Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category
WCCO-TV is reporting that organized protests stopped traffic on I-94 for almost an hour Thursday night. According to WCCO, “more than 3,600 people were expected for the march Thursday night from the University of Minnesota’s West Bank campus through the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood.” Later in the article, WCCO-TV reported that Robin Wonsley was one of the protest organizers.
Ms. Wonsley is quoted as saying “For 18 months this man has ignited bigotry and racism, Islamophobia, sexism … saying he’s going to implement and bring forth policies that are going to reflect those values and that rhetoric. That is what Americans are afraid of right now.”
This video shows how disruptive these protesters are:
According to this article, Wonsley is a far left lefty:
“We are not defeated right now,” said Robin Wonsley, an organizer with the Socialist Alternative MN group, which helped to set up the protest and spread word about it on Facebook.
Here’s more on Socialist Alternative:
Socialist Alternative is a national organization fighting in our workplaces, communities, and campuses against the exploitation and injustices people face every day. We are community activists fighting against budget cuts in public services; we are activists campaigning for a $15 an hour minimum wage and fighting, democratic unions; we are people of all colors speaking out against racism and attacks on immigrants, students organizing against tuition hikes and war, women and men fighting sexism and homophobia.
We believe the Republicans and Democrats are both parties of big business, and we are campaigning to build an independent, alternative party of workers and young people to fight for the interests of the millions, not the millionaires.
We see the global capitalist system as the root cause of the economic crisis, poverty, discrimination, war, and environmental destruction. As capitalism moves deeper into crisis, a new generation of workers and youth must join together to take the top 500 corporations into public ownership under democratic control to end the ruling elites’ global competition for profits and power.
We believe the dictatorships that existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were perversions of what socialism is really about. We are for democratic socialism where ordinary people will have control over our daily lives.
When the first rumor got out that Jason Lewis was thinking about running for John Kline’s seat, the DFL’s opposition research staffers must’ve smiled for a week. As a former radio talk show host, and a provocative, feisty one at that, Lewis certainly wasn’t a stranger to controversy. It isn’t a stretch to think that the DFL will deploy their war-on-women chanting points if Lewis is the GOP candidate in Minnesota’s Second District.
Let’s hope that they do.
In 2014, I wrote more than a few articles about Mark Udall’s re-election campaign against Cory Gardner. This article, in particular, highlights the fruitlessness of deploying the war-on-women tactic. Sen. Udall used those chanting points too often, leading the Denver post to nickname him Mark Uterus in their article endorsing Sen. Gardner.
The candidate most likely to win the DFL’s endorsement is Angie Craig. Based on her issues page, she sounds like a well-financed, cookie cutter progressive. After watching her debate on Almanac, I’m convinced that that’s who she is. She’s great at reciting her lines but thinking on her feet isn’t a strength.
Make High Quality Public Education and Debt-Free College Our Highest Priorities
In other words, she’s a Bernie Sanders socialist. Either that or a Hillary Clinton socialist. (It’s difficult to distinguish between them.)
Build a Sustainable Economy and Create Meaningful, Good-Paying Jobs
Thank God for Ms. Craig for reminding us that government creates jobs:
Let’s support and reward businesses that create jobs and invest in infrastructure and research and development in America.
I’ve got a better idea. How about getting government out of the way and let businesses do what they naturally do. Like most socialists, Ms. Craig apparently thinks that companies don’t invest in their businesses or R & D. It’s clear that Ms. Craig has never seen this video:
Dr. Friedman was right in saying that “the world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way.”
While there’s no question that Minnesota’s Second District isn’t as conservative as it was before redistricting, there’s no question that it’s suddenly a liberal district that will support a socialist. Without interfering in the race, the fact is that Jason Lewis would light this socialist-in-training like a Christmas tree.
Conn Carroll’s article is frightening. Check this out:
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday that President Obama is “very interested” in the idea of raising taxes through unilateral executive action.
“The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans,” Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action.
“Now I don’t want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of,” Earnest continued. “But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally,” Earnest finished.
The thought that President Obama “has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities” on raising taxes without congressional approval is proof that he’s either a scofflaw or he isn’t the constitutional scholar he claims he is. Here’ the text of the heart of Article 1, Section 7:
SECTION. 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Article 1 of the Constitution deals exclusively with the Legislative Branch’s authorities and responsibilities. Here’s the only time anyone from the executive branch is mentioned in Article 1:
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
If it took President Obama’s team more than 15 minutes to determine “the array of executive authorities that are available to him” for unilaterally raising taxes, then they’re illiterate.
A first-year law student knows that the Executive Branch doesn’t have any authority to raise taxes, especially unilaterally.
The thought that a Democrat US senator sent President Obama a letter “imploring the Obama administration” to raise taxes through executive action is proof that Democrats hate the Constitution. President Obama’s overreaches have repeatedly gotten shot down unanimously by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Democrats have sat quietly on the sidelines without dissenting.
The Democrats’ silence is deafening.
Scott Gottlieb’s post about HealthCare.gov’s conversion rates contains some dry reading but it contains an interesting tidbit. First, a little background to the interesting tidbit:
The day the Obamacare data was released, I was coincidentally meeting with Jonathan Bush, the CEO of Athena Health. So I put the question of conversion rate to him, since he sells a specialized service into the healthcare space. He said that the conversion rate for Athena’s web site, for doctors who visit the site to evaluate Athena’s suite of services and then make a purchase, is 22%.
According to HHS’s own statistics, the conversion rate for HealthCare.gov is 5%. Here’s the interesting tidbit:
The problem is that the Obamcare plans aren’t attractive to consumers. They were designed in Washington to suit political prerogatives rather than being designed in the marketplace to meet the demands of consumers. They’re laden down with costly mandates that leave the products too expensive. The plans try and make up for these costs by using narrow networks of cheap doctors and closed drug formularies.
That’s what happens when government demands socialist policies but families require free market capitalism solutions. While that doesn’t mean much in the short term, it puts the ACA behind the proverbial 8-ball in the long-term. Fighting against the will of the people is a sucker’s bet that the administration will lose. It’s inevitable. People want what they want. Markets respond to what people want, although it isn’t a stretch to say that governments don’t rooutinely respond to what people want.
Here’s what Robert Laszewski said about the Affordable Care Act:
If an entrepreneur had crafted Obamacare he would’ve gone to a middle class family. A family of four make(s) $54,000 a year has to pay $400 in premiums net of subsidy and for that the standard silver plan has an average deductible around $2,500 and a narrow network. They’re going to pay almost $5,000 for that? So the entrepreneur would say I’ve got $5,000 in premium and all this deductible, what do they want for that? And they probably would’ve said we want office visits and lab tests because the kids need to go in occasionally and then we want catastrophic care. The problem with Obamacare is it’s product driven and not market driven. They didn’t ask the customer what they wanted.
Telling families what they want is foolish. It’s like telling American families that they don’t like a gas-using sedans, that they’d rather buy a Volt. How’d that work out?
Here’s another of Mr. Laszewski’s opinions:
I think that’s the fundamental problem with Obamacare. It meets the needs of very poor people because you’re giving them health insurance for free. But it doesn’t really meet the needs of healthy people and middle-class people.
That’s tough criticism but it’s fair criticism. People are staying away in droves. There’s a reason for that. It’s likely that families went shopping but didn’t find products or prices they liked.
That’s what happens when people design things without listening to the people they’re selling the product to.
Back in the day, Rolling Stone was a fun magazine to read. With the march of time, though, it’s turned itself into a leftist propaganda rag. Check out the goals that it embraces in an op-ed:
Guaranteed Work for Everybody
Social Security for All
Take Back The Land
Make Everything Owned by Everybody
A Public Bank in Every State
Here’s one of the silly things this Occupy Wall Street activist said:
Put another way: A universal basic income, combined with a job guarantee and other social programs, could make participation in the labor force truly voluntary, thereby enabling people to get a life.
That’s what a total unicornist sounds like. This is another thing that the unicornist/socialist said in the article:
Imagine a world where people could contribute the skills that inspire them, teaching, tutoring, urban farming, cleaning up the environment, painting murals, rather than telemarketing or whatever other stupid tasks bosses need done to supplement their millions.
Let’s eliminate the euphemisms from the paragraph. Here’s what it would say:
Imagine a world where people could do the things they want rather than doing things that add value to society and the economy. Imagine if I didn’t have to care what was important to productive people who’ve made money by creating products that people actually wanted. Imagine getting paid to do whatever I want and to not do anything I don’t want to do.
Megyn Kelly and Ben Shapiro took the time to ridicule this clown:
One thing, though, shouldn’t be ignored:
If that idea, or any of the others described in this piece, sounds good to you, there’s a bitter political struggle to be waged. Let’s get to work.
Yes, this guy is a crackpot. Yes, his ideas would fail if implemented. Yes, he has the intellectual heft of hand lotion. All that aside, the part to take seriously is that this is just an extremist’s rant on the emerging Democratic campaign theme. NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio talked about addressing the non-issue of income inequality at his inauguration. Sen. Chuck Schumer, (D-NY), told George Stephanopoulos that Democrats would run on the issue of income inequality. (That’s because they’re running away from Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act the rest of this year.) President Obama said that addressing income inequality will be featured in his State of the Union Address.
When Democrats talk about income inequality, they’ll be thinking of activists like this unicornist as being the foot soldiers for the cause. That’s a pretty frightening thought.
Sen. Franken has said some outrageous things in office. At this point, I’m not surprised at Sen. Franken’s outrageous statements. I’m more surprised when he makes a sensible statement. Sen. Franken’s quote in this article is indicative of what type of senator he is:
U.S. Sen. Al Franken, who is running for re-election next year, said he was still reviewing the details of the president’s proposal to determine whether it’s sufficient.
“But I believe it’s a step in the right direction and I hope it will help those Minnesotans whose plans were cancelled,” he said.
That’s proof that Sen. Franken, first and foremost, is an Obama apologist. President Obama’s ‘fix’ is a political gimmick. It isn’t a serious policy adjustment.
First, partisans like Howard Dean knows that President Obama doesn’t have the constitutional authority to unilaterally rewrite laws. Either Sen. Franken doesn’t respect the Constitution’s separation of powers or that point escaped him. It’s troubling that a U.S. senator is either disinterested in the Constitution or is utterly incompetent.
Second, state insurance commissioners had said that they wouldn’t approve the re-instatement of the old plans that don’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s minimum requirements. President Obama’s fix is a gimmick that serious people have already dismissed. Don’t Minnesotans have the right to expect Sen. Franken to act in their best interest rather than playing the role of President Obama’s apologist?
Third, this shows how little Sen. Franken understands how businesses function, especially those that deal with actuarial data. Insurance premiums aren’t determined by guesses. They’re calculated, then examined for accuracy, then double-checked to make sure the math is rock solid. Apparently, Sen. Franken thinks that an insurance company can pull a new policy together without first calculating the risks and the demographics.
Fourth, Sen. Franken said that he “hopes” this will help Minnesotans. That would require putting specific policies together, then getting the insurance commissioner to approve the new policy offerings. That’s before considering the fact that 140,000 Minnesotans need that insurance in place by January 1, 2014. That’d effectively give insurance companies about a week to pull their part off while giving insurance commissioners another week to approve those policies. If that happens, which isn’t a guarantee, then customers would have about 2 weeks to find a plan, then purchase it.
Even Mary Poppins couldn’t get Minnesotans to swallow that nonsense.
The first thing I though after reading this editorial was “Thank God this guy isn’t a professor. The next thing I thought was “This guy needs a dictionary.” Here’s the first thing Alan Davis said in his editorial that caught my attention:
Lately, many of my Fargo-Moorhead neighbors of all political persuasions have expressed outrage because radical GOP socialists from out of state are spending millions of dollars to attack moderates like Heidi Heitkamp, Amy Klobuchar and President Barack Obama. (See “National conservative group launches anti-Heitkamp ad,” Forum, April 29.)
Patriots like Heitkamp, Klobuchar and Obama have the backs of all of us who are conservative. Why are they under attack?
The GOP socialists have an agenda, of course. They want to gut Social Security and Medicare, weaken the rights of workers, let air and water quality deteriorate, blur the constitutional line between church and state, and keep women down so that they can give yet another tax cut (No. 143) to those who need it least. They are determined to redistribute wealth by taking benefits from the middle class, from women and from the poor.
To achieve this agenda, they are happy to disenfranchise voters, pass socialist laws that make it difficult for workers to organize, and rebuke women (unless they’re rich, and then it’s OK) who stay at home to raise their kids.
This clown must think people reading this op-ed are stupid. Saying that think Sen. Klobuchar and President Obama are moderates demolishes Mr. Davis’s credibility. If Mr. Davis had any credibility left after saying that, it’s gone after he wrote this:
Like tens of thousands of other true conservatives in the Upper Midwest, I’m disgusted with these unethical actions and will vote straight Democrat this year. It’s the right thing to do. President Obama is the Ronald Reagan of our times. He has our backs.
What conservative thinks that President Obama hasn’t marched in lockstep with the PEUs? It’s hysterical to hear an adult say that President Obama “is the Ronald Reagan of our times.” There’s another sentence in the editorial that’s more hysterical:
The Bush years of GOP socialism destroyed our economy and our confidence, but Obama has heroically brought us back. All conservatives owe him a debt of gratitude.
Mr. Davis should consult a dictionary before writing something again. For instance, he used the word socialism 3 times. Here’s the Dictionary.com definition of socialism:
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.
Here’s Davis’s closing paragraph:
[President Obama] wants to do the greatest good for the largest number of Americans, while Mitt Romney and his fellow GOP socialists work 24/7 for the 400 wealthiest Americans.
That’s how collectivists talk.
It’s interesting that Mr. Davis called “the 400 wealthiest Americans” socialists. I’d love hearing him explain how socialists got to being the wealthiest of the wealthy. That’s the explanation I’d pay money to hear.
Seriously, Mr. Davis isn’t in touch with reality. He’s either a spinmeister or he’s totally delusional. Either way, his statements aren’t rooted in reality.
During Friday night’s political roundtable on Almanac, Dayton administation advisor Ellen Anderson was asked about the tax bill Gov. Dayton vetoed. Here’s what she said:
The Governor was clear from the beginning that he wasn’t going to support this proposal. He wasn’t going to support something that was all about corporate tax cuts and very little, tiny bit of help for average people in the form of property taxes but most of it in the form of tax breaks for corporations. Never, ever work to create jobs and adding to the budget deficit.
Sen. Anderson clearly didn’t take any economic classes, either during her high school or collegiate careers. To say that the Reagan tax cuts, the JFK tax cuts, the Bush Tax cuts and the Clinton/Gingrich/Kasich tax cuts didn’t create jobs is stupid. It’s to deny reality.
North Dakota is dramatically changing their tax system, cutting tax rates and thinking about eliminating property taxes altogether. While it’s true that the Bakken boom is bringing prosperity to the state in the short term, it’s equally true that the tax cuts that the legislature has passed and tax reforms that the legislature is contemplating are setting the foundation for future prosperity.
Despite all this proof, Sen. Anderson is denying that tax cuts create jobs. That’s spoken like a true socialist, which is what this administration is made of.
It’s amazing what’s gotten accomplished with this many socialists opposing the GOP’s reform agenda. Despite the DFL’s socialist economic policies and the DFL’s steadfast support of the PEUs, the GOP has gotten a significant amount of their pro-growth reform agenda passed and signed into law.
It’d be amazing what could get accomplished if we had a pro-growth, capitalist governor. Hopefully, that’ll change in 2014. Until then, we’ll have to push the socialists running the executive branch.
This video, in which Gene Sperling speaks for President Obama on tax reform, is stunning:
Here’s a partial transcript of Sperling’s statement:
SPERLING: He supports corporate tax reform that would reduce expenditures and loopholes, lower rates for people investing and creating jobs in the U.S., due so further for manufacturing, and that we need to, as we have the Buffett Rule and the individual tax reform, we need a global minimum tax so that people have the assurance that nobody is escaping doing their fair share as part of a race to the bottom or having our tax code actually subsidized and facilitate people moving their funds to tax havens.
This is stunning. Why would other nations agree to this knowing that they’re in the business of stealing companies from the United States? Is President that naive?
There’s a reason why the U.S. economy isn’t flourishing. There’s a reason why companies aren’t hiring. There’s a reason why prosperity seems like a distant thing with this administration. There’s a reason why people think that fairness, not prosperity, is the primary goal of this administration.
That reason is because of statements like this. It’s also because of thinking like this from his debate against Hillary in April, 2008:
MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
It isn’t in President Obama’s nature to cut taxes. It’s part of his DNA to raise taxes. It’s in his DNA to “spread the wealth around”, like he told Joe the Plumber.
President Obama, left to his own policies, would demolish the U.S. economy. His education reform package is known as Race to the Top. Unfortunately for Americans, the appropriate name for his economic blueprint is Race to the Bottom.
It’s immaterial to me whether he’s that evil, as some suggest, or whether he’s that clueless. I’m only concerned with the fact that he’s awful when it comes to putting policies in place that creates wealth and prosperity. I’m only concerned with firing him this November.
According to this article, “economic and political elites” will meet in Davos, Switzerland to talk about ending capialism:
Economic and political elites meeting this week at the Swiss resort of Davos will be asked to urgently find ways to reform a capitalist system that has been described as “outdated and crumbling.”
“We have a general morality gap, we are over-leveraged, we have neglected to invest in the future, we have undermined social coherence, and we are in danger of completely losing the confidence of future generations,” said Klaus Schwab, host and founder of the annual World Economic Forum.
“Solving problems in the context of outdated and crumbling models will only dig us deeper into the hole.
“We are in an era of profound change that urgently requires new ways of thinking instead of more business-as-usual,” the 73-year-old said, adding that “capitalism in its current form, has no place in the world around us.”
Some 1,600 economic and political leaders, including 40 heads of states and governments, will be asked to come up with new ideas as they converge at eastern Switzerland’s chic ski station for the 42nd edition of the five-day World Economic Forum which opens Wednesday.
The problem isn’t capitalism. The problem is that we’ve had an overabundance of unethical CEOs. Isn’t the real solution establishing sensible laws for corporations and CEOs, including serious prison time, not time in ‘Club Fed’? Isn’t part of the solution then enforcing those laws?
In his book “Capitalism and Freedom“, the late great economist Milton Friedman argued that you couldn’t have political freedom without economic freedom.
This classic video of Milton Friedman’s interview with Phil Donahue explains why capitalism is superior to socialism:
The last 30 seconds are priceless. Here’s the transcript:
Friedman: Is it really true that political self interest is nobler somehow than personal self interest? You know, I think you’re taking alot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us. Well, I don’t even trust you to do that.
I’ll trust a single Milton Friedman over a city filled with elites when it comes to capitalism vs. socialism.