Posted on 04/17/2016 6:19:49 PM PDT by Daniel Clark
Bernie's Bull: Socialism is the antonym of honesty
by Daniel Clark
Seldom are presidential polling results as consistent over time and among different polling organizations as they are in concluding that the American people think Bernie Sanders is honest. That's the general perception of the Vermont senator, even among Republicans, but why? Is it just because people don't see some unhinged, frothing blowhard hollering "Lyin’ Bernie" every five minutes on TV?
Many conservatives have made the mistake of crediting Sanders with being honest about his socialist ideology, as opposed to Hillary Clinton and the rest of their party, who have traditionally shunned the S-word as if it had head lice. In fact, Sanders himself hedges by calling his belief "democratic socialism," as if that were somehow philosophically different. To the degree to which he embraces the socialist label, it’s only because he sees nothing to be gained by hiding it. That does not mean he is a characteristically honest man, as anybody should know, from the simple fact that socialism and honesty are mutually exclusive categories.
The centerpiece of Sanders' campaign is his promise to provide free public college education, funded by a new tax that would be levied on Wall Street financial transactions. Actually, his plan only calls for the federal government to provide two thirds of the tuition funding, while mandating that the states supply the rest. He shows no concern for where the states might get the money, nor would he allow them to reduce their liability through cost containment. Rather, his plan requires that annual per-pupil spending be equal to or greater than it had been the previous year. Thus, he actually plans to make college more expensive once it’s free.
The tax, then, would only have to produce 67 percent of the needed revenue, but it's highly unlikely that it would do even that. After all, it would suppress economic activity by design. Whatever amount was collected through the financial transactions tax would be mitigated by decreases in revenues from other federal taxes. Ultimately, the price of “free college tuition” would be increases in federal deficit spending throughout the duration of the program, combined with crushing amounts of federally mandated deficit spending by participating states.
One might ask how Sanders can force state governments to contribute all that funding. He can't. If the states don’t want to take on that burden, they may simply decline to participate in the program. Because the plan only applies to in-state tuition, a student in a non-participating state could not avail himself of the "free" college in another state. It is likely that few states, if any, would opt to participate, in which case few if any students would ever receive this "free" government service. How adequately has Honest Bernie explained any of this?
The theme of the Sanders campaign has been his charge that the economy is "rigged" -- but what is socialism if not the rigging of the economy? The opposite of a rigged economy is a free market, also known as capitalism. Tea Party conservatives decry the "too big to fail" bailouts because they made the market less free. Sanders' objection, if he were honest, would be that the government was rigging the economy on behalf of the wrong people, not that he has a problem with the general proposition that the economy should be rigged.
Sanders vows to bring manufacturing jobs back to America, even though that's exactly the kind of work that socialists characterize as exploitative and cruel. If manufacturing jobs began returning in significant numbers, President Bernie would chase them away faster than you can fall asleep reading Dickens. Sanders' public hand-wringing over job losses is belied by the callousness with which he promotes onerous regulations and taxes. His "climate change" obsession, for example, is anti-industrial to its core.
As if that weren't proof enough, Sanders tells us how he perceives the manufacturing sector when he weirdly complains that there are too many brands of deodorant on the market, and that this is why there are starving children in the world. If he thinks the manufacture of a product is a misapplication of funds, then how sincere can his pleas on behalf of The Workers be?
Socialism is the antonym of honesty. This must be so, because socialists would never be allowed to implement their philosophy if they presented it forthrightly to the people. To credit Sanders with honesty just for calling himself a socialist is no different from calling the chairman of the Liars' Club an honest man, just because he admits to being a liar.
-- Daniel Clark is a writer from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is the author and editor of a web publication called The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press, where he also publishes a seasonal sports digest as The College Football Czar.
Socialism is 100% about using other people’s money to do what you want to do.
It’s straight up thievery. And there is no honor among thieves.
Bolsheviks for Bernie 2016!
Socialists for Sanders 1016!
Commies for Clinton 2016!
Criminals for Clinton 2016!
Homos for Hillary 2016!
Menopausal Marxists for Hillary 2016!
Bolsheviks for Bernie 2016!
Socialists for Sanders 2016!
Commies for Clinton 2016!
Criminals for Clinton 2016!
Homos for Hillary 2016!
Fixed it...
Menopausal Marxists for Hillary 2016!
I believe insanity can be defined as extreme foolishness.
Karl Marx HATED the middle class.
He wanted them DEAD.
He wanted their blood FLOWING in the streets.
You can NOT use Marx’s ideas to help the middle class - even if you rename it “Democrat Socialism”.
But you middle class Marxists just LOVE Bernie.
And you sit on your asses lecturing us about the goodness of your neo-Marxist philosophy.
And no one opposes them, so they’re winning everywhere. :)
These democommiies never quit with their lies, trying to pull in the easily-influenced demtard vote. Anyone with even 20/400 uncorrected vision could see it.
There is an upside to socialism. The concentration camps that come with all socialist regimes are not bugs. They are features.
There is a big difference between the Marxist/Leninist Socialism of Russia, and the Democratic Socialism of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. So far as I know the three Scandinavian countries are not known for having concentration camps. Below is a lot of information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism This is a detailed description of the history of Socialist related movements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism This is a more defined listing of the many types of Socialist named (at least 10) or socialist related kinds of social/economic organization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.