Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category

According to this article, enthusiasm is running high for what might be called the United Socialist States of America, aka USSA. That’s wishful thinking on the socialist activists’ part, in my opinion. Still, it’s worth noting that these activists’ enthusiasm is legitimate. It’s just that they’re overestimating their ability to persuade people into accepting their agenda.

Clearly, Bernie and AOC are the spiritual leaders of this movement. That doesn’t mean that they’ll soon dominate the entire political landscape. Their theories don’t play in real life. Socialism isn’t built on the notion of persuading people. It’s built on the notion of forcing people into doing things they don’t want to do.

For instance, Medicare-for-All is built on the premise that Bernie knows what’s best for all of us and that we should just listen to him because that’s what Bernie’s ideology dictates. It’s the opposite of capitalism. When the first iPhone hit the shelves, people wanted it so badly that they virtually flew off the shelves. Nobody forced customers to buy iPhones. People wanted them and bought them at unprecedented rates.

To stop this race-to-the-bottom cycle undercutting workers’ power and lay the groundwork for revolutionary change, we must erode the power of the capitalist class. We can accomplish that by, for example, imposing capital controls—measures that stop the free movement of capital in response to changing social and economic conditions. But to pass economic reforms as significant as these, we can’t just agitate in the streets, as important as that is. We have to be in power.

There you have it. The façade has been ripped off, the agenda exposed. This isn’t a debate over which ideas are best. In these socialist activists’ minds, that fight has been fought and the socialists won. Therefore, Democrats aren’t interested in debating. That’s why organizations like Antifa and Black Lives Matter were created.

They were created to intimidate, not persuade. With goal being to gain, then maintain, political power, the need to break down civil society is imperative. This is about ruling, not governing. If Republicans don’t figure that out ASAP, the socialists’ inroads will be too deep.

Fortunately, President Trump figured this out long ago. That’s why he told us in his 2019 State of the Union Address that the United States will never be a socialist nation:

Pundits are telling us that Bernie 2020 isn’t that much different than Trump 2016. I wholeheartedly disagree. The policies Bernie is espousing in 2020 are getting adopted by more and more Democrats but they still aren’t majority positions. The policies that President Trump espoused were majority positions, especially with Republicans but also with independents.

Voters will reject Bernie’s socialist policies. Thanks to Democrats challenging Biden, then Warren, then Bloomberg, Bernie’s policies haven’t gotten challenged. That’ll change the minute it’s a one-on-one fight with President Trump. President Trump won’t pull his punches like Warren, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Bloomberg and Biden have pulled their punches.

By the time President Trump’s haymakers start landing, Bernie won’t know how to hand them. By the time Bernie figures it out, it’ll be over except counting the votes. Fortunately, Democrats won’t be in charge of that.

Doug Schoen’s op-ed is a valiant attempt to prevent a major political trainwreck. That isn’t likely since Schoen admits that studying the New Hampshire Primary “results reveals a Democratic Party at war with itself.” It isn’t a stretch to say that uniting the Democratic Party is difficult. Later in his op-ed, Schoen talks about Bernie as a socialist, which he is, and the moderates running. It’s insulting to hear Democrats talking about moderates as Democrat presidential candidates.

Schoen’s boss, Michael Bloomberg, is running as a moderate. That’s BS on steroids. With all the attention paid to Bloomberg’s racist statements this week, it isn’t surprising that few people know that Bloomberg wants to blow up the economy.

This article, published by Bloomberg’s newspaper, highlights the fact that a Bloomberg administration would feature a $5,000,000,000,000 tax hike. According to the article, “Michael Bloomberg said Saturday he would raise taxes on the wealthy, increase the corporate tax rate, and curb tax-free inheritances of large estates, elements of a tax plan that he says would raise $5 trillion over a decade.”

Then there’s this:

Bloomberg’s plan serves to show how he’d pay for an array of proposed new spending initiatives, which so far top $3 trillion. But his campaign cautioned that the tax plan could still change as the former New York mayor rolls out even more policy plans in the near future.

TRANSLATION: Bloomberg’s tax hike might go higher if he tries buying more votes.

Later, Schoen wrote this:

Moreover, Bloomberg is working to do exactly what the Democratic Party needs to do, working to unite African American voters, Hispanic voters, White voters, progressives, moderates and voters with varying degrees of education, so that the Democratic movement against Trump spans wider than the party’s base.

What Schoen doesn’t admit is that President Trump has cut into huge parts of the Democrats’ base. By signing the First Step Act and by highlighting school choice, opportunity scholarships and Opportunity Zones, President Trump is cutting into the Democrats’ base of minority voters. Democrats aren’t proactively reaching out to minority communities. Instead, Democrats are taking these communities for granted.

The dirty little secret is that President Trump is uniting minority communities through prosperity opportunities. Mike Bloomberg’s $5,000,000,000,000 tax hike would kill those prosperity opportunities. Further, this segment, on CNN of all places, isn’t uniting Democrats:

Bloomberg’s long-held position on stop-and-frisk won’t unite Democrats. His #MeToo problems won’t unite Democrats, either. Bloomberg’s $5,000,000,000,000 tax hike will unite independents and Republicans. At this point, the economy is uniting people around President Trump. This is hilarious:

To counteract Trump’s relative strengths, it is critical that the Democratic Party coalesces around a cohesive, inclusive, pro-growth message centered on jobs, the economy, health care and advancing equality of opportunity, while also highlighting President Trump’s own policy failures in these areas.

What a joke. Most of the Democrats’ presidential candidates are socialists or a step removed from being socialists. There’s no such thing as pro-growth socialist economic policies.

I almost feel sorry for Schoen. That’s because he’s caught betwixt and between defending Bloomberg’s anti-capitalist tax policies, Bloomberg’s government-knows-best nanny state policies and Bloomberg’s gun control policies.

For about the past decade, Democrats have proposed economic policies that’ve been based on fairness rather than policies that add value to the economy. As a result, jobs have been lost. As a result, communities have been ruined and institutions have gotten injured.

One such example of wrong-headed economic thinking is the Democrats’ push to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr. Wherever it’s tried, it’s failed. It doesn’t bring me joy knowing that it’s failed in progressive Seattle. It’s just that it wasn’t surprising.

This city’s minimum wage is rising to $16.39 an hour on Jan. 1. Instead of receiving a bigger paycheck, I’m left without any pay at all due to the policy change. That’s because the restaurant where I’ve worked for six years is closing as a consequence of the city’s harmful minimum-wage experiment.

I work for Tom Douglas, one of the best-known restaurateurs in Seattle. Mr. Douglas is in many ways responsible for the city’s reputation as a foodie paradise, and he recently celebrated his 30th anniversary in business. He’s a great boss, and his employees tend to stay at the company for a long time.

But being an established chef and a good employer doesn’t save you from the burden of a sharp minimum-wage increase, up 73% from $9.47 in 2015. For large-scale employers like Mr. Douglas, there’s no separate rate for workers who earn tips. In Washington and a handful of other states, tips aren’t counted as income earned on the job. That means restaurateurs are expected to pay servers like me the full minimum wage in addition to our considerable tip income.

Eventually, capitalism slaps everyone in the face. The difference between socialism and capitalism is simple. Socialism just requires government’s brute force, usually in the form of intrusive regulations. A perfect example of this was the ACA’s individual mandate.

With the ACA, the government told people what’s best for their families. They’d never met these families so they didn’t actually know what was best for them. A small group of progressives disconnected from reality told the nation what’s best for them.

This small group of autocrats anticipated that their product wouldn’t go well so they created the individual mandate to force people into buying a product they didn’t want. That’s a picture of socialism.

With capitalism comes competition, innovation and outstanding products that people want to buy. Capitalism gave us the iPhone and iPads. Socialism gave us the ACA and the individual mandate.

When socialists took over city councils, they started implementing policies like the $15.00/hr. minimum wage, which immediately hurt the hospitality industry. This is the end result:

I’ve lived in this city for almost 20 years, supporting my family thanks to the full-service-restaurant industry. Today I’m struggling because of a policy meant to help me. I’m proudly progressive in my politics, but my experience shows that progressives should reconsider minimum-wage laws that hurt the very workers they’re trying to protect.

This election is a clash between good intentions vs. great results. Wouldn’t people want bulging checking accounts and fat 401(k)s rather than empty checking accounts?

This election, Democrats have to fight against a well-funded incumbent and top-tier congressional candidates preaching the gospel of capitalism and a roaring economy. Democrats have to defend policies like the Push for $15, California’s homelessness and decisions like impeachment.

The opening paragraph from Speaker Pelosi’s statement on the November jobs report indicts the Speaker. Here’s what she said:

Despite some encouraging numbers, the November jobs report offers little solace to the farmers and hard-working families who are struggling to stay above water with the costs of living rising and uncertainty surging.

If she’s so worried about “farmers and hard-working families”, why hasn’t she brought USMCA up for a vote yet. For over a year, Ms. Pelosi has said that a) USMCA would be easy to pass and b) she was working her way to yes on ratifying it. Simply put, she’s failed farmers. Ms. Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats have been more interested in impeaching a president who has created 7,000,000 jobs since taking office less than 3 years ago.

Ms. Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats unanimously voted against the Trump-GOP tax cuts that have lit a fire under this economy. These Do-Nothing Democrats voted against eliminating the Obama administration’s regulations that would’ve killed the fossil fuel industry. In short, Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats have stood in the way of pretty much every Trump administration plan that’s produced this prolific economy.

Thus far, the Trump administration’s record includes the lowest unemployment rate in half a century, the lowest black unemployment rate and the lowest Hispanic unemployment rate ever, the lowest unemployment rate for women since WWII, rising wages, improving workforce participation rate and soaring consumer confidence. That’s what Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats voted against.

Getting lectured by Ms. Pelosi about “struggling” farmers and manufacturers is insulting. Ms. Pelosi’s focus on impeachment has prevented her from reaching yes on USMCA. She can complain all she wants about the 275 bills waiting for Senate action but that’s bad-faith whining. Why should we trust a caucus of Do-Nothing Democrat Socialists who voted against the policies that built this fantastic economy? This sums things up perfectly:

“What a contrast? A great economy, terrible politics.”

Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats haven’t helped with anything. They’ve focused on impeachment, not the economy. They haven’t lifted a finger to close the asylum loopholes or the immigration system. The 275 bills are meaningless. It’s time for Democrats to focus on what’s important instead of focusing on appeasing their special interest base.

Let’s be blunt about something. Today’s collegiate-aged socialists aren’t too bright. Let me rephrase. A high percentage of them are downright stupid. Even more are historically ignorant. Victor Davis Hanson’s latest article offers proof of that accusation.

Progressive elitism is best seen on college campuses, where tuition costs rise at higher rates than everything except health insurance premiums after passage of the ACA. Meanwhile, the students’ bang-for-their-buck-ratio hasn’t positively increased in ages. That’s directly attributable to the ratio of junk degrees to worthwhile degrees. That, in turn, has led to mountains of student loan debt. Let’s pick up Prof. Hanson’s article at that point:

College-educated Americans collectively owe an estimated $1.5 trillion in unpaid student loans. Many of these debtors despair of ever paying the huge sums back. Canceling debt is an ancient socialist rallying cry. Starting over with a clean slate appeals to those “oppressed” with college loans.

A force multiplier of debt is the realization that many students borrowed to focus on mostly irrelevant college majors. Such degrees usually offer few opportunities to find jobs high-paying enough to pay back staggering obligations.

In other words, the federal government spent too many advertising dollars insisting that students would face desolation with degrees from 4-year universities. As a direct result of that dishonesty, students took out billions of dollars in student loans for Masters Degrees in Social Responsibility or one of the complaint degrees. (Think anything with the word Studies behind it.)

There’s a way to eliminate these degrees but it requires a spine, either from politicians or administrators or both. In other words, what’s required falls on the shoulders of students and parents because relying on politicians and pointy-headed academicians is foolish. The best way to prevent the elimination of $1,500,000,000,000 in student loan debt is by telling high school students that there are tons of great jobs paying lots of money that a) don’t require college degrees and that b) won’t require taking out $100,000 in student loans.

Just to stick the shiv in a little deeper, remind them of Cousin Alan, who graduated with a degree in Social Justice, has $75,000 in outstanding student loans and who now flips burgers at McDonalds for $8.50/hr.

Thanks to this strong Trump economy, lots of students with tons of student loan debt can find jobs that will pay off their loans faster. I’m serious when I say “Good for them.” I literally want everyone prospering. The difference between me and Democrat elitists like Elizabeth Warren is that I don’t care if there’s a disparity between what they make & what I make. Income inequality isn’t that big of a deal as long as I have a roof over my head, food to eat and enough to enjoy life a little.

Socialists haven’t figured out that socialism is a con. It sounds good but it fails every time it’s tried. At some point, shouldn’t socialists realize that they’re playing a rigged game? The game is rigged because, with socialism, there isn’t a middle class, which means there isn’t upward mobility. Whether you’re talking about the Iron Range in northeastern Minnesota or the former Soviet Union, socialism requires a system where there are oligarchs and there are poor people and nobody in between. Put differently, with socialism, you have 2 classes: the haves and the have nothings.

Finally, voting for Democrats isn’t the solution, as shown in this interview:

Voting Democrat to solve the problem is like hiring an arsonist as a consultant to the fire department. It’s outright stupidity.

Frank Luntz was in the debate hall for both nights of the Democrats’ presidential debates. To be honest, I thought that the supposed frontrunners sounded like idiot bomb-throwers while the lower tier candidates sounded reasonable in some instances. In this situation, reasonable is a relative term. Think John Hickenlooper, John Delaney, Michael Bennet.

I wouldn’t put Joe Biden in that category. At one point, Biden said “I am the only candidate whose plan limits the insurance companies from charging unreasonable prices. We should put some of these insurance executives who oppose my plan in jail for the 9,000,000,000 opioids they sell out there.”

Notice how Biden started by saying that “insurance executives who oppose [his] plan” should get thrown in prison before catching himself and mentioning opioids. Before that, Biden said that his plan “limits the insurance companies from charging unreasonable prices.” Who determines what’s unreasonable? The government? Once the government is the arbiter of what’s too expensive, what effects will that have on insurance companies? Has Biden thought about that? I’m betting he hasn’t.

So we supposedly have a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. Frank Luntz thinks that that fight is over:

Luntz is right. This fight is over. At the first Democrat debate, every Democrat presidential candidate raised their hands when asked if they’d decriminalize illegally entering the United States. Listen to the ferocious reaction of the audience when attacking CEOs and corporations. Notice how far left Democrats have gone with illegal immigration. Changing it from a criminal charge to a civil fine is like sending out a notice that a small fine will be imposed for illegally entering the United States. That would open the floodgates and then some. People wouldn’t need to game the asylum system. They could just pay a fine, then become a legal resident of the US. Tell me the difference between that and open borders.

The Democratic Party of Bill Clinton is dead. Based on the criticism against President Obama, I could make a strong argument that the Democratic Party of President Obama is in hospice and fading fast. I’m not certain that the Democratic Party as it exists today will exist in 15 years.

I don’t have a problem with the SCTimes publishing this LTE. What I’ve got a problem with is the liberal stupidity in this LTE.

Liberal stupidity, aka DFL stupidity, is on full display when the author says the “problem with Jerry Relph and his Republican colleagues in the Minnesota Senate is that they completely ignore what income and wealth Minnesotans are creating and simply assume that none of us can afford to pay anything more in taxes.”

That’s BS. I wrote several articles over the weekend stating that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to raise taxes when there’s a surplus well in excess of $1,600,000,000 and there’s $2,523,000,000 in Minnesota’s Rainy Day Fund. Further, revenues are rapidly increasing. Further still, the DFL hasn’t lifted a finger to look into the money that fraudsters have ripped off out of the CCAP program or that the idiots at MnDOT have pissed away on rest stops.

While it is true that many Minnesotans have not had a real increase [inflation-adjusted] in wages in many years, there are some that are reaping huge rewards from our collective efforts.

Some blatantly argue “tax the rich.” I’m not saying that. I’m saying don’t assume that no one has made money from our state when some have made a lot. Look at who is making money and make them pay their fair share in light of what they are making. When Republicans like Jerry Relph refuse to make wealthier Minnesotans pay their fair share, it unfairly burdens everyone else.

Clearly, this idiot was taught economics by Bernie Sanders or one of his stooges. Ronald Reagan’s economy created tons of jobs, 22,000,000 to be precise. In Oct. of 1983, the economy created 1,100,000 jobs. Wage growth exploded. GDP that quarter jumped. President Reagan famously said that you can’t be pro-jobs if you have employers. The DFL hates employers.

The DFL hates employers by imposing high taxes and unreasonable levels of regulations while suing pipeline companies that play by the rules. No wonder wages are stagnant. No wonder why manufacturers have left Minnesota. What idiot would put his/her capital at risk with such policies in place? The guy who wrote this idiotic LTE should’ve watched this video first:

If he’d watched this video first, he might’ve prevented himself from making such a fool of himself. Then again, the odds of preventing DFL socialists from looking like DFL socialists are exceptionally high. DFL socialists are extraordinary economic illiterates.

If you didn’t see Outnumbered this morning, you missed Marie Harf throwing one Democrat under the bus after another. During Harf’s attempt to minimize Ocasio-Cortez’s frequent mistakes, she threw Rep.-Elect Cortez, DNC Chair Cortez and the media wing of the Democratic Party under the bus in a 4-minute video.

That being said, Kennedy’s statements stole the show for that segment. She started by saying that “It’s the downfall of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, because it’s built on a foundation of yogurt. It’s incredibly problematic because she doesn’t have a working knowledge of basic economics. Socialism is an economic system. You have to have an economic argument in order to a) sell it and b) make it work. She can’t do either because she doesn’t understand how the world works, how people make money, how money is created and the creation of money is actually a positive sum effort when more people thrive when more people make money.”

Republicans should understand that just highlighting the fact that Democrats are becoming more socialist by the month won’t help them win back suburban voters. They need to highlight how socialist policies have failed in the past, then highlight how true capitalism, not crony capitalism, has succeeded. Highlight the fact that legitimate capitalism incentivizes everyone to make profits while crony capitalism picks winners and losers based on connections, not innovation and the ability to recognize markets.

Here’s the video of the segment:

Make sure to watch the entire thing. It’s priceless, especially Ari Fleischer’s comments at the end on why Ocasio-Cortez is getting so much coverage.

I don’t think I’m outlandish in saying that the Democrats’ economic plan is short on growth and heavy on regulations and socialism.

For instance, the “presumptive incoming speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has vowed to pass this wage floor [$15 minimum wage] in the first 100 hours of the new Congress.” Why would she do this?

Even in wealthy Seattle, which passed a $15 minimum wage in 2014, independent researchers at the University of Washington revealed that entry-level jobs and hours worked fell as a direct consequence. As a result of reduced hours, entry-level wages actually fell by $1,500 a year, on average. A minimum wage increase that reduces wages? Just more proof that you can’t fight economics. If the $15 fallout was this bad in Seattle, think of the consequences to Main Street and entry-level employees in poorer cities such as Shreveport, Sioux Falls and South Bend.

Voting Democrat is voting against pro-growth economic policies. That isn’t to say that all Democrats are illiterate when it comes to economics. My point is that people like Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other progressive/socialist hardliners, where the energy in the Democratic Party is, hate pro-growth policies.

Hardline progressives/socialists see economics upside-down. They don’t get it that cutting taxes increases economic activity. These Democrats don’t understand that cutting regulations increases an entrepreneur’s incentive to start a new business. For that matter, only entrepreneurs notice that regulations prevent new businesses from starting.

This fall, the one thing I thought was missing was that Republicans didn’t make the case in specific enough terms of how voting for Democrats would hurt economic growth. This video is from 3 years ago:

The path to higher wages is through business-friendly policies. President Reagan, as he frequently did, put it best when he said that that you can’t pro-jobs and anti-employer. When President Obama raised corporate taxes, corporations left for other countries. In that instance, ‘fairness’ hurt American workers.

Why shouldn’t we learn that dramatically raising the minimum wage hurts everyone? Seattle’s increase to $15/hr. only increased automation while shrinking working hours. That’s rather counterproductive.

The Democrats’ economic blueprint is a blueprint for stagnation.

The biggest difference between Democratic socialism and progressivism is the spelling of the words. According to Wikipedia’s definition of Democratic socialism, Democratic Socialists “hold that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality, and solidarity; and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realization of a socialist society.”

By contrast (?), progressives believed “that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations; and intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists.”

During his prolific life, Milton Friedman vehemently disagreed with both economic philosophies. In fact, he wrote a book about it titled Capitalism & Freedom. In the book, Dr. Friedman argued that “with the means for production under the auspices of the government, it is nearly impossible for real dissent and exchange of ideas to exist.”

In this interview, which I’ve posted often, Friedman schools Phil Donahue on the virtues of capitalism vs. socialism:

The point behind this is that Democrats are trying to pretend that they’re progressives, not socialists. Is there a difference between single-payer health care of Bernie Sanders and the “universal coverage” of Tim Walz? I wouldn’t bet on it. If there is a difference, it’d be miniscule.

The other point I want to make is that the economy is running strong right now. Why screw it up? That’s what a Speaker Pelosi would do. I know that because that’s what she did the first time she was Speaker. It didn’t take long for the economy to shrink. It took only a little longer for President Obama’s Democratic Socialists to implement Obamacare.

Thankfully, the American people came to their senses and got rid of Obama’s and Pelosi’s stupidity. Now, the economy is growing, people are finding the jobs they want and their 401(k)s are growing, especially if they’re invested in the NASDAQ.