Millennials for Sanders?

Quite a few people around my age seem to like Bernie Sanders. Which is another way of saying a lot of people my age don’t understand socialism. They say Sanders knows how to pay for all of his ideas, and you know… it might even be true. In my opinion though, that’s pretty fucking irrelevant.
The ability of a society, any society, to foot the bill for that kind of an ideology has a shelf life.

It does not last, probably not even long enough to make it through more than one term of a Presidency. And the only reason it’s possible in the first place is due to whatever system it’s aiming to replace. Without something to generate the kind of income you get for the government when you plunder the spoils of the rich, it’s unsustainable in the mid to long term. Then there’s this:

The best case scenario of how it plays out isn’t really all that great.
Even if you could keep that merry-go-round going somehow… why would you?

It’s not just about the skepticism I have when someone tells me “oh, but all the increased spending is accounted for in his plan.” It’s about how the fundamentals of that ideology are flawed, and that when applied, they chip away at the idea that you can achieve a better life. That you can achieve more than what you currently have, rise to a higher position in society than the one you were born in, that you can make more of yourself than simple fate would ever allow.

Socialism works fine when you’ve got rich people to steal money from, but once you’ve toppled the previous economic system and made the rich pay their “fair share”, there are fewer and fewer rich people. Eventually there are none. Which means there’s no one to take vast amounts of money from. Which means the taxes even out, but so does the income. And with that, so does the quality of government provided service. The other thing you’re left with are “adequate” products.

It means goods and services of “adequate” quality instead of the choice between cheap and crappy or expensive and top notch. No more rich class means no more poor class, just some gray area that moves ever closer to poverty for everyone. And then when you’ve reached that point… what’s the point of trying to achieve anything in life? In that kind of an environment, there is no point because no matter what you do, you’re trapped somewhere slightly below a happy medium.

It creates mediocrity at every level; supporters of Bernie Sanders ought to think about that.
And they ought to ask themselves, “do I want to live in a society that creates and relies on a baseline of mediocrity?” That’s what “leveling the playing field” really means. In a reality where people are almost never satisfied anyways, even in the best economic environments, does that really seem like a good thing? Implementing a system that provides less and less satisfaction?

Personally, I don’t think so. It gets worse too. As time passes there’s less and less possibility of escaping from the bottom of the heap, of climbing to the top, of there even being a top the average citizen can get to. If you’re not alright with that, you’re not alright with socialism.

If that actually sounds appealing to you, you can have your utopia where everything is “fair” and balanced out. I consider that a dystopia though, and I’ll take capitalism over that any day, with all it’s controversial flaws. Because for all of it’s failings, it makes the highest reaches possible. Not to everyone, because that’s just not the way it works. But to some, to a few, to whoever is both able and willing to climb and claw their way to that level of existence. For them, maybe for you or me…

There are no limits to how high you can go.

Only one way to find out if you’re one of them too. You’ve got to take a shot, reach out, take another, and another, and another. You’ve got to accustom yourself to failures, to falling short. And once you start experiencing success, you’ve got to keep taking those shots. Achievement shouldn’t slow your pace any more than failure. You’ve got to get comfortable with success, with gains, with achieving you goals, in exactly the same way you need to be acclimated to failure.

Don’t get me wrong either, Sanders seems like a stand up guy in terms of sincerity and integrity, but his ideology is stupid, it only works in the short term and only right after it overtakes a superior economic system. It’s a continuation of the kind of bullshit quick fixes I just railed against in the last few posts I wrote here. So… if you’re a fan of Bernie then good for you I guess, but I’d challenge any fans of his to point out where I’m wrong. Go ahead, take your best shot.

Just a friendly heads up though, my life isn’t going to revolve around responding to you.

I’ll give it the same amount of time and energy I give any other comment someone leaves here; no more and no less. So don’t get butt-hurt if you fail to change my mind, it’s nothing personal when that’s the case, I just happen to have pretty rock solid reasoning behind most of my opinions.


5 thoughts on “Millennials for Sanders?

  1. If seems the millennial s and others don’t get the concept of the “revolution” that BS is pushing for. Free education , free healthcare. This is not Canada or Europe . The ideology Sen Sanders promotes is documented in a 1985 meeting with Castro where he praises the values of this dictator and the changes he has brought to the Island of Cuba. For me that says it all.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “Democratic” socialism is not easily pegged because it’s, well, democratically guided. That means a good degree of drift. And the fact of the matter is all Western nations do in-fact have socialistic programs—which are very popular across the political spectrum. In fact democratic socialism works very well in the Nordic circle. These countries have “lower” debt to GDP and they’re happier by most measures. Hayak was laughably wrong about what would happen there.

    I’m not a Sanders supporter and I do think the debt created by the programs and taxes he proposes are unrealistic. At this point, we simply cannot afford to do that….but in large part thanks to Republicans who typically talk spending cuts but almost always once in power are always “huge” deficit creators. Republicans, with the exception of the anti-Obama cult and during Clinton years, have been THE big spenders in Washington. Very irresponsible with the public pursue.

    As for flawed ideologies and the mess they create, I think supply-side via Reageanomics is a good example of a failed ideology. A perfect example actually. Republicans pushed this “voo-doo” (Words of Bush Sr.) economics and now the mass inequality its created is pretty bad in comparison with the rest of the Western world. Trump supporters, who seem to whole heartily reject many conservative economic ideas, are now the manifestation of this “invisible hand” turned invisible slap.

    It’s true you can’t just soak the rich to get us out of this, but taxes do need to go up on the rich. Taxes in some form need to go up across the board actually. The failed idea that economic growth will pay off deficits is another conservative Friedmanesque fantasy. It’s never worked, never will.

    A return to a balanced economy, one where private and public sector play proper rolls is really the best model and has a history of creating the greatest middle class in the world. The truth is it all started to crumble when we took a bad turn listening to people like Friedman. Reagan did and tripled!! the nation debt. Truly a “conservative” thing to do… He then spend the last years of his presidency raising taxes to recover from the massive whole listening to these flawed ideas.

    The middle-way, the intelligent way, is the best way in life and in economics.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Being democratically guided doesn’t mean that the people who believe in the ideology aren’t progressively trying to use democratic means (rather than military or police forces) to move ever closer to the same thing any other socialist would move towards. Democratic socialists say they’re not the same as socialists, but that’s just intellectual dishonesty in my opinion. The goal is the same, and the means are just another form of force: persuasion and, with the poorer of us being in the majority…. But just because a party or a politician can convince a large number of people of something doesn’t necessarily mean they’re not being duped.

      “These countries have “lower” debt to GDP and they’re happier by most measures.”

      I’ve heard that, but the crux for me is, it almost inevitably boils down to this: freedom of choice or being content. I prefer to be unsatisfied, even unhappy at times, because that’s part of the package deal that comes with freedom.

      “Republicans, with the exception of the anti-Obama cult and during Clinton years, have been THE big spenders in Washington. Very irresponsible with the public pursue.”

      On that, I more or less agree with you, although I really wouldn’t lighten any of the blame cast on democrats either. They’re all part of the problem, and *still*, even now, are trying to maintain the status quo and the financial bleeding our country is suffering. Personally, I have zero party loyalty and zero trust in either of the parties or the career politicians who’ve created this mess.

      It’s funny you mention Reagan-nomics haha… I believe that was called the “trickle down theory”, wasn’t it? And no, it really didn’t work, but if that’s not the core principle driving your policies (the idea of trickle down economics), I think taxes can either remain the same or be lowered and and we could still conceivably cut useless programs and (far more importantly) systematically look for and eliminate the wasteful spending, mismanagement, fraud, embezzlement, and so on that goes on right now, and that’s been going on for years virtually unchecked.

      On that count (and on a number of other points) I trust Trump over anyone else running to be able to make a difference instead of just give lip service to it.

      “It’s true you can’t just soak the rich to get us out of this, but taxes do need to go up on the rich.”

      Why? Aren’t they already taxed at a higher rate than middle and lower class citizens? I’m pretty sure they are, so… why should they have to pay even more?

      “The failed idea that economic growth will pay off deficits is another conservative Friedmanesque fantasy. It’s never worked, never will.”

      I totally agree that economic growth won’t, by itself, take care of the problem. But that in combination with a concentrated effort to ramp up efficiency in government agencies and programs, pull back our spending on foreign aid (financially and militarily, the latter of which *also* has a financial impact of it’s own), and to be compensated by other countries for services rendered, deport illegal immigrants who are sending money back to their countries of origin and have access (fraudulently and otherwise) to tax payer money and our healthcare system, infrastructure projects to get movement within the economy from the bottom up (and, lest we forget, for the simple reason that our infrastructure *needs* improved throughout the country anyways), and… a few other things that have slipped my mind, and I think that would have us off to an excellent start at recovering from the deficit, along with a plethora of other deficiencies our nation is hurting from.

      “The truth is it all started to crumble when we took a bad turn listening to people like Friedman. Reagan did and tripled!! the nation debt.”

      I’m not entirely sure Friedman would’ve done what Reagan did. It could just be me, but the way I see it Friendman was probably considerably smarter than Reagan in terms of economics. Economics and numbers were that guys thing, they were most definitely centerpieces in his wheelhouse; and Reagan, for all the idolization that goes on today, was ultimately just a figurehead, and arguably didn’t have the same level of understanding as Friedman. Or as me or you for that matter, because we have the benefit of being able to look back on our history (and his presidency) and see what worked and what didn’t.

      “The middle-way, the intelligent way, is the best way in life and in economics.”

      Why should we just lie down and accept that not only does the status quo need to be maintained, it needs to get worse? And how will higher taxes, for example, *not* have an adverse effect on an already strained and barely recovered economy like ours? I do appreciate you taking the time to comment so don’t take this the wrong way, but I can’t see how more of what’s pissing people off and more of enabling career politicians to piss away our tax money and take advantage of all of us (which is what the middle way really represents, from what you describe) is going to make things any better. The gov. needs to get it’s own house in order imo. Then, maybe, they can think about placing a greater burden on the average citizen.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s