There are two candidates that baffle me this election season - Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. We will leave the Trumpster for another Blog since Bernie is such an interesting subject.
I find this guy they call 'The Bern' fascinating even though I wouldn't vote for a socialist unless he was running against a Clinton. But you can tell he is the real deal and sincerely believes in socialism; he is not the classic politician who tells people what they want to hear. I always respect someone who honestly defends what he believes in. A friend of mine thinks I discriminate against him because he is old - hell I am two years older (but not running for President). I am against him because he is a socialist who, like the Sirens singing to Odysseus, is seducing his followers with the promise of an endless list of 'free stuff'.
Bernie has taken the democratic playbook to a new level. On an emotional level it is very difficult to compete with the philosophy of socialism. After all who does not want free unlimited health care for everyone, free college for everyone, free child care for everyone, free 12 weeks paid family leave plus two weeks' vacation plus one week sick pay for everyone, and on and on...but reality most of the time trumps emotion (pardon the pun).
So how is all this 'free stuff' paid for? Again, on an emotional level it's easy to convince many voters those wealthy corporations and rich (usually successful) people should redistribute their income to less fortunate members of society. It is the Carl Marx model that has never worked but is continually recycled by the democrats in one form or another.
It is not the intent of this Blog to present a dissertation on Capitalism vs Socialism but many experts including economists on Bernie's side admit that his system cannot work by just raising taxes on the rich - taxes will have to be raised on everyone. And even Mr. Sanders admits that, but he also insists that "it will be made up by savings in other areas" (no heath care premiums, no college costs, etc.). So in effect he admits that we will all pay for his programs one way or another. So the bottom line with socialism is this: One way or another you are going to pay for it, so do you want the government running things or do you want free enterprise running things. The answer can be made with a few simple comparisons: Amazon's web site vs the Obamacare web site, or Citi Banks ability to track your Visa activity and immediately recognize criminal activity; or the US government's ability to track visitors who overstay their visa, or illegal aliens who simply disappear. You make the choice.
But the Bern does have remarkable energy, his speeches remind me of fire and brimstone sermons as he waves his arms and condemns the corporations and rich people, and his siren song convinces his followers that they are entitled to some of the wealth earned by successful people in this country and should be redistributed to them in the form of 'free stuff'.
Obviously I do not support 'the Bern'; on the contrary if he is the democratic nominee I will do my small part to work toward his defeat. But I do respect this lovable curmudgeon who has taken on the Clinton machine, one of the most corrupt political dynasties in the history of this country, and is giving them a run for their money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
You'd vote for Bernie if he were running against a Clinton. Who would you vote for if he were running against Trump? If Trump, then dementia might be setting in, "old man." :-)
Ha ha...we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But I will support the Bern against Hillary every step of the way.
Interesting comments but they treat the subject with a broad brush. As the past 20 years have shown, Capitalisim, running open loop, abuses the population, it doesn't support it. Wages so low that people with lower intellect, or the disenfranchised, have to carry two or three jobs to survive. Crushing educational debt, that essentially enslaves graduating youth and eliminates their ability to build personal wealth in their most productive years. Banking, investment, and real estate abuses that brought the country to the edge of a depression. Roads, bridges and transit systems that, by recent DOT analysis are 22% broken across the country, and 40% nearing broken. A healthcare system that is the most expensive in the world, yet serves only a portion of the population. Infant death rates higher than most developed countries due to a lack of prenatal care for the underprivileged. The wealth of the Nation sequestered in the upper 1% of the population due to the banking and stock exchange abuses of the last 20 years. A broken political system that has been bought and paid for by large Corporations. If this is your Capitalist Eutopia, I want no more of it.
Marie Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake" when faced with a similar situation. She lost her head and there was a revolution that turned France upside down. I think we are looking at the potential for something similar, but on a financial basis. Taxes will rise to levels not seen since Eisenhower, where Capital Gains was at 90%. The pendulum always swings back when people are egregiously abused by their Government, or the ruling class.
The fact is that a Democratic Socialist is not a pure Socialist concept, and you well know it, Chuck. Capitalism functions very well in that system, it just pays higher taxes. A President with those goals cannot make any major changes in this Country without the support of Congress. The purse is controlled by the House, and the Presidents appointments must be ratified by the Senate. He is not a King, he must work with the other Goverbment branches to have a functioning Government.
We are here because the "Party of NO" refused to compromise for the past 8 years. The Republican Party is fractured and "eating its young" in this primary, as they drive from debate to debate in their "clown car" where they all tumble out and commence to shred each other on National television, while the Democrats are actually discussing the issues.
Your position is simple. It's all about the money. That is what is fundamentally important to all Conservatives....retaining their wealth. In theory, if they reinvested it, the system would work, but they don't. They sequester it and impoverish the Nation as a whole. If Capitalism was really working in America, all boats would rise, but they are not.
Bernie, alone, cannot change the entire system he can, however, bring a rational dialog back to Government and force people to support their positions in front of the People. This country belongs to the People, not the top 1% of the people simply because they can buy the Government.
You should feel the Bern, Chuck. I have predicted a correct Win in the last ten Presidential elections, and this will be #11. Bernie Sanders.
Quite a response John...actually I wrote this Blog with you in mind since I promised you I would write one about the Bern. Let's remember you have been bugging me about starting my Blog again...did you think it would have a 'liberal' theme :-) We will never agree but I did take it pretty easy on Bernie don't you think. What I find interesting is that you more than anyone experienced capitalism at its best, coming to work for me as a young technician rising to be a senior manager...an opportunity you never would have had in a socialistic system. But regardless, we will always be friends.
Chuck, I would have had the same opportunity in a Democratic Socialist system. Norway, Sweden, Denmark.....to mention a few. People like Bjarne started with little and ended up doing very well. I certainly would have had a better education and would have been able to build personal wealth faster in say.....Norway, had I been born there. Socialism is not Communism, which is the system you describe. Many Americans consider them as interchangeable systems, and they are not. In Communism, the State owns everything, and it decides what a person can have, and what they will do. In Sanders form of Socialism the State uses higher taxes to support State programs for the population, and provides for infrastructure and defense; but it does not own or operate businesses, or tell people what they must do to support the State,
I also note that you did what Republicans do routinely, you never addressed the issues I raised, nor did you propose any solutions to the serious problems that have pulled the Country down. Simply accepting the status quo isn't going to work this time.
'Anonymous' says that the President cannot make major changes without the support of Congress. Obama had the support of Congress for the first two years and we got Obamacare without a vote from the Republicans. And anyway you slice it, that program is a mess and will probably fail under it's own weight. After those two years the voters rebelled and took Congress away from him. Then it has been one executive order after another. The Republicans have been the party of 'No' because Obama would only take 'Yes' as an answer to whatever he wanted.
Anonymous also says that I am treating the subject with a broad brush, and then states that with Conservatives it is all about money and retaining wealth. That statement is a pretty broad brush also. Many of my friends (and myself) are entrepreneurs who put everything on the line to start a business and then through years of hard work and long hours, and yes reinvesting profits to grow their company, finally achieved success. So to hear that all we care about is money drives us crazy.
This interaction is a classic example of the philosophy of socialism vs capitalism, and sadly the two shall never agree.
But the two systems do agree in some parts of the world, and they work well together. The fundamental difference in The USA is the one looks at the world as a massive opportunity for " me", while the other looks at the world as an opportunity for "us". We are all in this world together, and the mass of people should not simply be a money making opportunity for a few.
Whether a pure Capitalist will admit it or not, every person in society contributes to his success in some way. The question is, are they being exploited, or are they being rewarded appropriate to their contribution? In our society today, I think it is the later, based on the number of people in poverty, and the condition of our broken Gocernment and infrastructure. Obamacare was one overreaction to an untenable problem in this country. It provided a negotiated solution that hasn't been entirely successful. However, a large number of uninsured people, who were using ERs for basic care, are now insured; among other things.
Let's look at just one aspect of Sanders program. Free education through an undergrad degree. In the early 1900's only the ability to read and write were necessary skills and few people could afford to put their children through 12 years of basic education. Public funded education to grade 12 transformed the USA for the better. In the 50's and 60's California made secondary education so cheap that it became an engine for technology in the Nation. Then it cut subsidized education and killed the Golden Goose in favor of lower taxes for homeowners. Free college education is not free, we all know that, but it is an investment in our National wellbeing. The world has changed and we live in a technology driven world. Why are so many of our tech jobs going to people from outside the USA, the reason is we have a shortage of people in those fields. A college education for the masses pays huge dividends in lower crime, a better educated workforce and electorate, and a generally more stable society. Using a societal baseline of 12 years of school as the norm is ludicrous in today's world. Requiring someone to incur a $80-100k debt at the age of 22 is also ludicrous. Subsidized public education through 16 years of school should be the new norm or we will continue to see our place in the world degrade. Just look at this election to see how poorly educated the electorate is. We have bad Government because the masses are poorly educated, and they have short term goals.
As to Obama's Executive actions, they were a result of an intractable Congress. He did what he could, within the Law, to get things done. All Presidents have used them for the same reason. He was still limited to the budget already approved. We may not like some of what he did but it was a last resort, not his first choice.
Bernie's free education argument would only work under two conditions - somehow it would have to be paid for, and to get the American public to subsidize students who go to school to party and take courses that are meaningless will never happen. One reason there is a shortage of technical people is that US students are not taking those subjects which are 'too hard' and the preparation they get in science and math in our 'union controlled' K-12 school system is pitiful. Being an engineer I know that as a fact.
You keep making excuses for Obama like a good liberal but remember he had total control of Congress the first two years and flopped. That's why the voters threw his Congress out. And the Republican congress is 'intractable' because with Obama it is 'my way or the highway'. We can't replace this President soon enough and it better be with a Republican.
Not with the fringe candidates currently on the Republican slate. Other than Kasick, who has no money and poor national name recognition, they are all unelectable in the current environment. I really think that we will have our first really honest man in the White House in 2017, and he's not a Republican. Feel the Bern Chuck, Feel the Bern.
Maybe Bloomberg will announce and give you a financially Conservative candidate, with a liberal social agenda. I think he would make it a horse race........the others are DOA at this point.
Post a Comment