Number One Reason to Vote for Donald Trump in 2020: “The United States of America Will Never be Socialist!”
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Donald Trump has the Washington, DC establishment in a state of constant confusion and disarray. He’s like the Muhammad Ali’s “rope-a-dope.” Donald ropes the news media and his critics in with provocative pronouncements, and those dopes continue to play the Wily Coyote, ankle biters’ role to Trump’s Road-Runner agenda.
The important thing to remember about Donald Trump is that, when it comes to his core principles, The Donald says what he means and means what he says.
There is a memorable photo of Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders’ head appears to be on the verge of exploding during Trump’s February 5, 2019, State of the Union Speech. The look of consternation on Crazy Bernie’s face was apparently over having to sit and listen to President Trump’s assertion that “America will never be a socialist country.”
While Bernie and his ilk equate socialism to justice and economic fairness, President Trump has a more realistic view: socialism is a dopey dream that started with a German lounge lizard, Karl Marx—no relation to Groucho.
In all its iterations, Socialism has failed throughout the world. It has not promoted fairness. It only spreads the misery equally.
There are lots of reasons our country will never be socialist. Yes, there are some socialist institutions alive and (sort of) well in the United States today. They are a legacy of FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society. Both have, sadly, become institutionalized, and no politician wants to even consider discussing the reforms needed to keep those programs viable. Specifically:
- The Social Security trust fund is scheduled to run out of money by the mid 2030s. If Congress does nothing, every cent of the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2052.
- The cost of Medicare continues to grow faster than the money available to pay for it—our gross domestic product. That, in turn, is compounded by the growth of the elderly population. Healthcare providers game the system by engineering Medicare’s “cost per service” provisions.
- Welfare programs have made no headway in reducing poverty (see below).
So, socialist programs have already proved expensive and inefficient. Here’s a classic example of how paying out even small amounts of money to large populations of people can break the bank:
In the United States there are 61 million people collecting Social Security benefits. To give every person on Social Security just a $10 increase per month would cost $610 million. Multiply $610 million by 12 to get the annual cost (over $7 billion), an individual benefit increase that might come close to buying a KFC dinner snack box for two.
Then there are those who advocate socialism as a source of free higher education. Current Democrat presidential candidates have advocated free college tuition for all and a government program to wipe out student college debt–currently nearly $1.5 billion. Their plan to pay for all that is typically to tax somebody else’s wealth producing activity.
If the government that gave us the DMV pays for and calls the shots in public education, watch for a mass exodus of educators to the private sector—probably replaced by today’s left-leaning millennials. Public education could well collapse under its own weight and inefficiency and go the way of Social Security and Medicare before the middle of this century.
Returning to Socialism’s sad history in the middle of the last century, we should remember LBJ’s “war on poverty.” The final score was War-1, LBJ-0. LBJ meant well and truly wanted a Great Society. Those 1960 programs were the basis of our current welfare system. They comprise over 90 aid programs that to this day cost taxpayer more than $1.1 trillion annually.
What we got for that money were generations of welfare-dependency and a poverty rate that has not changed from LBJ’s years. Perversely, our welfare system continues to trap millions at or just above the poverty level. The choice is simple: stay at home and collect benefits, or go to work and earn less than those benefits.
Finally, we can draw inspiration from Kay Coles James, who in an article in The Daily Signal wrote, “As a black woman who grew up poor in the projects of Richmond, Virginia, I know exactly what an all-giving, all-powerful government can do to families and entire communities.”
Kay became a conservative and has dedicated her adult life to finding solutions that actually help people. Like President Trump, she wants solutions (jobs, opportunities, good pay) that raise all boats.
Socialism has never been much more than a leaky scow drifting in the backwaters of history.
Tags
Who is online
324 visitors
“The United States of America Will Never be Socialist!”
Most likely not, but we do not require Mr. Trump for that.
It's rather like proclaiming "We will never allow the united States to be affected by reverse gravity! We will never allow our citizens to float off into the sky!". Of course you won't, because that's never been a real thing to fear, just as America is not and never will be a purely "socialist" nation. Proclaiming such is nothing but ignorant fear mongering by worthless fools with a hidden agenda.
swap the word theocracy for socialism in the above quote and we're definitely on to something
Whoa-- wait a minute!
What makes you think we would ever allow her in the public square to begin with?
we already have the republican version of socialism. they fuck up the economy, the balance of power in the world, and our environment, and everyone gets to pay, except for them and their tax cut benefactors. as far as theocracy goes, the Constitution is what allows and establishes the boundaries on religion. if the founders thought some wacked out bible thumping dominionists should be at the top of the cultural pecking order with special privileges, they would have said so. they didn't. get the f'n bible babble off my money. it's unconstitutional
So you want to revert before the US had any form of socialism? How far do you want to go back Xx? Before co-ops?
please explain exactly what you mean by that comment.
So you insist that we've gone in the wrong direction but you don't want to go back. Got ya Xx.
Could you say that in English please?
From past experience, XX is stating that public services such as our military, fire departments, USPS, etc. are standard for any government and are not a distinguishing characteristic of socialism (or capitalism for that matter). Thus, he is (remarkably) making an accurate statement.
Well not all governments necessarily provide those 'public services'.
There have been stories about fire departments watching homes burn done because a 'fee' wasn't paid.
Rather than a 'socialist' program, the USPS has become a target of many conservatives and they've been passing policy to screw with it for a while now.
The irony is that there are quite a few characteristics of our society that aren't socialism or capitalism. Many refuse to recognize that we've been an amalgamation from day one. From the colonies to today, we've acted collectively.
Wrong. statist collectivism rose from the Wilsonian Democrats and joined by the Establishment Republicans.
it is counter to our fundamental principles as noted by JFK in this excerpt from his speech on July 4th, 1946
”Individualism
The American character has been not only religious, idealistic, and patriotic, but because of these it has been essentially individual.
The right of the individual against the State has ever been one of our most cherished political principles.
The American Constitution has set down for all men to see the essentially Christian and American principle that there are certain rights held by every man which no government and no majority, however powerful, can deny.
Conceived in Grecian thought, strengthened by Christian morality, and stamped indelibly into American political philosophy, the right of the individual against the State is the keystone of our Constitution. Each man is free.
He is free in thought.
He is free in expression.
He is free in worship.
To us, who have been reared in the American tradition, these rights have become part of our very being. They have become so much a part of our being that most of us are prone to feel that they are rights universally recognized and universally exercised. But the sad fact is that this is not true. They were dearly won for us only a few short centuries ago and they were dearly preserved for us in the days just past. And there are large sections of the world today where these rights are denied as a matter of philosophy and as a matter of government.
We cannot assume that the struggle is ended. It is never-ending.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. It was the price yesterday. It is the price today, and it will ever be the price.
The characteristics of the American people have ever been a deep sense of religion, a deep sense of idealism, a deep sense of patriotism, and a deep sense of individualism.
Let us not blink the fact that the days which lie ahead of us are bitter ones.
May God grant that, at some distant date, on this day, and on this platform, the orator may be able to say that these are still the great qualities of the American character and that they have prevailed.”
And Thomas Jefferson
"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government... This, like all other natural rights, may be abridged or modified in its exercise by their own consent, or by the law of those who depute them, if they meet in the right of others." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790. ME 3:60
Samuel Adams
"In the state of nature, every man is under God, Judge and sole Judge, of his own rights and the injuries done him: By entering into society, he agrees to an Arbiter or indifferent Judge between him and his neighbours; but he no more renounces his original right, than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to Referees or indifferent Arbitrations. In the last case he must pay the Referees for time and trouble; he should be also willing to pay his Just quota for the support of government, the law and constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and impartial Judges in all cases that may happen, whether civil ecclesiastical, marine or military. -
"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man ; but only to have the law of nature for his rule."-
If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave "
Samuel Adams November 1772
And this
"The state remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men.” ~H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)
Seriously, LFOD, READ history book will ya.
Here's a link to give you a start, it's even a Christian source:
Really? The Founders were wrong, JFK was wrong?
Now that's just waaaaay beyond the "Lefts" memory. It's Old. You expect way too much from the "Left" !
I note that you failed to refute ONE WORD of the facts as laid out in the link I provided. The Plymouth colony among others were collectives LFOD, it's documented, facts matter, deal with it.
Read your own link
“The theory of using a common-stock for the profitable operation of colonies was an accepted practice of the day, in spite of repeated failures due to human nature. The failure of this collective system was as evident in Plymouth as it was in other colonies where it had been used. Young unmarried men objected to having the fruits of their toil go to support other men’s wives and children. Married men disliked having their wives sew, cook, and wash for the others. Hard-working men thought it unfair that they should support the more idle or incapable. The older men, or those of the better class, declined to work for the younger or meaner.
Because of severe famine in 1623, the colonists decided to set aside their collective agreement and allow everyone to raise their own food. The immediate result was a greatly increased production, so that many had a surplus and trading began among themselves, with corn as currency.
After the death of the first leader, Deacon Carver, William Bradford became governor.
Seeing the failure of communal farming, the colony instituted a free enterprise system. Each colonist was given ownership to one acre of land and each colonist was challenged to better themselves and their land by working to their fullest capacity. The colony began to flourish. Many Christian historians and economists point to this fundamental economic change as one of the key reasons for the success of the Pilgrims at Plymouth.
Communal living and the common stock economic model had been a disastrous failure. Not only had the London capitalists received almost no return on their investment, but it became evident that the principal of socialism itself was lost. By December, 1624, some of the English businessmen had decided to abandon the venture and lose what they had already expended rather than risk any more, suggesting that the Pilgrims send over what they could to pay off their special debts.”
Read your own denial. I stated:
You insisted:
Now you seem to be admitting that in FACT, the Plymouth colony WAS a collective. You attempt to deflect by claiming, without any evidence, that it was a religious collective. That is FALSE.
BTFW, that it failed is irrelevant. That it existed LONG before 'Wilsonian Democrats' is a FACT.
It was not a national government. It failed quickly and did not form any foundation for future government in the US or elsewhere.
The Plymouth Colony began specifically as a religious community
your attempt to make this an example Christian or otherwise is ludicrous. The Teachings of Jesus and the Apostles are against forced Collectivism
Each colony was a state unto itself. Statist = state....
Again, irrelevant. You insisted that it NEVER EXISTED. It DID.
Sheesh read a fucking history book LFOD. The Mayflower Compact was specifically written the ensure that the 'strangers' became a part of the colony instead of going off on their own.
I didn't say the example was Christian, I said the source was. Refrain from future straw men.
What bible are you reading LFOD?
BTFW, I note that you've added 'forced' to your litany at the last minute. Does that mean that you admit that Jesus' teaching DID include voluntary collectivism?
I have a degree in history and specifically on this subject a good deal of interest since I am directly related to the Pilgrim's pastor, John Robinson who died in Holland while staying with the rest of the group who could not make the first voyage.
The Compact specifically notes that these people were loyal subjects of the King. It provides only for temporary, local governance, not a state unto itself as you claim
I understand why you want to avoid acknowledging it's abject failure in initially requiring forced collectivism. Forced collectivism which is what socialism, social democracies, and all similar ideologies share, is that they are counter to human nature.
I did not add forced last minute. That is what all forms of state collectivism are by definition.
Of course Christianity from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles includes voluntary collectivism. Both Christianity and libertarianism support voluntary collectivism because they don't violate the free will choices of people. I have lived myself in voluntary Christian and non Christian collectives
The Mayflower Compact was their first documented form of government for the COLONY. The COLONY was a state unto itself.
There was no 'forced collectivism', it was agreed to by the majority.
BTFW, I understand why you want to avoid acknowledging that you are admitting that a collective existed here long before Wilsonian Democrats.
You didn't add 'forced' until your last post.
Nope, the Plymouth Colony proves that.
For someone that hates socialism so much, trump sure seems to use it a lot.
Socialism embraces the governments roll in private business's...
Like Carrier, the NFL, the NBA, bailing out farmers because of the tariffs...etc.
Leave it to a "Lefty" to want to be just like all the other failures.
"TAKE BUNCHES of others stuff" to "GIVE to the FEW others" so they have stuff too. The Democrats Platform.
They even want to "TAKE Bunches" from you, for something you weren't even involved in (Reparations) .
"No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce."
Thomas Sowell