone black was shot (and killed) by a policeman, particularly a white policeman before an investigation of the incident could be completed, and the facts determined.However, when it comes to black on black crime, such as on the streets of Chicago and Detroit, the movement doesn’t seem to care, along with many blacks.

A FB friend took issue with me, indicating first that this was not how BLM worked, nor was this how the justice system worked. In the United States of America, innocence is assumed until proven guilty. However, BLM seems to be out there rioting and destroying before an investigation and trial can be conducted. While some of the BLM folks in certain incidents have indicated that they want to protest peacefully, they have generally never waited until the facts of the case were determined. Then there’s always those folks who never intended to protest peacefully, with their actions leading to property loss, bodily injury and total disruption.

This same individual also indicated that there had been no cases where the BLM movement has been charged or correctly accused of causing any physical harm to any officers. The organization, as a whole, may not have shot any police officers because organizations are not tangible. But, according to TheGatewayPundit.com, as of July 17, 2016, at least eleven police officers have been shot dead, and several shot and injured by Black Lives Matter activists since the movement began in August 2014. The FB friend indicated that the movement was one thing and then there are just people who are consistently mad at the perfect law enforcement officer, no matter what color his or her skin may be.

If the BLM movement is indeed unicorns, puppies, and justice for all, why didn’t they denounce these isolated individuals who were rioting? Why didn’t they denounce those individuals who were alleged to have shot the police officers? Why were alleged members of BLM protesting at the Minnesota state fair and in the streets of New York City,  yelling, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon,” and “What do we want, dead cops, when do we want it, now?” Why did they unabashedly interrupt a Bernie Sanders rally when Bernie was running for the Democrat nomination for president?

The person objecting my sharing of the meme  also referred to “perfect” law enforcement officers. No one ever said that all law enforcement officers were perfect. Yes, there are bad cops, but overall, our police officers are fine people. I have law enforcement officers in my family, and I was engaged to one. I’m on the side of law enforcement.

My nemisis went on to indicate that this meme was outright false, political fodder, conformation bias material, divisive props, and not even close to being finished on this list, but completely dismissive of what the cause actually stands for. This meme was asking a question, no conclusions were drawn. Political fodder? Perhaps. Most liberals have no problem with the actions of BLM and most conservatives do. Confirmation bias? Confirmation bias is defined as the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs or theories. I haven’t seen any new evidence that would indicate that Black Lives Matter is something else other than a violent organization where its members take the law into their own hands and create havoc when something happens that they don’t like. The leaders have not come out to explain themselves or the organization. Divisive props? The meme is one with which most people are either going to agree or disagree. I’m not sure what the person who took issue with this meme may have meant in the allegation following divisive props, but he/she did indicate that people like me are dismissive of what the cause actually stands for. Again, maybe if Black Lives Matter is about justice for all, why don’t their representatives come out and explain themselves? Why don’t they explain why isolated incidents of police officers shooting blacks get their attention and the daily, sometimes hourly black on black murders in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, etc. get dismissed? Don’t these people also deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

My FB friend further indicated that BLM was being treated like a joke. I can tell you, the Black Lives Matter movement is no joke, and I don’t know anyone who thinks it is. It’s a dangerous organization, and has failed to prove otherwise. Of course it’s not okay to take the law into your own hands. The meme was illustrating that since BLM expends so many resources and energy causing havoc whenever a policeman shoots one black person, without regards to the facts of the case, wouldn’t those resources and that energy be better served in situations where multiple blacks are sometimes killed in one evening.

While representatives of billionaire Democrat activist George Soros have vehemently denied the funding of the Black Lives Matter movement by Soros’s Open Society Foundation, documents have been published which show that two months before the denial, the OSF board approved $650,000 to BLM. This is according to thenewamerican.com. Instead of using this money to actually help improve the lives of poverty stricken blacks, it was used to create more unrest in the form of violent protests and staged riots, also according to thenewamerican.com.

You may remember that George Soros once said that he would be willing to spend every penny of his vast wealth to defeat George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election. He’s still wealthy and George Bush was elected. According to humanevents.com, Soros would like nothing better than for America to become subservient to international bodies. He has repeatedly said that he sees himself as a messianic figure.

Divide and conquer is one of many ways that a nation can be weakened and eventually diminish and or dissappear. Certain elements have been seeking to divide this country along different lines, including racial, social, economic, and political for decades. George Soros has no love for the United States of America and is allegedly funding and promoting groups that seek to divide the country.

Food for thought.

Facebooktwitter

DETERIORATING RACE RELATIONS UNDER OBAMA

Are there deteriorating race relations under the current president? Absolutely! And who’s to blame? The current president, the current administration, and “the left” in general.

Obama to blame for deteriorating race relations.

Deteriorating race relations in America are this man’s fault!

I’m reviewing an article on aol.com discussing how racist commenters on Fox Cable News attacked Malia Obama after the cable news network ran an article indicating that she would be attending Harvard University after taking a year off from her studies following high school graduation. After the unacceptable comments appeared, FNC did remove the comment section of that article.

Of course, the “tolerant left” is going to call all those who watch Fox News every bad name they can possibly think up. Racist, bigoted, ignorant, low-life, etc. But before I can form an opinion and give my two cents worth, I need to know how many comments were made before FNC removed the comment section and how many of those comments were inappropriate. While the “tolerant left” doesn’t care about facts and statistics, I do.

Remember when former president Jimmy Carter was diagnosed with brain cancer? Fox News ran an article about the diagnosis on its Facebook site. Then, numerous far left websites published articles regarding the hateful vitriolic comments made by those horrible Fox News followers. Well, I found the article. There were approximately 2,000 comments. I took the time to skim about 1,000 of those comments and found only six that were inappropriate. Furthermore, numerous replies were made to those inappropriate comments telling the commenters that they were out of line. Did the “tolerant left” lie? Not really because there were some inappropriate comments. But to accuse those who watch FNC and follow their website and Facebook sites unflattering names is just wrong.

Having said the above, I am noticing more use of the “N” word and other unflattering words when racial issues are being discussed. Why is this when during the Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 administrations, race relations in the U.S. seemed to be optimal? It’s the democrats aka the “tolerant left.” In order to garner votes for their candidates, the left preys upon blacks and other minorities, telling them that they are still considered second class citizens and haven’t reached their full potential even though it’s been a half century since the Civil Rights Act was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. And why haven’t they reached their full potential? It’s because of “whitey.” The white establishment, particularly white conservatives, have kept you down because they are all prejudice. They don’t like people of color so they won’t allow you to succeed.

Race relations have certainly deteriorated since Barak Obama has taken office. Of course, the left will tell you that it’s because the whites, particularly the Republicans are prejudice and can’t stand the thought of having a black president. Well, that’s just BS and the left knows it. Besides the current president of the United States is half white. Want to make a black Democrat mad? Point out to them that you (if you’re white) have the same in common with the president with respect to ethnicity as they do. Black democrats don’t like to hear that.

Barak Obama and the “tolerant left” are 100% to blame for deteriorating race relations in the United States! Barak Obama injects race into everything he possibly can. And even though he’s half white, he always takes the side of the black person or persons, the facts of the situation be damned. And that shouldn’t be surprising to anyone because Democrats don’t care about facts or statistics. All they seem to be able to do is get emotional and accuse Republicans of hating minorities, hating the poor, and hating the current president because he’s black (excuse me, he’s half black).

Barak Obama is constantly denigrating Republicans and blaming them for everything that has gone wrong during his time as president. When, in fact, it’s his own policies and political philosophies that have caused things to do so wrong in this country since his inauguration. Furthermore, anything that the left deems as racist, even though it may not be remotely related to race, is now considered racism. When this president was elected, I fully anticipated that those who didn’t agree with him on the issues and didn’t fall in lockstep with his policies would be considered racist. However, I didn’t anticipate that if you cheered for the Denver Broncos with white quarterback Peyton Manning to beat the Carolina Panthers with black quarterback Cam Newton, you would be considered a racist.

People are fed up with this constant talk of race and ethnicity a half century after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. People are also fed up with those who get their feelings hurt and demand that a safe space be provided to them when they hear something they don’t particularly like. And “safe spaces?” What a crock!

Then there are the demands that all references to the Civil War be removed and erased from history, including the renaming of buildings that were named after Confederate heroes. Also, we can’t teach our children how this great nation was founded because many of the founding fathers owned slaves. This has led to many young people supporting Communist Bernie Sanders for president. And while I have been accused of racism because I don’t eat turnip greens and collards, a young white guy was assaulted by a black female because he wore his hair in dreadlocks.

What is it people, what do you want? I don’t think you know what you want. You’re told by your minority leaders that the Republicans are all prejudice against you when a Republican holds the office of the presidency, even though race relations are always much better when a Republican is president. Then when a Democrat holds the office of the presidency, you’re told by your minority leaders that the reason the Democrat president can’t get you the things you want because of those racist Republicans.

To all minorities out there, as long as you listen to the current president or anyone from the “tolerant left,” you’re will stay frustrated and spend more time bellyaching as to why you’re not achieving. Instead, become an individual and get out there and work for what you want to achieve.

This nation is in bad shape, very bad shape. Race relations, among other things, have been deteriorating to the point that it may take several decades to restore them to where they were before Barak Obama assumed the office of the presidency. Many folks, including me, have individually worked on making race irrelevant except for maybe identification purposes. And it saddens me greatly that one, Barak Obama, and his liberal henchmen have destroyed our work in 7-1/2 years.

Facebooktwitter

SOCIALISM – PART TWO (CAPITALISM VS. SOCIALISM)

Currently candidate for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States, Bernie Sanders, is an avowed socialist, calling himself a Democratic Socialist. While Senator Sanders will probably lose the nomination to Hillary Clinton, he is currently a viable candidate. As of this writing, he will soon be giving a speech explaining just what a Democrat Socialist is, but in the meantime, the following will contrast Capitalism, our current economic system in the United States with Socialism. As you read this, keep in mind that while we call or economic system capitalism, it is not a purely capitalistic system.

The central arguments in the socialism vs. capitalism debate are about economic equality and the role of government. Socialists believe that economic inequality if bad for society and that the government is responsible for reducing it through programs that benefit the poor such as free public education, free of subsidized healthcare, social security for the elderly, and higher taxes on the rich. In contrast, capitalists believe that the government does not use economic resources as efficiently as private enterprises do, and therefore society is better off with the free market determining economic winners and losers.

As I indicated above the United States is considered a bastion of capitalism. However, large parts of Scandinavia and Western Europe are considered socialist democracies. As you know, though, the United States has a plethora of entitlement programs that allegedly benefit the poor. The U.S. also offers free public elementary and secondary education to its citizens and has implemented a Social Security program to benefit the elderly. Furthermore, its present tax system imposes higher taxes on higher income earners. As such, the United States is not a pure capitalistic society. We currently have a strong private sector and income inequality. Those individuals who work hard and take risks have chances at accumulating more wealth than those who prefer not to take large risks and work less. But for those individuals willing to work harder than normal and take the risks, additional wealth is not guaranteed. Of course, there’s those in between. In a capitalistic society such as what we have in the United States, you get to choose.

The following will outline the differences between capitalism and socialism:

DEFINITION

Capitalism: A theory or system of social organization based around a free market and privatization in which ownership is ascribed to the individual persons. Voluntary co-ownership is also permitted

Socialism: A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of most property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the workers.

PHILOSOPHY

Capitalism: Capital (or the means of production) is owned, operated, and traded in order to generate profits for private owners or shareholders. Emphasis on individual profit rather than on workers or society as a whole. No restriction on who may own capital.

Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries.

 

IDEAS

Capitalism: Laissez-faire means to “let it be;” opposed to government intervention in economics because capitalists believe it introduces inefficiencies. A free market produces the best economic outcome for society. Government should not pick winners and losers.

Socialism: All individuals should have access to basic articles of consumption and public goods to allow for self-actualization. Large-scale industries are collective efforts and this the returns from these industries must benefit society as a whole.

KEY ELEMENTS

Capitalism: Competition for ownership of capital drives economic activity and creates a price system that determines resource allocation; profits are reinvested in the economy. “Production for profit:” useful goods and services are a byproduct of pursuing profit.

Socialism: Economic activity and production especially are adjusted by the State to meet human needs and economic demands. “Production for use:” useful goods and services are produced specifically for their usefulness.

ECONOMIC SYSTEM

Capitalism: Market based economy combined with private or corporate ownership of the means of production. Goods and services are produced to make a profit, and this profit is reinvested into the economy to fuel economic growth.

Socialism: The means of production are owned by public enterprises or cooperatives, and individuals are compensated based on the principle of individual contribution. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets.

POLITICAL SYSTEM

Capitalism: Can co-exist with a variety of political systems, including dictatorship, democratic republic, anarchism, and direct democracy. Most capitalists advocate a democratic republic.

Socialism: Can co-exist with different political systems. Most socialists advocate participatory democracy, some (Social Democrats) advocate parliamentary democracy, and Marxist-Leninists advocate “Democratic Centralism.”

PRIVATE PROPERTY

Capitalism: Private property in capital and other goods is the dominant form of property. Public property and state property play a secondary role, and there might also be some collective property in the economy.

Socialism: Two kinds of property: Personal property, such as houses, clothing, etc. owned by the individual. Public property includes factories, and means of production owned by the State but with worker control.

 

OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE

Capitalism: The means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit. This drives incentives for producers to engage in economic activity. Firms can be owned by individuals, worker do-ops, or shareholders.

Socialism: The means of production are socially-owned with the surplus value produced accruing to either all of society (in public ownership models) or to all the employee-members of the enterprise (in Cooperative ownership models.)

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Capitalism: Classes exist based on their relationship to capital: the capitalists own shares of the means of production and derive their income in that way while the working class is dependent on wages or salaries. Large degree of mobility between the classes.

Socialism: Class distinctions are diminished. Status derived more from political distinctions that class distinctions. Some mobility.

FREE CHOICE

Capitalism: All individuals make decisions for themselves. People will make the best decisions because they must live with the consequences of their actions. Freedom of choice allows consumers to drive the economy.

Socialism: Religion, jobs, and marriage are up to the individual. Compulsory education. Free, equal access to healthcare and education provided through a socialized system funded by taxation. Production decisions driven more by State decision than consumer demand.

The above outline a few of the major differences between capitalism and socialism. Again, pure free market capitalism doesn’t exist on the planet. The United State, the United Kingdom, and Hong Kong are strongholds of capitalism.

With Bernie Sanders running for the Democrat nominee for president, front-runner Hillary Clinton has moved far left. Millennials are leaning toward socialism because they see our capitalistic economic system as one that benefits the wealthy. However, younger adults tend to be more idealistic, but tend to change as they mature and are able to view the world from a practical standpoint rather than an academic stand point.

It is my hope that American from the entire political spectrum will read this post and think hard and long about socialism. Is this something you really want because there is a good chance this country, built on the principals of capitalism and a free market will veer toward socialism if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders are elected President in 2016.

The contents of this article was mostly provided by diffen.com and your administrator’s personal opinions.

Facebooktwitter

SOCIALISM – PART ONE

The term, socialism, has been much bantered around since Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders became a candidate for president of the United States. According to dictionary.com, socialism is defined as a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Dictionary.com also states that socialism is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Senator Bernie Sanders’ party affiliation is listed as “Independent,” and he claims to be a Democrat socialist. He caucuses with the Democrats on Capitol Hill.

When I graduated from college, I was an obnoxious brat who thought I knew everything and I wanted everything right then. My mother tried to explain to me that I needed to start at the bottom, get my foot in the door, and work my way up. Do any of you want to take a guess as to who was right? I was a pill to deal with and sort of hate myself to this day for it.

The United States of America was founded on the principles of hard work and dedication. Every person in America would have the chance to succeed at his or her own level. If you desire to be the CEO of a large corporation with the corner office with a view, you would have the opportunity to make that happen. If your desire was to lead a simpler life, you were very much free to pursue that. Unfortunately, achievement of your goals is not guaranteed. In your pursuit of the corner office with a view, things can happen that prevent you from getting there. You may have to settle for a small office on the third floor with a view of the parking lot. Never-the-less, the opportunity is there. Furthermore, in the pursuit of your goals, you may be called upon to make difficult decisions that keep you from achieving your dreams. You may have to settle for less as a result of other factors in your life.

Having said all of the above, we all know that what’s worth having is worth working for. We most certainly appreciate those things that we have to work for. These things may include accumulating vacation days and sick days, a better than average health insurance plan, a nice automobile(s), a nice house, a vacation house(s), etc.

In campaigning, Bernie Sanders has promised free healthcare, free college tuition, paid family leave and other items that most of us are used to working for. To pay for all of this, he claims he can go after the billionaires in this nation and let them pay for all of the goodies he’s going to distribute to us. The health care will most certainly be a standardized, one size fits all. I’d rather choose my health plan according to what I can afford and what coverages I need. And I don’t want to have to purchase it through a government exchange. I want to handle it through the private sector.

As far as the free college tuition, what are the limitations going to be. Will students be able to choose where they attend college and the course of study they want to pursue? Or will the government direct this for the sake of social engineering? Will private colleges disappear? Will the funds distributed to the colleges by the government be enough to provide quality education to the students? We all know that Obamacare was not implemented so that those poor unfortunate souls who didn’t have health insurance could now have health insurance. It was implemented for the purpose of putting 1/6 of the economy under the government control. Liberals are already admitting this and telling those of us who were hurt by it that we’ll get used to it. According to Forbes, before the ACA was implemented, 17.87% of Americans were uninsured. Now that the ACA has been implemented, 14.22% of Americans are uninsured. This is a difference of 3.67 %. Worth destroying the best healthcare system on the planet? You tell me.

Back to socialism. The billionaires alone aren’t going to be able to pay for this and the implementation of these socialist programs is going to eliminate the billionaires. All classes will be taxed heavily. Sure, your education will be free, your healthcare will be free, and you will get a lot of paid time off from your job. But what are you going to do with all free time. Will you have any extra money left after the government takes its hefty share and you provide for your other basic needs to take a vacation and enjoy your time off? Will there be any room to stretch your wings and pursue your dreams? Also, what’s going to happen to small businesses?

One thing that particularly disturbed me during the Democrat debates was the promise that companies would be forced to share their profits with their employees. Many companies do this and I think that’s great. However, companies shouldn’t be forced into this. And what amount of profits is the government going to allow a company to keep? The above will surely result in fewer people willing to take chances because the government will squelch resultant prosperity. So why work your buns off and take risks if the government is just going to take it away from you in the form of taxes and re-distribution demands?

Socialism will punish achievement and put the screws to entrepreneurism. If you want to punish the billionaires, I guess socialism would be the way to do it. But what’s going to happen when we run out of other people’s money?

Facebooktwitter