WARNING: If you're easily offended by common sense, you may want to navigate away from this post.
Definitions:
SOCIALism - to think about those around you and do the right thing as society and a humble heart would see it
Socialism - to forcibly, through violence or legislative action, steal from one person and allow the government to disseminate monies as they see fit
Okay, you're still here. Let's rock. So, Bernie Sanders is out there touting all this free crap and how he's thinking we can pay for it all by increasing taxes on the wealthy, blah, blah, blah. Well, first, he's full of horse crap. Not. Gonna. Happen. The math does not come out quite the way he says it does. It's a good thing that most of his followers cannot add 2+2 and come out with 4. That's a post for another day. Anyway, as I'm sure you figured, I'm not one of his supporters. That said, I do agree with him on a few of the problems we have in America. I'd like to share a few of these and then explain why his ideas still are wrong and don't make logical sense.
First, yes, we do have a huge income inequality issue here. Well, not so much inequality (though, it could be argued), but more of a disparity. Greed has taken front and centre stage here and while profits at many businesses are going up, only the top tier employees see any of the benefits. The employees don't see a piece of the new pies and their wages are going down while their masters' wages continue to rise to record levels. That's wrong. I've had many debates with some republican friends (I'm a Constitutionalist) and they don't see issues with this and cite that everyone negotiated out their wages and should be happy with what they agreed with. That's a pretty crap answer, if you ask me. While I don't adhere to the fact that 'x' deserves it more than 'y,' I do believe that it's common sense to suggest that if everyone worked for those profits, everyone should stand to gain a little something. I would also argue that when you have an employee that makes, say, $35,000 per year and another makes $1,000,000 a year, who do you think would appreciate a little bonus more? Yes, I know that borders on socialist leaning, but stick with me here-- surely we've all been there. When I was in those shoes, I received a $250 bonus from GARMIN one time and I literally cried. I knew my light and electric bills were about to be paid and I could take my wife to Applebee's. So, now, tell me how bad that it is to think that way?
My argument is simple-- it's sad that the record profits are no longer being shared among all employees. They only get dispersed among the top C-level suites. Now, this is not all companies, just most in today's America. I think that everyone that works at a firm that sees profits should receive a little piece of the pie. I don't care that a CEO or CFO or a janitor receives a bonus. I just want to see all employees acknowledged for their hard work. This is one place that Mr. Sanders and I disagree. He'd just as soon steal that bonus from the CEO and give it to everyone else and say that the CEO already made enough. I don't believe that way. The CEO likely worked just as hard for the profits as did the guy in TechSupport and they both should see a bonus. So, difference #1:
Sanders would rip off the executive and give to the lowly worker. I suggest that all employees, CEO included, deserve a piece of the profit pie. I don't buy into the "he negotiated this and they negotiated that" crap. Personally, I feel that it should come down to "the right thing to do and common sense." While the companies are not required to divvy out profits to all employees, everyone worked and should, thus, receive a bonus if the top is to get one. Otherwise, operations should go on as normal. I, personally, don't feel it is right to reward a top-level worker when others don't receive a part when profits are achieved. Again, I go back to the negotiation nonsense. Regular employees have almost no negotiation power and could not secure a bonus program like an executive could. SOCIALism, not socialism.
Okay, now that that part of the post is out of the way, we shall move on. Next topic, taking care of everyone...
Mr. Sanders would like to tax the every-living snot out of most folks and then have his administration divvy out the money as they see fit. Mostly, they'd like like to make darn near everything away for free. Free healthcare, free college, free this, free that. Sorry, life does not work that way. So, where do my and Bernie's sights fall in line for a few moments? Well, they really don't, I suppose.
I believe that it's nice to want to take care of everyone, really, it is. What I don't like is:
A) taxing the wealthy (and most other people regardless of what he says, he would) more is wrong. Just wrong
B) stealing my money to give to someone else is wrong! stealing my neighbour's money and giving it away is wong! Etc, etc.
C) taxing companies more is wrong
D) growing the government is wrong
E) creating more government reliance is wrong
F) I could go on, but that's enough
"Oh, but my neighbour needs food and electricity, the government should help them." No! Sorry, but NO! The federal government was not instituted to be there for people. It was never and intended for that at all. It's not your nanny or your bank or your Robbin' Hood (yes, I intentionally spelled it that way). You know who is supposed to take care of your neighbour? You. Yes, you...IF you feel led to. That's the idea...if you feel led to help someone and you have the money to do so, feel free. That's part of liberty. There should be no such thing as a social program. This is where the church and society is supposed to step in. I've needed help lots of times, so I can understand this plight all too well. The thing is, our Founding Fathers believed, as they should have, that society and churches should help their fellow man. Part of liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not being forced to spend money where you don't want to. The government should not be taxing you or spending a dime of our money on charity programs. I don't want my money going to anything that supports abortion or regimes that support ISIS, but part of my taxes go to those people/governments. If my neighbour is hungry, I will choose to feed him or not. That may sound bad, but wait a moment... If my children are also hungry and I have just enough money to ensure they are fed, but that money is stolen from me and given to that hungry guy...get it now? I say stolen because that's what most of our taxes are...legal theft. If that man is hungry, he may go to the local food pantry or local church that I support or belong to.
Let's say that I work really hard for many years in my IT career and am finally making 'x' dollars after all of the hard work, late nights, etc. I worked very hard and gained a lot of skills. Now, should the guy that just started working at McDonald's as his first job make the same as me? Before answering, I think it's important to point out that there are many issues contained within this scenario. I'll preface it all with this: working with the public in a retail environment sucks. Generally speaking, they are rude and look down at you for working in retail. It's an inferiority complex, methinks. So, I applaud anyone that works with the general public in this capacity.
Here we go. No, that guy should not make more than me...or less than me...or the same as me...He should make whatever the market decides. Ahhhh, you speak of capitalism. Yeah, I wish. America does not practice capitalism. We say we do, but we don't. Period. End of conversation. Okay, I'll open it back up. We don't practice capitalism. We practice a bastardised-government overseen and run-crappy-the more you make, the more power you have over the situation-you can buy exceptions-purchase regulations on and for others version of capitalism. Real capitalism is remarkably simple and beautiful-- if you make a good product and the market needs it, it will sell and all can profit. If your product or service sucks, you'll go out of business. If you treat your employees well, they will stay. If you're a bad boss, your employees can bite you in the butt by leaving and starting their own business to compete with yours. This is capitalism. It's great. Capitalism does not have non-competes, it does not have regulations, it does not have minimum wages (or maximum wages), it does not stifle competition. It, rather, welcomes competition in that anyone can try their hand at success. The market is always wanting a better product, a better deal, a more fair price, a better employee, a better employer. Capitalism is dynamic. It works as a fluid. It's creates an ever-changing marketplace. It is neither greedy nor wanting. It is always everyone's friend. It just...is. Scenario time!
Scenario: five people own five companies that produce wagon wheels to sell to the general public (consumers). The public will purchase these wheels if they need them. If they don't want them, the companies fail. Capitalism. Stop there for a moment. Government bailouts, anyone? Yeah, they don't exist in capitalism. You succeed or fail. If you fail, someone will naturally take your place in the market. You're welcome to try again, though. The marketplace invites that. Let's say they do want those wheels. The next thing that's going to happen is one or more of the companies will see that their competitor is selling more than they are. That must mean the market (consumers don't like theirs). They must make a change or go the way of the dodo. Their prices will either become lower to entice people by price or the value the public receives from their wheel become greater (a better wheel?) and be cause for people to buy from them because they innovated. The market has set the price based on what it (market, the consumer) were willing to pay. If one of the companies could not keep up, they died. Those left without a job, had choices to make. They could, (1) start their own company (employing others) and competing with those left in the market (2) go work for a previous competitor or (3) just move away from the wagon wheel industry altogether. This is capitalism.
Now, let's say that John Q. Smartguy works at Company A. Company A is doing well, but he has a great idea on how to make a better wheel. Company A tells him to sit back and keep working, but they won't take his idea to the factory floor. John gets bummed because he believes in his idea and wants a better life for his family. What does John do? Company B or C would like to hire John and use his idea. They are willing to pay him more because he's a thinker and a good worker. He also has been thinking about starting his own wagon wheel company and competing with the big boys. His wife mentioned he could just sell his idea to B or C and retire. Capitalism says he could do any one of these. Nope, not in America! Why? Non-compete. I mean, really, NON...COMPETE. Doesn't even compute in capitalism. These things are the devil. They've caused me, my father, and millions of others to not make a lot more money. In my case, several times. They stifle competition, the economy, and the American dream all in one fell swoop. I've been told by some republican friends that it's simple. Don't sign one. Sorry, workers don't have that luxury. Almost every company makes you sign one, first off. Second, workers don't have the luxury of negotiating because our economy sucks to the point that employers tell employees they'll just find someone else and see them to the door. Non-competes are probably one of the most anti-capitalistic things out there. They truly spit in the face of capitalistic ideals. Now, in regard to Confidentiality Agreements, I'm cool with those. Companies can own proprietary information, formulas, etc. They cannot own you or your skills (learned there or ones you previously possessed).
Getting back on track here. I know that was quite a tangent, but it's important to lay all that out for the argument. I don't believe in a minimum wage. Period. Neither does Capitalism. If you can get more money somewhere else, capitalism allows for this...with no strings attached. Bernie believes that typical American workers should be making more money than they are. I agree. I don't agree, however, with his plan. Forcing companies to pay more isn't the answer. The answer is, actually, very simple. Get rid of regulations, all of these crap taxes, business license and compliance shenanigans, and make non-competes null and void across the board. California, believe it or not, is ahead of the curve in this arena. Cannot believe I'd ever see the day where I praised California for anything! When you just go back to the basics, life becomes more simple and wages will rise. When companies and government no longer have strangleholds on things, the stars are the limits. SOCIALism, not socialism. This is SOCIAL simply because you're allowing everyone an equal chance at success and stop manipulating what the market wants and needs. John Q Smartguy could do whatever he wants with his idea. He could sell it and take his family on trips or he could choose to start a new company and hire the very best employees for great wages. The choice would be his. Sure, when you make such a large change, there will inevitably be hiccups. We would need to take care of one another out of the goodness of our hearts while the transition to freedom has the chance to play out. Instead of trying to legislate freedom and prosperity, which never bodes well for the citizens, you get rid of the roadblocks themselves. Simple. So, again, SOCIALism instead of socialism. Or, in this case, capitalism instead of crapitalism. One of the points I'm trying to make is that under capitalism, the guy at McDonald's would not have to ask for $15/hr, $25/hr, or whatever. He'd be making sure that he was making what the market was willing to pay. He might be a whiz at flipping burgers or bring some flair to the job. In that case, maybe another burger joint (or one he could start) would be paying him $100/hr...this is a lot more than that minimum wage he would otherwise be fighting so hard for. SOCIALism and true capitalism are best friends. Both say that if you're a dbag, you'll fail and be left wanting. Change your behaviour and the market says, come play again, please! We need you!
If you're not quite getting the picture yet, let me paint it a bit more vibrant for you. The Founders knew what they were doing. Greed took over and a few guys started patting their friends' backs and the next thing you know, we left the train station far behind leaving a trail of regulations, taxes, red tape, bodies of honest folks, bureaucratic junk, and the like. The Founders wanted freedom and liberty. We don't have that anymore when it comes to many arenas of life. They didn't want regulations, government interference in the economy, the Feds owning businesses, or telling the people they must purchase something (Obamacare). They knew well that when you take government out of people's lives and pocketbooks, you have success. When you inject it where it doesn't belong, you have failure and instead of fixing this by returning to my previous sentence, they start down an endless trail of legislating this, legislating that. It's a deadly, endless cycle and the ultimate recipient of the crap it causes is the People.
While I could go on and on, this post is already pretty long. Plus, I'm certain that it paints a pretty clear picture. I'm all for SOCIALism and not socialism. I'm for people changing their hearts, opening their pocketbooks when they feel led to do so and keeping them closed when they aren't led. I'm for a fellow man helping another out when he's downtrodden. The thing is, I'm for liberty and personal choices. While this may sound like Utopia, the Founders were able to make it work simply by being decent people. Under capitalism, true capitalism, the greedy corporations and scoundrels are found out and put to the wayside. It's a natural process. Socialism can never, let me repeat, NEVER, work in large populations and it sure as crap cannot be forced down people's throats and create a happy place to live. SOCIALism does work all of the time when folks stop focusing on themselves and have the liberty, yes, liberty to help who they want, how they want, and when they want to do so. You'll never have 100% of the world being economically free, but attempting to legislate economic bliss will result in everyone failing...and being disenchanted with their fellow man. Bernie's plan will cause people to leave America and will further divide the economic classes in America. My plan would meld them together and create a happier, healthier, more prosperous place to live. The government needs to let go and let live, as it was intended.
Bernie wants us to be just like the countless failures that socialism has left behind. He thinks he has the answer. Well, I'm here to tell you that there is no answer that can fix forced socialism because you can never use the problem to fix the problem. SOCIALism is great. It's full of freedom, prosperity, choices, happiness.
Be SOCIALists, not socialists folks. Love your neighbour, assist your friends and families, be kind and generous to your employees, work hard for your employers, amass your fortunes, enjoy one another. Enjoy life. Be free. Help make someone's dreams come true. Our Founders and soldiers of yesterday, today, and tomorrow have fought, died, will fight, will die for our beautiful America. Make them proud for the sacrifices. Honour our Constitution and all that it stands for.
Definitions:
SOCIALism - to think about those around you and do the right thing as society and a humble heart would see it
Socialism - to forcibly, through violence or legislative action, steal from one person and allow the government to disseminate monies as they see fit
Okay, you're still here. Let's rock. So, Bernie Sanders is out there touting all this free crap and how he's thinking we can pay for it all by increasing taxes on the wealthy, blah, blah, blah. Well, first, he's full of horse crap. Not. Gonna. Happen. The math does not come out quite the way he says it does. It's a good thing that most of his followers cannot add 2+2 and come out with 4. That's a post for another day. Anyway, as I'm sure you figured, I'm not one of his supporters. That said, I do agree with him on a few of the problems we have in America. I'd like to share a few of these and then explain why his ideas still are wrong and don't make logical sense.
First, yes, we do have a huge income inequality issue here. Well, not so much inequality (though, it could be argued), but more of a disparity. Greed has taken front and centre stage here and while profits at many businesses are going up, only the top tier employees see any of the benefits. The employees don't see a piece of the new pies and their wages are going down while their masters' wages continue to rise to record levels. That's wrong. I've had many debates with some republican friends (I'm a Constitutionalist) and they don't see issues with this and cite that everyone negotiated out their wages and should be happy with what they agreed with. That's a pretty crap answer, if you ask me. While I don't adhere to the fact that 'x' deserves it more than 'y,' I do believe that it's common sense to suggest that if everyone worked for those profits, everyone should stand to gain a little something. I would also argue that when you have an employee that makes, say, $35,000 per year and another makes $1,000,000 a year, who do you think would appreciate a little bonus more? Yes, I know that borders on socialist leaning, but stick with me here-- surely we've all been there. When I was in those shoes, I received a $250 bonus from GARMIN one time and I literally cried. I knew my light and electric bills were about to be paid and I could take my wife to Applebee's. So, now, tell me how bad that it is to think that way?
My argument is simple-- it's sad that the record profits are no longer being shared among all employees. They only get dispersed among the top C-level suites. Now, this is not all companies, just most in today's America. I think that everyone that works at a firm that sees profits should receive a little piece of the pie. I don't care that a CEO or CFO or a janitor receives a bonus. I just want to see all employees acknowledged for their hard work. This is one place that Mr. Sanders and I disagree. He'd just as soon steal that bonus from the CEO and give it to everyone else and say that the CEO already made enough. I don't believe that way. The CEO likely worked just as hard for the profits as did the guy in TechSupport and they both should see a bonus. So, difference #1:
Sanders would rip off the executive and give to the lowly worker. I suggest that all employees, CEO included, deserve a piece of the profit pie. I don't buy into the "he negotiated this and they negotiated that" crap. Personally, I feel that it should come down to "the right thing to do and common sense." While the companies are not required to divvy out profits to all employees, everyone worked and should, thus, receive a bonus if the top is to get one. Otherwise, operations should go on as normal. I, personally, don't feel it is right to reward a top-level worker when others don't receive a part when profits are achieved. Again, I go back to the negotiation nonsense. Regular employees have almost no negotiation power and could not secure a bonus program like an executive could. SOCIALism, not socialism.
Okay, now that that part of the post is out of the way, we shall move on. Next topic, taking care of everyone...
Mr. Sanders would like to tax the every-living snot out of most folks and then have his administration divvy out the money as they see fit. Mostly, they'd like like to make darn near everything away for free. Free healthcare, free college, free this, free that. Sorry, life does not work that way. So, where do my and Bernie's sights fall in line for a few moments? Well, they really don't, I suppose.
I believe that it's nice to want to take care of everyone, really, it is. What I don't like is:
A) taxing the wealthy (and most other people regardless of what he says, he would) more is wrong. Just wrong
B) stealing my money to give to someone else is wrong! stealing my neighbour's money and giving it away is wong! Etc, etc.
C) taxing companies more is wrong
D) growing the government is wrong
E) creating more government reliance is wrong
F) I could go on, but that's enough
"Oh, but my neighbour needs food and electricity, the government should help them." No! Sorry, but NO! The federal government was not instituted to be there for people. It was never and intended for that at all. It's not your nanny or your bank or your Robbin' Hood (yes, I intentionally spelled it that way). You know who is supposed to take care of your neighbour? You. Yes, you...IF you feel led to. That's the idea...if you feel led to help someone and you have the money to do so, feel free. That's part of liberty. There should be no such thing as a social program. This is where the church and society is supposed to step in. I've needed help lots of times, so I can understand this plight all too well. The thing is, our Founding Fathers believed, as they should have, that society and churches should help their fellow man. Part of liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not being forced to spend money where you don't want to. The government should not be taxing you or spending a dime of our money on charity programs. I don't want my money going to anything that supports abortion or regimes that support ISIS, but part of my taxes go to those people/governments. If my neighbour is hungry, I will choose to feed him or not. That may sound bad, but wait a moment... If my children are also hungry and I have just enough money to ensure they are fed, but that money is stolen from me and given to that hungry guy...get it now? I say stolen because that's what most of our taxes are...legal theft. If that man is hungry, he may go to the local food pantry or local church that I support or belong to.
Let's say that I work really hard for many years in my IT career and am finally making 'x' dollars after all of the hard work, late nights, etc. I worked very hard and gained a lot of skills. Now, should the guy that just started working at McDonald's as his first job make the same as me? Before answering, I think it's important to point out that there are many issues contained within this scenario. I'll preface it all with this: working with the public in a retail environment sucks. Generally speaking, they are rude and look down at you for working in retail. It's an inferiority complex, methinks. So, I applaud anyone that works with the general public in this capacity.
Here we go. No, that guy should not make more than me...or less than me...or the same as me...He should make whatever the market decides. Ahhhh, you speak of capitalism. Yeah, I wish. America does not practice capitalism. We say we do, but we don't. Period. End of conversation. Okay, I'll open it back up. We don't practice capitalism. We practice a bastardised-government overseen and run-crappy-the more you make, the more power you have over the situation-you can buy exceptions-purchase regulations on and for others version of capitalism. Real capitalism is remarkably simple and beautiful-- if you make a good product and the market needs it, it will sell and all can profit. If your product or service sucks, you'll go out of business. If you treat your employees well, they will stay. If you're a bad boss, your employees can bite you in the butt by leaving and starting their own business to compete with yours. This is capitalism. It's great. Capitalism does not have non-competes, it does not have regulations, it does not have minimum wages (or maximum wages), it does not stifle competition. It, rather, welcomes competition in that anyone can try their hand at success. The market is always wanting a better product, a better deal, a more fair price, a better employee, a better employer. Capitalism is dynamic. It works as a fluid. It's creates an ever-changing marketplace. It is neither greedy nor wanting. It is always everyone's friend. It just...is. Scenario time!
Scenario: five people own five companies that produce wagon wheels to sell to the general public (consumers). The public will purchase these wheels if they need them. If they don't want them, the companies fail. Capitalism. Stop there for a moment. Government bailouts, anyone? Yeah, they don't exist in capitalism. You succeed or fail. If you fail, someone will naturally take your place in the market. You're welcome to try again, though. The marketplace invites that. Let's say they do want those wheels. The next thing that's going to happen is one or more of the companies will see that their competitor is selling more than they are. That must mean the market (consumers don't like theirs). They must make a change or go the way of the dodo. Their prices will either become lower to entice people by price or the value the public receives from their wheel become greater (a better wheel?) and be cause for people to buy from them because they innovated. The market has set the price based on what it (market, the consumer) were willing to pay. If one of the companies could not keep up, they died. Those left without a job, had choices to make. They could, (1) start their own company (employing others) and competing with those left in the market (2) go work for a previous competitor or (3) just move away from the wagon wheel industry altogether. This is capitalism.
Now, let's say that John Q. Smartguy works at Company A. Company A is doing well, but he has a great idea on how to make a better wheel. Company A tells him to sit back and keep working, but they won't take his idea to the factory floor. John gets bummed because he believes in his idea and wants a better life for his family. What does John do? Company B or C would like to hire John and use his idea. They are willing to pay him more because he's a thinker and a good worker. He also has been thinking about starting his own wagon wheel company and competing with the big boys. His wife mentioned he could just sell his idea to B or C and retire. Capitalism says he could do any one of these. Nope, not in America! Why? Non-compete. I mean, really, NON...COMPETE. Doesn't even compute in capitalism. These things are the devil. They've caused me, my father, and millions of others to not make a lot more money. In my case, several times. They stifle competition, the economy, and the American dream all in one fell swoop. I've been told by some republican friends that it's simple. Don't sign one. Sorry, workers don't have that luxury. Almost every company makes you sign one, first off. Second, workers don't have the luxury of negotiating because our economy sucks to the point that employers tell employees they'll just find someone else and see them to the door. Non-competes are probably one of the most anti-capitalistic things out there. They truly spit in the face of capitalistic ideals. Now, in regard to Confidentiality Agreements, I'm cool with those. Companies can own proprietary information, formulas, etc. They cannot own you or your skills (learned there or ones you previously possessed).
Getting back on track here. I know that was quite a tangent, but it's important to lay all that out for the argument. I don't believe in a minimum wage. Period. Neither does Capitalism. If you can get more money somewhere else, capitalism allows for this...with no strings attached. Bernie believes that typical American workers should be making more money than they are. I agree. I don't agree, however, with his plan. Forcing companies to pay more isn't the answer. The answer is, actually, very simple. Get rid of regulations, all of these crap taxes, business license and compliance shenanigans, and make non-competes null and void across the board. California, believe it or not, is ahead of the curve in this arena. Cannot believe I'd ever see the day where I praised California for anything! When you just go back to the basics, life becomes more simple and wages will rise. When companies and government no longer have strangleholds on things, the stars are the limits. SOCIALism, not socialism. This is SOCIAL simply because you're allowing everyone an equal chance at success and stop manipulating what the market wants and needs. John Q Smartguy could do whatever he wants with his idea. He could sell it and take his family on trips or he could choose to start a new company and hire the very best employees for great wages. The choice would be his. Sure, when you make such a large change, there will inevitably be hiccups. We would need to take care of one another out of the goodness of our hearts while the transition to freedom has the chance to play out. Instead of trying to legislate freedom and prosperity, which never bodes well for the citizens, you get rid of the roadblocks themselves. Simple. So, again, SOCIALism instead of socialism. Or, in this case, capitalism instead of crapitalism. One of the points I'm trying to make is that under capitalism, the guy at McDonald's would not have to ask for $15/hr, $25/hr, or whatever. He'd be making sure that he was making what the market was willing to pay. He might be a whiz at flipping burgers or bring some flair to the job. In that case, maybe another burger joint (or one he could start) would be paying him $100/hr...this is a lot more than that minimum wage he would otherwise be fighting so hard for. SOCIALism and true capitalism are best friends. Both say that if you're a dbag, you'll fail and be left wanting. Change your behaviour and the market says, come play again, please! We need you!
If you're not quite getting the picture yet, let me paint it a bit more vibrant for you. The Founders knew what they were doing. Greed took over and a few guys started patting their friends' backs and the next thing you know, we left the train station far behind leaving a trail of regulations, taxes, red tape, bodies of honest folks, bureaucratic junk, and the like. The Founders wanted freedom and liberty. We don't have that anymore when it comes to many arenas of life. They didn't want regulations, government interference in the economy, the Feds owning businesses, or telling the people they must purchase something (Obamacare). They knew well that when you take government out of people's lives and pocketbooks, you have success. When you inject it where it doesn't belong, you have failure and instead of fixing this by returning to my previous sentence, they start down an endless trail of legislating this, legislating that. It's a deadly, endless cycle and the ultimate recipient of the crap it causes is the People.
While I could go on and on, this post is already pretty long. Plus, I'm certain that it paints a pretty clear picture. I'm all for SOCIALism and not socialism. I'm for people changing their hearts, opening their pocketbooks when they feel led to do so and keeping them closed when they aren't led. I'm for a fellow man helping another out when he's downtrodden. The thing is, I'm for liberty and personal choices. While this may sound like Utopia, the Founders were able to make it work simply by being decent people. Under capitalism, true capitalism, the greedy corporations and scoundrels are found out and put to the wayside. It's a natural process. Socialism can never, let me repeat, NEVER, work in large populations and it sure as crap cannot be forced down people's throats and create a happy place to live. SOCIALism does work all of the time when folks stop focusing on themselves and have the liberty, yes, liberty to help who they want, how they want, and when they want to do so. You'll never have 100% of the world being economically free, but attempting to legislate economic bliss will result in everyone failing...and being disenchanted with their fellow man. Bernie's plan will cause people to leave America and will further divide the economic classes in America. My plan would meld them together and create a happier, healthier, more prosperous place to live. The government needs to let go and let live, as it was intended.
Bernie wants us to be just like the countless failures that socialism has left behind. He thinks he has the answer. Well, I'm here to tell you that there is no answer that can fix forced socialism because you can never use the problem to fix the problem. SOCIALism is great. It's full of freedom, prosperity, choices, happiness.
Be SOCIALists, not socialists folks. Love your neighbour, assist your friends and families, be kind and generous to your employees, work hard for your employers, amass your fortunes, enjoy one another. Enjoy life. Be free. Help make someone's dreams come true. Our Founders and soldiers of yesterday, today, and tomorrow have fought, died, will fight, will die for our beautiful America. Make them proud for the sacrifices. Honour our Constitution and all that it stands for.
No comments:
Post a Comment