This applies to the Obamacare repeal debate but thought it belonged in another thread:

Why Socialism Is Here To Stay

Mar 28, 2017

“[T]he government has to take resources from someone before it can dole them out to others. This act of taking destroys an economy. The more you take from the productive members of society, the less productive they become. That’s the primary lesson of the history of socialism.”

The above quote is from Porter Stansberry – from his book, America 2020: The Survival Blueprint. It states a concept I’ve described for years, but Porter states it more succinctly than I ever have. In particular, it negates the argument by many “progressives” that, even if they don’t recommend full-on socialism, they believe in getting “just the right mix” of socialism and capitalism to create the ideal system.

Unfortunately, as viable as this concept may sound, even moderate socialistic national policies result in moderate deterioration of the system. It’s not unlike being “just a little” addicted to heroin.

It may be argued that, “That’s different. With heroin, the addict will always end up wanting more and he’ll become even more dependent.” Exactly so – and that’s unquestionably true for socialism as well. Once the concept of “free stuff” is part of a nation’s governing system, the desire for more free stuff will inexorably rise.

And, of course, historically, we have seen that governments always step up to the plate whenever the demand for more free stuff is suggested. But why should this be so? Wouldn’t a more conservative government be less likely to proffer entitlements than a more liberal government?

Actually, no. To believe this is to misunderstand the very nature of governance. Those who are governed like to believe that their government exists to serve them, and all political leaders are quick to encourage this perception. However, amongst themselves, political leaders fully understand that they exist primarily to feed off of and dominate the electorate. Of course, they can’t actually admit this, but, regardless of party affiliation, that is their very raison d'tre.

In a free-market society, a government is not especially necessary. It may be needed to defend the country if it’s invaded, or, arguably, it may be useful in creating a national currency, building national highways, etc. (But even these needs may be argued.)

A free-market society is beneficial, as it creates prosperity. It enriches the population with money, goods, and services. It also rewards those who are most productive. However, it does tend to leave behind those who are less productive, and here’s where political leaders find their opportunity to cash in.

Let’s say we have a country that’s made up of five voters, with their respective net worth as follows:

Voter A: $1

Voter B: $10

Voter C: $100

Voter D: $1,000

Voter E: $10,000

If I were running for office and declared that no one should own more than $10, I would not be elected, as most voters would quite rightfully regard me as a threat. But if I were to declare that “the greedy rich” have too much money and should be required to “give some back,” I might get all voters except Voter E to vote for me.

Why should this be so? Because no one thinks of himself as being amongst “the greedy rich.” For the man who is worth $1,000, the greedy rich are those who are worth $10,000 or more. But, likewise, the man worth $100 thinks of the greedy rich as those worth $1,000 or more. Human nature dictates that we don’t see ourselves as greedy, but it’s not too difficult for politicians to convince us that those who have more than us are greedy. Further, once we’re convinced of this, it’s not too difficult to fool us into believing that the greedy rich have, in some way, achieved this wealth by swindling us out of it. And, now that you mention it, yes, we would like to have some of it back, thank you.

So, any population becomes an easy target for leaders who promise to take from the rich and “give back” to the less rich, like a modern-day Robin Hood. But what of that claim that “just the right mix” of socialism could take some away from the rich, but leave prosperity intact? Well, here’s why that will never happen in any country…

Political leaders, as stated above, do not exist to serve the populace, they exist to feed off of and dominate them. They cannot do this without the wealth of the electorate passing through their hands. The more of the electorate’s wealth passes through their hands, the greater the amount that can be skimmed off to both enrich themselves and increase their power. (Only in Uruguay does the President leave office driving the same Volkswagen he did when he took office.)

And so, it’s the nature of governments (whether they claim to be conservative or liberal) to seek to increase the size of government annually (requiring ever-more revenue to pass through their hands) and to take an ever-greater part in the hands-on distribution of the nation’s wealth. All governments will do all they can to grow themselves, as it’s very much in their interest to do so. All governments will, regardless of their party rhetoric, continually pursue a greater level of socialistic policies. In this regard, political parties are interchangeable.

So, where does that leave the individual voter? Well, the vast majority will vote for the candidate whose rhetoric most closely follows his own ideals, but he will surely be the loser as a result. (Campaign rhetoric almost always proves to be a lie.)

The choice, really, is whether the individual is living in a jurisdiction where he believes the government has already become so socialistic that he’s a net loser, rather than a net recipient. Beyond this point, his future can only be on a downward trajectory.

This is a most unpleasant conclusion to come to grips with, as it informs the individual not only of his current situation, but the rest of his life. In standing back and observing his entire future from a greater vantage point, he realises that, increasingly, he will be beating his head against the wall if he remains where he is.



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...-socialism-here-stay

It's here to stay because he who robs Peter to pay a room full of Pauls, can always count on the support of the Pauls and all of the Pauls in the queue.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
It's here to stay because he who robs Peter to pay a room full of Pauls, can always count on the support of the Pauls and all of the Pauls in the queue.

To me here is socialism in a nutshell.

In the name of equality (by force), the gov't robs Peter to pay Paul. Paul learns he doesn't have to work his own garden because he can eat from Peter's garden. Peter learns there's little value in pumping up his garden, as the gov't will take it. The gov't learns they and their cronies eat first and foremost, the people get the leftovers.

The end result is that the economy under performs, can no longer meet the needs of the populace. The gov't becomes a self serving and corrupt parasite. In time either the people destroy the gov't, or the gov't destroys the people. (But if the parasite gov't destroys the people, who will provide the food -- the gov't ends up feeding on itself.)

I wonder, what portion of the people in the US today are Peter, what portion are are Paul? And what that ratio be in ten years?

quote:

I wonder, what portion of the people in the US today are Peter, what portion are are Paul? And what that ratio be in ten years?

Well, I don't know what the percentages are, but it's a one-way ratchet. Once Paul learns he can eat from Peter's garden he's not likely to tend his own.

quote:

The gov't learns they and their cronies eat first and foremost, the people get the leftovers.

... and like the article says, it's both political parties feeding first at the trough, increasing the size of government annually and requiring ever-more revenue to pass through their hands.

The Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with making health care affordable (it's done the opposite), and everything to do about controlling one-fifth of the economy.

The other thing I found interesting in this article is this:

quote:

The choice, really, is whether the individual is living in a jurisdiction where he believes the government has already become so socialistic that he’s a net loser, rather than a net recipient. Beyond this point, his future can only be on a downward trajectory.

It explains the perhaps sub-conscious thinking many people must go through as government expands. Is it worth it? Should I flee?
It's a choice many have made recently to leave California and Illinois.

good reason to shoot Paul and bury him in the woods

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
It's here to stay because he who robs Peter to pay a room full of Pauls, can always count on the support of the Pauls and all of the Pauls in the queue.

To me here is socialism in a nutshell.

In the name of equality (by force), the gov't robs Peter to pay Paul. Paul learns he doesn't have to work his own garden because he can eat from Peter's garden. Peter learns there's little value in pumping up his garden, as the gov't will take it. The gov't learns they and their cronies eat first and foremost, the people get the leftovers.

The end result is that the economy under performs, can no longer meet the needs of the populace. The gov't becomes a self serving and corrupt parasite. In time either the people destroy the gov't, or the gov't destroys the people. (But if the parasite gov't destroys the people, who will provide the food -- the gov't ends up feeding on itself.)

I wonder, what portion of the people in the US today are Peter, what portion are are Paul? And what that ratio be in ten years?

In my example I omitted the leverage of govt to serve simplicity, but your description is important. That govt becomes a parasite is crucial to the equation. The only question remaining is how far govt can grind the people and maintain the status quo. We haven't reached that threshold yet which is comparatively late. I suspect like a battered wife, when her husband is not beating her, he is just so good to her or at least promises to be so. It becomes a sick relationship. That is where we are now.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
good reason to shoot Paul and bury him in the woods

yup

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:....In my example I omitted the leverage of govt to serve simplicity, but your description is important. That govt becomes a parasite is crucial to the equation. The only question remaining is how far govt can grind the people and maintain the status quo. We haven't reached that threshold yet which is comparatively late. I suspect like a battered wife, when her husband is not beating her, he is just so good to her or at least promises to be so. It becomes a sick relationship. That is where we are now.

I think you are correct, that is where we are now. If we are both correct, the future will be bumpy.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:...Once Paul learns he can eat from Peter's garden he's not likely to tend his own.

Correct

quote:

... and like the article says, it's both political parties feeding first at the trough, increasing the size of government annually and requiring ever-more revenue to pass through their hands.

Correct

quote:

...The Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with making health care affordable (it's done the opposite), and everything to do about controlling one-fifth of the economy.

Double correct. Not only control 1/5 of the economy, but more importantly, increase power over the masses.

quote:

...The other thing I found interesting in this article is this: "The choice, really, is whether the individual is living in a jurisdiction where he believes the government has already become so socialistic that he’s a net loser, rather than a net recipient. Beyond this point, his future can only be on a downward trajectory."

Bingo

quote:

...It explains the perhaps sub-conscious thinking many people must go through as government expands. Is it worth it? Should I flee? It's a choice many have made recently to leave California and Illinois.

We are not leaving CA (until around the end of the year, which can't come too soon.)

Meanwhile....

CBO Warns Of Fiscal Catastrophe As A Result Of Exponential Debt Growth In The U.S.
Mar 30, 2017

In a just released report from the CBO looking at the long-term US budget outlook, the budget office forecasts that both government debt and deficits are expected to soar in the coming 30 years, with debt/GDP expected to hit 150% by 2047 if the current government spending picture remains unchanged.


According to the CBO, "at 77 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), federal debt held by the public is now at its highest level since shortly after World War II. If current laws generally remained unchanged, the Congressional Budget Office projects, growing budget deficits would boost that debt sharply over the next 30 years; it would reach 150 percent of GDP in 2047."

In addition to the booming debts, the office expects the deficit to more than triple from the projected 2.9% of GDP in 2017 to 9.8% in 2047. The deficit at the end of fiscal year 2016 stood at $587 billion.

On the growth side, the CBO expects 2% or less GDP growth over the next three decades, far below the number proposed by the Trump administration.

The budget office breaks down the primary causes of projected growth in US spending as follows: not surprisingly, it is all about unsustainable social security and health care program outlays.

The CBO's troubling conclusion:

Greater Chance of a Fiscal Crisis. A large and continuously growing federal debt would increase the chance of a fiscal crisis in the United States. Specifically, investors might become less willing to finance federal borrowing unless they were compensated with high returns. If so, interest rates on federal debt would rise abruptly, dramatically increasing the cost of government borrowing. That increase would reduce the market value of outstanding government securities, and investors could lose money. The resulting losses for mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, banks, and other holders of government debt might be large enough to cause some financial institutions to fail, creating a fiscal crisis. An additional result would be a higher cost for private-sector borrowing because uncertainty about the government’s responses could reduce confidence in the viability of private-sector enterprises.

It is impossible for anyone to accurately predict whether or when such a fiscal crisis might occur in the United States. In particular, the debt-to-GDP ratio has no identifiable tipping point to indicate that a crisis is likely or imminent. All else being equal, however, the larger a government’s debt, the greater the risk of a fiscal crisis.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...ntial-us-debt-growth

It seems we're exemplary at identifying the problem. What do you think we should do about it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FenderBender,

A very, VERY wise woman once had something to say about Socialism.....

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
It seems we're exemplary at identifying the problem. What do you think we should do about it.

Ahh... there's the question.
Most of it is entitlements, including social security, medicare, medicaid and other welfare spending.
If I were king or czar (not President, as Trump is finding out it's hard to herd the cats to go along) I would get the .gov out of health care and I would turn off the EBT cards.

Social security is a different animal because it's a blend. People who didn't choose it have had to pay in all of their lives and rely on it, even if they don't like it. So..... privatization of social security would have to be a gradual thing.

But... as the article says, Socialism Is Here To Stay... but not forever. It WILL collapse, it's just a question of when. We could neatly and cleanly change course, but it won't happen because too many people are hooked on it like heroin. It will have to collapse, like it always does, Venezuela being the most recent example.

For a real life example of how well socialism works, do a short study of East Germany. We have family that still lives there, and yes I know it is not east Germany anymore.

One example, the "plan" called for potatoes to be planted on a specific date. Problem was that the rain had been falling for some time, the ground was soaked and no responsible farmer would have planted those spuds until the ground dried out.

But, but, but the plan called for it, so they planted the spuds and they all rotted in the ground. Just one example.

Command economies, as illustrated by Elk Hunter do not work.

Minimum wage is a facet of the command economy, we'll have to turn this off too.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
We are not leaving CA (until around the end of the year, which can't come too soon.)

You lucky bum! I'm jealous. We're likely stuck for at least the five years until the youngest finishes high school.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
We are not leaving CA (until around the end of the year, which can't come too soon.)

You lucky bum! I'm jealous. We're likely stuck for at least the five years until the youngest finishes high school.

Y'all know that Karma is in effect.

The reason socialism is here to stay is because it promises fairness, and that concept will always be emotionally compelling. I know life isn't fair, and cant be made fair by the government. But the lie of socialism remains attractive because many people despise their circumstances, are powerless to change them, and resent it.

Capitalism will never be a successful counter argument. Sure it can be "fair" logically, but in practice it's not fair and some people always start with more. It will never have the same emotional appeal. Of course socialism hasn't been fair in practice either; it completely ignores the nature of man and therefore its philosophies are incompatible with our innate characteristics. But if you want it gone, you'll need a more emotionally convincing argument than capitalism currently provides.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
The reason socialism is here to stay is because it promises fairness, and that concept will always be emotionally compelling. I know life isn't fair, and cant be made fair by the government. But the lie of socialism remains attractive because many people despise their circumstances, are powerless to change them, and resent it.

Capitalism will never be a successful counter argument. Sure it can be "fair" logically, but in practice it's not fair and some people always start with more. It will never have the same emotional appeal. Of course socialism hasn't been fair in practice either; it completely ignores the nature of man and therefore its philosophies are incompatible with our innate characteristics. But if you want it gone, you'll need a more emotionally convincing argument than capitalism currently provides.

I was talking with my Bernie Booster neighbor last night, briefly touched politics, but we both changed the subject. She was wearing a Trump shirt someone got her as a joke in October (not so funny now huh?). This is the problem with people, all people, but even more socialist/compassionate people. It sounds so freaking good. Everyone can have everything, woo hoo! They fail to follow the thought exercise to its end. It always ends badly, the answer was they did something wrong along the way, if you tweek it a little here or there it becomes utopia.

Nope, it doesn't, you never end in utopia, no matter how you set it up. It's only a question of how long until it blows up.

I wish I could get some to listen long enough that they went home and thought it through, 90% will never do that because it's too hard to accept that there are limited resources and the spoils go the those that work the hardest or are the luckiest. When you cut those people off at the knees and give it to those that don't work as hard, the producers don't feel like being quite as productive because others get the spoils of their efforts.

In 1787 John Adams predicted this, that is, once the people discovered they could vote in candidates who promised to take more and more from those with property, our democratic republic would be threatened.