Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Socialism category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category

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.

I know that it isn’t shocking to see a title claiming that Keith Ellison is a socialist. Still, what’s in this article is shocking.

The shock starts when it says “The object of the caucus is to not only answer questions about single-payer government-run health care for everyone, but also to campaign for the legislation to create it, HR676 and a companion bill from Sen. Bernie Sanders, Ind.-Vt. Those measures would replace the U.S.’s current, private jury-rigged high cost health care ‘system’ with federally run health care, eliminating the health insurance industry and other for-profit aspects of health care. ‘Profit must have no place in health care,’ Jayapal said.”

First, this should be a warning siren to Republicans. They’d better put aside their differences and vote. If they don’t totally swamp the polls, these idiots will try passing this crazy health care plan. And yes, they’re idiots. Anyone that thinks that “profit must have no place in health care” is an idiot and then some.

Without profit, nothing happens. Innovation is the first thing that stops. Efficiencies cease because the pay is the same whether they’re efficient or inefficient.

This is just part of the Democrats’ lunatic agenda. Based on their public statements, Democrats want to kill the American health care system entirely. They want to abolish ICE. Finally, they want to get rid of your tax cuts. Don’t believe me? Here’s what Nancy Pelosi said:

It’s pretty clear that Democrats think you’re keeping too much of the money you’re earning. It’s pretty clear that Democrats think that government, not families, do a better job of managing their health care needs. Finally, it’s pretty obvious that they think they know what’s best.

Sidenote on Ellison: It’s obvious that rational thought isn’t part of his DNA. There isn’t a single policy of his that could’ve passed when they had real legislators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Hubert Humphrey and other giants. Ellison is a mental midget.

It’s time for people to walk away from the Democratic Party. They’re the mean-spirited party, the hate-filled party. This is the agenda that Obama wanted to pursue but didn’t have the cajones to attempt. This should be ridiculed mercilessly:

Single-payer government-run health care will help end that problem by eliminating those costly middlemen, whose tab patients—or public hospitals such as Stroger—must foot, Jayapal said.

That’s right. Lazy government bureaucrats will take the place of the profit makers. Instead of the profit makers making profits and creating incentives for innovation, those government bureaucrats will take the profits, then give themselves bonuses.

Sound familiar? It should. That’s a description of the VA system from 4 years ago.

Last week, President Obama said anyone found to have manipulated or falsified Veterans Affairs records “will be held accountable,” even as he defended Shinseki.

A week later, Gen. Shinseki resigned in disgrace.

Whether you call it Medicare for All, VA Care for All or whether you call it a failed, corrupted system is irrelevant. Single-payer health care systems have never worked because they kill innovation while incentivizing corruption. The people at the top, aka those that play the role of the oligarchs, reap all the rewards.

Though these dipsticks don’t want to admit it, that’s how all systems operate. There’s corruption in every system. Pretending that government employees are somehow more virtuous than the rest of society is a fallacy. Milton Friedman explained that fact brilliantly in this interview:

Keith Ellison has announced that he’s running for Attorney General of Minnesota. Think about this — he thinks that white police officers are bigoted and don’t know it. He thinks that the VA hospital system as constructed a few years ago was patriotic and corruption-free. Now he’s telling us that getting rid of profits in the health care industry is the path to innovation and health care for all.

Which of these things sounds craziest? Good luck with that. I’ll be damned if I know which idea is craziest.

After reading Bernie Sanders’ op-ed, it’s impossible to take him seriously. The op-ed starts by saying “Over and over again, President Donald Trump tells us the U.S. economy is ‘absolutely booming,’ the ‘strongest we’ve ever had’ and ‘the greatest in the history of America’ thanks to his leadership and his leadership alone. Unfortunately, like virtually everything that comes out of his mouth, Trump is not being truthful with the American people.”

Actually, it’s Bernie who isn’t being truthful. If the middle class is doing so awful, why is consumer confidence as high as it’s ever been? If things are so bad for the middle class, why is black unemployment and Hispanic unemployment the lowest in history? If things are so tough on the middle class, why is the unemployment rate for women the lowest it’s been in 60+ years? Either Bernie things that there’s tons of African-American, Hispanic and female millionaires or the middle class is doing exceptionally well right now.

There’s no other explanation. Period.

The low unemployment rate is the good news. The bad news is that poverty in our country remains unacceptably high and tens of millions of Americans are struggling to keep their heads above water. Despite Trump’s $1.5 trillion tax giveaway to the wealthy and large corporations, wages for average workers have actually gone down, not up, by five cents an hour since June of last year after adjusting for inflation.

The good news about Bernie’s bad news is that poverty has dropped since President Trump took office. That’s an indisputable fact.

I wrote this post in March, 2016. According to the Minnesota State Demographer’s office, the poverty rate for Hibbing then was 20.6%. Today, the poverty rate for Hibbing is 18.2%. Further, the Median Household Income in 2016 was $38,112. Today, the MHI in Hibbing is $42,004. That’s a 10% increase in MHI in that city.

In addition, as the American middle class continues to collapse, the Federal Reserve reported that 40 percent of Americans lack $400 in disposable income to pay for an unexpected expense like a medical emergency or a car repair. The truth is that in America today, 43 percent of households live paycheck to paycheck and can’t afford to pay for their housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and their cell phone without going into debt.

What an idiot. The socialist policies of the Obama administration have led to a huge increase in the income gap. It always does wherever it’s tried. During the Obama administration, wages were stagnant. Under the Trump economic policies, wages are finally rising. They aren’t rising as much as we’d like to see but they are heading in the right direction.

Bernie Sanders’ op-ed is based on political ambition, not economic statistics. He can’t stand to admit that he’s just wrong. That’d destroy his (perceived) shot at the presidency. The truth is that he’s never had a legitimate shot at that office because he’s a whack job. In this rambling rant, Bernie Sanders displays just how ignorant he is:

This is embarrassing. I don’t want the Supreme Court involved in writing policy. I want them determining whether legislation conforms to the Constitution.

The Constitution, in its separation of powers clause, essentially said that the federal government can’t tell states what they have to spend money on. The principle is called commandeering. Sovereign states get to determine what things they want to spend their money on and how much money they want to spend on each line item.

In Bernie’s mind, the federal government should have the authority to tell states how the states should spend their money. In other words, Bernie thinks that the federal government should be able to tell independently elected individuals how to best represent people Bernie’s never met.

When Karin Housley visited St. Cloud Thursday, she brought a bold prediction with her.

During a visit to the Whitney Senior Center, Housley predicted “This is the year Minnesota’s turning red.” She then explained, saying that she “expects two U.S. House districts to flip in the state with incumbent DFLers Rep. Rick Nolan and Rep. Tim Walz retiring from Congress and running in gubernatorial races.”

I agree with both predictions. President Trump’s visit to Duluth to rally for Pete Stauber filled the arena with people. The ramp wasn’t just filled with cars. It was filled with people too. With a 4-way DFL primary set to determine who will face Stauber, expect that primary to beat each other up. I’m not sure if the DFL will be able to unite after that fight. I’d rate that race as leans GOP. As for Minnesota’s First District, the DFL doesn’t have a bench. Tim Walz was it. There’s a primary on the GOP side in MN-01 but there’s no signs of it getting bloody.

As for Sen. Housley, momentum keeps building, much of it due to the booming Trump/GOP economy. Liz Peek’s article highlights this beautifully:

President Trump wants you to quit your job! Well, not really; but the White House’s tax cuts and rollback of onerous regulations have encouraged millions of Americans to do just that. The economy is booming, opportunities are opening up all over the place, and workers are responding, by quitting in record numbers.

This may be bad news for Democrats hoping to take over Congress in November. They have no economic agenda that can compete with a buoyant jobs market that is making the American Dream come true.

Then comes the dagger:

But it is great news for American workers.

Tina Smith’s message is obstruction, resistance and socialism:

“The political revolution that Keith and I and others have talked about is not just a progressive agenda that speaks to the needs of working families, it is the need to create a national grassroots movement where ordinary people stand up to the billionaire class and take back this country,” Sanders said. “By electing Keith, and reelecting Tina and Amy [Klobuchar], you guys can help lead this country in that direction.”

Tina Smith’s socialist smile will turn upside-down when it’s revealed that she’s just another socialist who will do whatever Chuck Schumer wants her to do. Tina Smith wants to pretend to be a moderate. She isn’t:

Tina Smith rallied with Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison this week. If that’s her definition of moderation, I’m betting most Minnesotans will reject that definition. By rallying with Sanders and Ellison, Smith proved that she’s trying to appeal to everyone. Normally, that’s ok. This isn’t normally, though. She rallied with radicals from the #Resistance.

Meanwhile, Karin Housley can claim that she’d fight for Iron Rangers, the elderly and economic growth. Housley is smart, reasonable and has an overabundance of energy. She’s exactly the type of candidate that can defeat a check off the boxes candidate like Tina Smith.

The polls don’t show it yet but what’s likely going to help Republicans like Karin Housley and Pete Stauber are the Republicans’ closing arguments. The DFL doesn’t have a closing argument. All they have is #Resist and #AbolishICE.

Make no mistake about this. Bernie Sanders’ socialism isn’t mainstream like he claims. It’s more widely accepted amongst Democrats but it’s hardly mainstream. That’s why it’s difficult to imagine why Keith Ellison invited Bernie Sanders to campaign with him. Does Ellison still think that he’s running for election only in Minnesota’s Fifth District?

According to news reports, “U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is coming to Minnesota this week, bringing his firebrand progressive style, and some level of grassroots star power, to bear on the statewide race for attorney general. In events in Duluth and Minneapolis Friday, Sanders will stump for fellow liberal U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, who’s running in the Democratic primary for attorney general instead of re-election to his Minneapolis-based seat in the U.S. House.”

In ‘honor’ of the event, Doug Wardlow has put together a video that’s sure to get people’s attention. Check it out:

As nutty as that is, that isn’t the nuttiest thing Ellison has said recently. Check this out:

In other words, Democrats will consider impeaching Supreme Court justices if they retake control of the House. It doesn’t get much ‘fringier’ than that.

Radical DFL front organization TakeAction Minnesota has endorsed Erin Murphy in her campaign to be the DFL’s endorsed gubernatorial candidate.

TakeAction Minnesota’s endorsement starts by saying “Tonight, Rep. Erin Murphy, former MN House Majority Leader and DFL candidate for governor, was endorsed by TakeAction Minnesota, one of the state’s largest independent, multiracial political organizations. The Board of Directors ratified the endorsement recommendation made by TakeAction Minnesota members on Thursday night. ‘Erin is winning people over by being her authentic self and it’s downright inspiring. She has grassroots energy behind her and it’s growing,’ said Dan McGrath, executive director of TakeAction Minnesota. ‘Erin clearly shares our values and people can tell she genuinely cares about them. She has everything she needs to win statewide.”

It continued, saying “Murphy distinguished herself with TakeAction Minnesota members as a state legislator. She fought tirelessly beside grassroots leaders to save health care for tens of thousands of low-income Minnesotans and led the progressive caucus to pass marriage equality, ban the box legislation, and progressive economic policy. ‘Erin Murphy is incredibly passionate and authentic,” said Bahieh Hartshorn, a St. Paul resident, Political Healer, and co-chair of TakeAction Minnesota’s political committee. ‘It doesn’t matter who you are, Erin Murphy cares about every Minnesotan and sees each of us as whole human beings. Her spirit, combined with her bold progressive values, is unparalleled. We can’t wait to work alongside her.’ TakeAction Minnesota members participated in the endorsement process in the Twin Cities, St. Cloud, Duluth, and Grand Rapids. Our organization is comprised of 22 people’s organizations and 110,000 progressive supporters, leaders, activists, and members.”

Follow this link to read the list of Erin Murphy’s endorsements.

TAM, aka TakeAction Minnesota, is essentially a socialist organization. In a section titled Work & Wealth, we’re told “Our economy works when it serves the needs of people. Unfortunately, it has served us less and less well over the past few decades. The basic promise that working 40 hours per week would at least provide the basic necessities for your family—safe housing, enough food on the table, clothes for your kids with a little left over to save for college—has been steadily and repeatedly broken. We’ve shifted from a ‘Henry Ford’ economy where families were paid enough to afford the products they made to a ‘Sam Walton’ economy where families are paid so little they can barely afford the cheapest goods made overseas. Minnesotans need a new, more equitable economy if we hope to make our future fulfill the promises of our past.”

That’s what 21st Century socialism is sold as. A vote for Erin Murphy, Rebecca Otto or Tim Walz is a vote for full-fledged socialism.

This week, President Obama tried taking credit for what Maria Bartiromo has titled “the Trump Boom.” The truth is that President Obama’s policies have nothing to do with the reinvigorated economy. In fact, businesses are saying the opposite. According to Ms. Bartiromo, “Corporate earnings have risen and corporate behavior has changed, measured in greater capital investment. Businesspeople tell me that a new approach to regulation is a big factor. During President Obama’s final year in office the Federal Register, which contains new and proposed rules and regulations, ran to 95,894 pages, according to a Competitive Enterprise Institute report.”

These businesses certainly know why they’re doing what they’re doing. What they’re saying with their actions and their words is that President Obama’s regulatory policies stifled growth, not entirely but significantly, by adding tons of regulatory compliance costs. When capital formation shrinks, job creation shrinks, too.

Others have noticed that there’s been a change and have adjusted accordingly:

For the first time in a long time the world is experiencing synchronized growth, which is why Goldman Sachs and Barclays among others have recently predicted 4% global growth in 2018. The entire world benefits when its largest economy is healthy, and the vibrancy overseas is reinforcing the U.S. resurgence.

This paragraph is especially enlightening:

Much has changed this year. Companies from Broadcom to Boeing have announced they’ll move overseas jobs back to the U.S. American companies hold nearly $3 trillion overseas and may soon be able to bring that money home without punitive taxation. Businesses have begun to open up the purse strings, which is why things like commercial airline activity are rising substantially as executives seek new opportunities. Companies are looking to invest in growth.

Investing in growth requires employees participating in the rewards. When corporations get into ‘merger and acquisition mode’, employees suffer. It’s easier for companies to merge with foreign corporations, then get taxed at lower rates. Democrats can whine about them doing that but it’s their own fault. It’s easier to work with corporations than trying to punish them. The government never wins in those match-ups.

Obama recently said that President Trump doesn’t have an answer for how he’ll get the economy growing. Either Obama is an economic illiterate or he’s intentionally lying. President Trump’s answer is to lower taxes and reduce regulations. That facts speak for themselves. Economic growth has virtually doubled under Trump’s watch. Consumer confidence is soaring. Companies are moving back from overseas. Contrary to what President Obama said, this isn’t a coincidence:

Finally, there’s this:

The Federal Register page count is down 32% this year. Mr. Trump says red tape becomes “beautiful” when it is eliminated, and people who manage businesses certainly agree.

I’m not alone in thinking that Trump’s policies are working. I’m predicting that President Obama’s policies will be discredited within another year.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

State Auditor Rebecca Otto just proposed a state “price on carbon”, becoming the first gubernatorial candidate to propose a tax increase this campaign season. According to Ms. Otto, all “of the revenue from the tax would be returned to residents, both in direct payments and rebates, the campaign noted, so there’s no net cost to residents or the state’s economy.”

What Ms. Otto didn’t say is that she’d first steal the money from somewhere. It isn’t like a person can snap their fingers and make that money instantly appear. Instead, the “plan would charge fossil fuel companies a price for the carbon their products put into the atmosphere.” That isn’t the infuriating part, though. That comes when Ms. Otto says “Otto said her plans allows residents to make their own free market decisions about whether they want to pay for a product that pollutes the atmosphere or if they want to switch to clean energy. The plan calls for “quarterly clean energy cash dividends,” direct payments to residents of about $600 per year for each Minnesota resident. Some 25 percent of the revenue would fund ‘clean energy tax credits’ offering 30 percent back on the costs of electric cars, solar panels, heat pumps, home weatherization and other energy-saving devices.”

That isn’t how free markets work. Free markets don’t need to put a gun to a person’s head to get them to buy a product. What Ms. Otto describes is what I’d call crony capitalism, which is corporate welfare by a different name. It’s possible that that’s how a socialist might envision free market capitalism working.

Minnesotans will reject Otto the minute they hear this:

According to a 2013 report paid for by the National Association of Manufacturers, a Minnesota carbon tax would force state residents to pay up to 40 percent more for natural gas, 5 percent more for electricity and 20 cents more per gallon of gas. “The increased costs of these critical fuels will impact every person and business in Minnesota. … “Many Minnesota companies that compete internationally will be placed at a disadvantage as their foreign competitors operate without similar costs.”

This proposal is clearly meant to excite the DFL base. The good news for Republicans is that this decision essentially paints a bull’s-eye in the middle of Ms. Otto’s chest in terms of other voters.

Ms. Otto is fighting an uphill fight. That explains why she made this Hail Mary attempt. Finally, let’s take time to realize that Ms. Otto, like Gov. Dayton, isn’t a free market capitalist. She’s a socialist who has voted against a return to prosperity on the Iron Range. Then she tried leveraging that no vote with a fundraising appeal.