I don’t know why my morbid curiosity drove me to watch the Democrats debate last night, but it did. I was duly appalled by the utter lack of reality and truth from all except one candidate and I’d never even heard of Jim Webb before last night. Cheering for socialist Bernie Sanders, REALLY?
If only the democrats who think that these far left candidates will benefit them would go to a socialist country. Investigate the realities of socialist, (or the more modern term “progressive”) health care. The wealthy come to a country where they can access capitalist healthcare and the others die waiting. Look at the vermin infested government housing that is given equally, (oh, so equally) to the citizens. Listen to the citizens explain how they are near starving because even though they go to work in their socialist factory job making sub-standard products, they are paid only sporadically. In Ukraine, where they still struggle to recover from being part of the Soviet Union, many months might pass without a paycheck even though the workers do work full time. Corruption is rampant and unapologetic. This is where Socialist policies lead. Every time. Countries that have democratic socialism are better in exact scale to how much freedom they still have. Before you tout Sweden’s healthcare, research the facts involved. It’s a nightmare to citizens.
But more to the point about the debate, the promises mounted: Free college! Free healthcare! More money for seniors! Subsidies for illegal immigrants! Free daycare! FREE FREE FREE.
They’re going to make the billionaires pay for it.
There are 545 billionaires currently in the USA. If you combined ALL of their net worth and stripped ALL of them of every penny, you could pay our CURRENT national budget from January to August (before you add any more freebies.)
But a billionaire doesn’t have billions of dollars, he has billions of dollars WORTH of property and businesses. So to pay for the programs Dems propose for part of one year, you’d have to first take everything those billionaires have, liquidate it, and then spend it on colleges and other goodies.
Many millions of people would be unemployed as a result of the liquidations.
After a few months, you’re out of money and you’re out of billionaires. So, my dear Hillary, or Bernie or possibly Joe, what then?
You’ve given free college, free healthcare, free food, lodging, phones, transportation, for a few months. They liked it! They’re not going to vote for you again if you can’t keep on delivering it.
If you print more money you will certainly collapse an unstable economy.
If you tax the middle class, you’re breaking your promises (oops, the middle class were going to get tax breaks by grabbing those billionaires’ money, too.)
You’ll equalize the wealth in this country all right. Unfortunately you’re going to have to use the lowest common denominator. You’ll make beggars out of everyone without anyone to respond to the cardboard, “will work for food” signs.
Worse yet, what if the terrorist are emboldened by your weak quibbling foreign policy and launch wide spread attacks?
What if there are a few major disasters on your watch?
What if the earth starts warming again, (it hasn’t actually showed signs of warming in 18 years) causing widespread famine here in our land? Just how do you go about legislating food that does not exist?
Poor Hillary! She’ll be fresh out of billionaires!
Oh well. Let them eat cake!
7 Comments
Knowing you, I find your rant interesting. I had a discussion in my policy and politics class last week on the term “socialism”. People in the US tend to conflate this with evil, communism, and, alas, democrats. However, the US practices many aspects of socialism with public schools, community police and fire protection, armies, and even churches. Then in the LDS Church there is a tension between the “boot-strappers” and the “united order” brethren. Clearly, our beliefs teach us to take care of the poor and needy. The issue is how can we fairly provide critical services to give all of the citizens a fair chance. This is especially true for healthcare and education. I think the US is heading the wrong way in both of these areas.
Having traveled a lot (I have now hit my 30th country) and worked in healthcare for over 40 years and higher education for 25. The US costs are the highest in the world, our preventive care is some of the worse. Yes, if you have money we do provide some of the best tertiary care, but at what cost? Likewise, our education costs are becoming out of control. Student debt exceeds credit card debt. As a result, our society is becoming more and more inequitable and unfair. I think our Elder Brother would be very sad that we continue to have a government that favors the rich and denigrates the poor.
What are the solutions? I think a middle ground needs to be found. The Republican candidates are mostly crazy or in debt to the billionaires and the Democrats have proposals that are not politically feasible. What we do need is a more civil discourse to address the real issues and not degenerate into hyperboles and semi-name calling.
You are right, Steve. Thanks for a thoughtful reply. Thanks also for identifying your background so that readers that don’t know you, know whereof you speak. My post is intended to point out that the goodies proffered in the Democratic debate are impossible. Their rhetoric is intended to buy votes. In answer to “where’s the money coming from?”, their response is to incite jealousy and class warfare, banking on the expectation that their freebee-desiring audience has no idea of the cost involved and will believe that greedy billionaires can and should pay for their stuff.
Government charities are like building a tower of Babel. It doesn’t matter how high and broad it is, it will never get anyone to heaven. They support the more subtle evil of convincing people that it is a substitute for their own generosity. There is only virtue in the individual commitment to care for the needy, naked, homeless, ignorant, hungry and helpless. Indeed, the socialistic policies already in place in the USA create a top heavy bureaucracy that costs far, far more than it needs to. It is a massive swindle that essentially robs the poor. If the billions and billions of bureaucratic dollars went directly to the needy, the problems would be solved long ago. The American hyper-medical regulation creates tremendous additional expense and fosters lawsuits which often prevents the wise practice of medicine. Deregulation and legal protection to practitioners would benefit our society far far more than it would harm it through malpractice. A similar massive waste is present in public education.
I truly believe that if all the entitlement programs in the country were instantly crossed off the budget, generous citizens would organize in the Churches and the families and take care of the truly needy. The able-bodied would look for better solutions to their problems.
As far as education goes, the states would be well served to increase these new programs that reward and rescue kids to help them through high school. The poorest cultures in America discourage education. No social programs will ever work until the basic morality of the society heals the family so that children have what they need to succeed.
The honest issue is not college tuition for the poor, it’s getting them to a place where they desire it and are prepared to benefit from it. The more local the responsibility for strengthening families, the cheaper and better suited education is.
BYU offers one of the very most affordable quality educations in the country. Kids can work their way through college without debt if they want to, at least through the undergrad level. It is supported by the charity and virtue of generous people and the wise management of those funds. Indeed, if the government ended all entitlement programs, churches would step in to fill the void FAR more efficiently. Local people working with local needs is the ONLY solution. Only on a local level do people have access to the roots of the problems. When individuals in a society are not charitable, the society destroys itself. The United Order practiced briefly in the 1830’s was a remarkable failure. You can’t legislate virtue. You seem to equate community effort with socialism and perhaps in the purest form that’s true. But people are basically self serving and self interested. Pure socialism or consecration only works when only virtuous people are involved. No society maintains such a government for long. Socialism quickly devolves into the greedy powerful oppressing the weaker members of society. Current government programs merely give the appearance of a compassionate society with none of the associated virtue. Blessings can only come to a society when righteousness is the foundation for the system and righteous people make it work through their universally self-less generosity.
What a plesuare to meet someone who thinks so clearly
IMHO you’ve got the right answer!
Geez, that’s unbelievable. Kudos and such.
At last! Something clear I can unnsteradd. Thanks!
Yeah, as silly as it is you’re made leader immediately, Preston is pretty open about the fact that he’s a follower and not a