Five Completely Absurd Economic Ideas That Keep Winning Votes For Democrats

Liberals fall short in many critical areas, but they ARE full of one thing (OK, one OTHER thing besides what I know you’re thinking) … ideas. ‘Big’ ideas. ‘Bold’ ideas. Ideas all over the place, most of which in some form or another were on grotesque display during the last two series of Democratic 2020 presidential candidate debates.

Of course, it’s one thing to have an idea, but how many are actually realistic or even theoretically possible? Sadly, such is the fate of pretty much every ‘big, bold’ idea Democrats manage to projectile-vomit out of their mouths, especially when it comes to how to spend YOUR money. The sad part is, they almost always sound so good in theory that a significant percentage of voters are completely duped, thus enabling Democrats to win national and statewide elections.

After the latest round of debates, even a seemingly frustrated Washington Post editorial board asked: “Why go to the trouble of running for president to promote ideas that can’t work?”

The idea that everyone is entitled to get treated for ‘free’ when they are sick sounds great, at least on the surface. Everybody gets sick, right? So why should anyone have to pay for good healthcare? The obvious problem is, if someone isn’t paying for it, that means someone has to be forced to provide that “free” healthcare for, well, free.

Democrats will say that’s not their argument, that a taxpayer-funded program like Medicare-For-All would fix everything. Except, when you introduce socialism into the equation you’re bound to get things like insane tax rates (because again, nothing is really ‘free’), deadly inefficiencies (because government) and absurd price and wage controls that stifle innovation and drive anyone and everyone with a lick of smarts who don’t want to work for less than they are worth out of the industry. See Canada and virtually everywhere else socialized medicine is practiced. Which means that eventually, if you want to have people to provide all that “free” healthcare, you’re going to have to force them. Did we abolish slavery over a century and a half ago?

Who doesn’t want to make more money? What if you could vote for your pay raise? Push a button for the person with a D beside their name, and watch that cash start rolling in. Yes, Bernie started it. But now, everyone with a D beside their name thinks it’s a good idea to force employers to pay $15 an hour and up, no matter what work their employees perform. Because nevermind economic laws like supply and demand, everyone should make all the money! And while not even Bernie Sanders wants to live to his lofty wage standards when it comes to paying his own campaign workers, that doesn’t stop him and all the other Democratic candidates from promising the world to lower-skilled workers, at someone else’s expense.

Hey, while we’re giving away ‘all the money,’ why not make the minimum wage $25 per hour? How about $100 per hour? Hell, why not go for broke and make everyone multi-billionaires. Then, everyone can live in giant mansions with their sportscar of choice parked in their beautiful, long, concrete driveways. Sure, it’ll probably take a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread or pay someone to do a simple home repair, but hyperinflation is a small price to pay for ‘equality,’ right?

“Equal pay!” they shout as if U.S. companies actually make a habit of paying women less than men doing the exact same work, with the exact same qualifications, at the exact same performance level for the exact same amount of time. This is, of course, ludicrous on its face. There is no such thing as a “gender pay gap.” It is a myth, a fantasy borne out of the twisted minds of warped social justice engineers who, incidentally, aren’t nearly as smart as real engineers. And yet, Democrats think they can somehow legislate this mythical “gender pay gap” out of existence. How exactly would that work, Senator Gillibrand? Do you mandate that a newly hired female earn as much as a male who has been on the job, say, 20 years? Do you mandate that teachers make as much as engineers? Do you equalize the pay between, say, nurses and doctors? Do you force more women to become doctors or vice versa? And what sort of god-awful government bureaucracy do you invent and impose on American businesses to sort all this out?

If any sort of “gender pay gap” existed, the free market would sort it out really quick. For example, there is currently a shortage of qualified workers in many key fields. If the “gender pay gap” were true, companies would be falling over themselves trying to find and hire the women currently working somewhere else for less than they are worth. It’s not rocket science, just basic economics … but still sadly beyond the intellectual grasp of most liberals.

Excessively raising taxes or overtaxing the rich will bring in more tax revenue

This is an old one, but despite being continually debunked it continues to come up as if government budgets were a zero-sum game. Meanwhile, in the real world, overtaxing depresses economic activity, leading to less revenue in the long term. And the idea that the “rich” can pay it all is absurd as well. As John Stossel pointed out in this 2012 Forbes piece, taxing all those who make $1 million or more at 100 percent would result in 600 billion or so, not nearly enough to even begin to chip away at the nation’s massive debt. And going forward, why would anyone who’s getting taxed at 100 percent or anywhere close to that continue to produce? No matter how you slice it, entitlements and spending have to go down to make ends meet. The problem is, politicians on both sides of the aisle don’t have the political stomach for it, so the debt and deficit continue to balloon.

These five are really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to completely unworkable liberal ideas that keep hanging around because they sound just good enough to get the votes they need to seize power.

"Five Completely Absurd Economic Ideas That Keep Winning Votes For Democrats"

A major problem with the Democrats' big ideas is that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for any of the listed ideas.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

In other words, misguided Democratic hopeful nominees for POTUS should actually be trying to get elected to state governments to push their ideas since the states uniquely have the 10th Amendment (10A)-protected power to care for the people.

In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the Founding States had given the states, not the feds, the lion’s share of government power to care for the people.

”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)

Justice Brandeis had reflected on Bingham’s words when he likewise emphasized state power to serve the people.

"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose [emphasis added], serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” — Justice Brandeis, Laboratories of democracy.

Note that constitutional limits on states as laboratories of democracy is that states cannot establish privileged / protected classes or abridge constitutionally enumerated rights, and must maintain a constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government.

H O W E V E R…

The states won’t be able to do their constitutional duty to serve the people until patriots support PDJT in putting a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes indicated by the Gibbons v. Ogden opinion, such taxes arguably stolen state revenues.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."—Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

More specifically, patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress in the 2020 elections that will not only promise to support PDJT’s vision for MAGA, now KAG, but will also promise to surrender state powers that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification feds have been stealing from the states back to the states.

And to make such changes permanent, patriots also need to support PDJT in repealing the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments.

Remember in November 2020!

MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)

"The “Holy Grail” of organized crime is to control government power to tax." —me
"The constitutionally undefined political parties are basically rival, corrupt voter unions, “union dues” paid by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.” —me
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me

If someone else is willing to do a task cheaper than you it’s not the government’s problem to solve. Illegal immigration is one of the few problems that it is the government’s job to solve. Address the problem of illegal immigration in a way that doesn’t insert the government’s nose into how much money I choose to work for. It is none of their business. If it is, when are they going to define what a “maximum” wage is? A federal definition of what is a minimum wage helps states where the cost of living exceeds this wage and hurts states where the cost of living is lower than this wage. The Fourteenth Amendment says we must all be treated EQUALLY so a federal minimum wage is unconstitutional on this basis alone because of the variance of effect it has on the economies of the states individually. A minimum wage of $15.00 per hour has almost no effect on most northeastern states but puts a huge burden on most of the rest of the country business wise. Sorry, this is NOT equal. It will not fly.

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.