#FeeltheBern sounds less like the hashtag slogan of an aspiring presidential candidate, and more like the title of an 80's porno film concocted by someone that lacked imagination. The confusion would be understandable, since a president Sanders will promptly leave us all screwed via a slough of ideas as obsolete and ancient as the first human monarch.
Similar to Barack Obama's 2008 surge in popularity, Bernie Sanders is suddenly attracting cultists. He attracts other people, too, of course. He says all the right things at the right time, and possibly to your amazement, that phenomenon didn't begin with him. However, the difference is that Barack was not sold on most of his ideas--they just sounded nice and won him the votes he needed to rise in the ranks of the ruling class. So of course he trumpeted them as if to say that he would be our first harbinger of real, actual change. There is no reason why he should have cared if he actually believed in things he claimed to. For instance, his supposed support of suspending government mass surveillance programs, and the use of drones (he has escalated drone strikes substantially since after Bush left office) have since clearly been shown as a means to getting elected. Nothing more.
Bernie, on the other hand, seems to think that his socialist ideas will work better this time around, and he is legitimately promising to push them through with a fervor the world hasn't seen since 1945.
This should scare the hell out of you. Unfortunately, due to economic ignorance, and the perpetual longing for a Utopia that is impossible to obtain, there are many voters who are being wooed. In defiance of history, Bernie is adamant that Nirvana is possible: that we can live in a society that is perfectly educated, perfectly prosporous, and perfectly safe. In Bernie's wonderland, politicians are somehow free from the corrupting nature of power, and couldn't possibly be incompetent or inefficient in their duties.
I know, I know. The media is mostly only covering what Bernie Sanders rallies look like. He's surging in the polls (because his democrat competition sucks) and he's "filling up stadiums". The media reports very small tidbits of what he's saying in those rallies. He is not saying nice things about Obama's policies, yet, he wants to maintain those policies and inject them with steroids, all while convincing himself that he is somehow different. The guy endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012... but that's none of my business.
Bernie's platform is basically to cut defense, tax the poorly defined "rich" at poorly defined rates, and have a metric buttload of money spent on entitlement programs (I'm sorry--the buzzwords are "safety nets"). Now, most of us would get on board with cutting defense spending, no matter what party or movement we're affiliated with. Yes, even conservatives. In fact, my co-host Allan Bourdius touched on this subject
here. There are many government contracts that need to be redone, since around 70% of defense spending actually ends up in contractors' pockets. Compare it to military pay, and you probably won't be too thrilled about it. Better, more efficient ways of obtaining supplies and parts need to be implemented as well. The state is replete with fraud, waste, and abuse. It's what government enables best.
Let's not forget two things: 1) Defense was the primary reason for the establishment of the American government and 2.) Defense/military spending only accounts for 15.88% of all federal government spending. Entitlement programs actually account for 62.28%. Medicare and health accounts for 27.42% of all federal spending alone. Social Security and unemployment--33.26%.
Now, Bernie likes to say "military spending accounts for over half of discretionary spending". Sounds a lot more terrifying, right? Of course it does, and that's why he says it. You have to hand it to him, he really knows how to custom tailor an argument. He's right if you take his words at face value, and he's banking on voters not understanding the difference between discretionary and mandatory spending. Furthermore, most people don't understand the percentages. Discretionary spending must be pushed through and debated every year, while mandatory spending does not. Mandatory spending makes up for the vast majority of federal spending. In fact, discretionary spending is at $1.1T as of right now, and mandatory spending is at $2.45T.
Here are the numbers laid out in cute pie charts.
Bernie wants increased spending on already bloated entitlement programs (which have not reduced poverty, according to the
U.S. Census Bureau). He's totes for the poor or something, so he'll make them more comfortable in their current state and engage in policies that will keep them at the bottom of the ladder for generations, as we have witnessed in the liberal bastions that are inner cities. That apparently isn't enough, so he'll make more of them with economic policies that have shown time and again to produce the highest poverty rates in the world. The more the merrier? We have the lowest labor participation rate since the 1970's--and that's partly due to an aging population, but also because we have decreased incentives for people to work. No person that is governed by rational self interest would have any reason to find and keep a job when the welfare is flowing. Incentives are important. You're free to claim I hate the poor, but it doesn't change the facts: liberal policies increase poverty by all metrics, good intentions notwithstanding.
He wants to spend more on education--despite the fact that the United States already spends more per pupil than any other country while our schools
aren't even ranked in the top 5. It's almost as if to say that more spending doesn't equal more quality. Comparatively, the U.S. also pays teachers better. Does he want people to be able to choose where their kids go to school? Absolutely not. Behind closed doors, the view of the ruling class is simply that you are too dumb to make your own decisions, so just defer to the experts in suits. The government should always be the authority. "Education is a right!" He exclaims. Actually, no, it isn't. Not only is it not in the Bill of Rights, but you aren't entitled to someone else's services.This ties into the skewed definition of what rights are in 2015, as they are no longer objectively defined, thanks to the activism of social justice warriors. If you want a more educated populace, allow for economic growth, and do away with this system which does not permit choice (and therefore does not permit weeding out insufficient schools).
He wants to spend more money on veterans' care--but has no interest in addressing the travesty that has become VA hospitals: places that throw most of the cash they get at insufficient managers. He would rather line the pockets of those managing under-performing government hospitals instead of allowing a more efficient system (the private health care sector), to deliver care. And don't bring up that choice thing again. The world has hardly seen a ruler as opposed to choice. This is a man that believes 23 brands of deodorant is too many, and that changing this will save the starving children. It's no wonder that petitions have arisen, asking Senator Sanders to read an economics book. Just one.
Let's move on to the "BUT UTOPIA!" part of this conversation.
Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders seems to believe in a Utopia that, in reality, is unattainable. Look no further than history and the examples of failed attempts are many--Greece, Venezuela, Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia, ad infinitum. Time after time, Marx's vision didn't pan out so well. Where the people were meant to be showered in the riches that would be wrought by tearing down the wealthy, instead we find shortages and absences of the most basic goods. As I write this, the shelves of Venezuelan stores remain mostly empty as the peoples' demands go unfulfilled.
"BUT SWEDEN AND DENMARK!"
A common misconception is that Sweden and Denmark are the socialist Utopia we've all been pining for. I can hear the shouts now, "It works! It works!" Though when we hear these chants, we know that there's not much research being done. Sweden and Denmark stay afloat in spite of their welfare state. And again I say "stay afloat". They don't excel, they survive. Moreover, they aren't nearly as socialist as what Bernie would implement. Yes, they have extremely high taxes, and lots of social programs. However, in the last few years, they have had to scale back some of those taxes, due to lack of economic growth. That fact bears repeating: in countries that Bernie champions as shining examples of successful socialism, taxes have had to be scaled back to improve economic growth. Apparently when pushed into a corner, even the most ardent leftist has to admit that socialism is a burden. Ask the Danish why, if socialism is so wonderful, it was worth becoming criminals to burn down their tax offices in Bernie's paradise: http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/31307
Sweden went from being one of the wealthiest countries in the world, to barely surpassing the wealth of a little over half of all nations, all over the course of progressively more socialist policy implementations. Scandinavian countries consist of culturally non-diverse people, and their economy is supported by vast amounts of oil and fishing. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, socialism seems great when you can afford it, but becomes untenable when you run out of other peoples' money. Yet, even they can't make even half-assed socialism work for their tiny populations.
Keep in mind that Bernie says a 90% tax rate is not too high--even though France couldn't make a 75% tax rate work as recently as December due to "meager returns". The Laffer Curve rears its ugly head. Could Sanders get that rammed through congress? Probably not. But do we seriously want a guy who is that clueless?
"BUT THEY JUST DIDN'T DO IT RIGHT! IT'LL WORK WITH THE RIGHT LEADERSHIP!"
Actually, no. It won't, and this predictable response from progressives is what's known as a Scotsman fallacy. Socialism has been tried, many times in fact, but the result simply hasn't been what its proponents have sought. The economy is interconnected, and as soon as the federal government spends more on regulations, tries to collect more taxes from the "rich", and gives it to the "poor", it effectively crowds out private investment. This happens because the "rich" feel the need to hoard any money they make, fearing financial ruin. Less money is circulated when it is controlled by government. It is the very definition of "The Crowding Out Effect". The only businesses who will survive are the ones picked by politicians. That is an inevitable outcome, since politicians can then control what businesses survive. All they have to do is propose more staggering regulations on industries that compete with their own sources of cash flow. Bernie claims he is not like this--and maybe he would resist lobbyists in certain cases--but what if an industry came to him with a "noble cause"? Yeah, you can see where I'm going with this. If Bernie Sanders is ignorant to just one thing, it is the fact that any power he brokers to the federal government will stay there long after his departure from politics. There has yet to be discovered, a way to keep the corrupt and corruptible from entering government. Until then, Bernie's ideas are 100% guaranteed to provide the most evil of people with a concentrated level of power that would make Mussolini salivate.
It's difficult for some to ignore the constant claims that Bernie is for the American worker. One wants to believe that their candidate is, and unfortunately, no other candidates are as loud with this message as ol' Bernie. I'm very frustrated that other, more qualified, candidates aren't articulating economics well enough. If they are, the media avoids them like the plague. I'm frustrated that Bernie is also fueling the animosity between classes with buzzwords like "greed" and "equality" hoping to gain something for himself. He may succeed on this alone. Class warfare was one of the Obama administration's favorite tools, and it won them 8 years at the helm. Can someone explain why the rich are "greedy", but demanding that they give some of their money to you is not? Is Bernie "greedy" for voting consistently to raise congressional pay? Why or why not? I'm just trying to get all these double standards straight.
Yes, corporations (and unions too) exist to obtain more c-notes. So what? Why is that bad? Hint: It isn't. What enables "big business" to get out of control and crush opportunities for others is when they are shielded by the beloved and benevolent state--and that's what regulations do. Regulations crush competition and choices. Consumers know what's best for their households--not government. Let consumers decide which companies survive and which do not, instead of allowing big government bureaucrats like Bernie Sanders to pick the winner and losers for us.
"TEH UNIONS THO!"
Sanders likes to tout his support from unions. Obviously, they aren't too thrilled about Hillary Clinton, due to her past position on the Wal-Mart board of directors. She also has a history of consorting with certain corporations. She's corrupt, and it's quite clear. Things that you won't see die hard Bernie supporters tout include the fact that unions are still businesses, and they aren't susceptible to many of the obstacles other businesses are. You won't hear people touting the support Bernie "women fantasize about rape" Sanders gets from the violent, disgusting Occupy movement, either. It isn't difficult to understand why.
It is so very obvious why people flock to politicians like Bernie. He is enthusiastic, and he believes the things he says. He makes one feel as though a politician finally cares. So did Obama. Making sure Godwin's law is sufficiently followed, Hitler cared a great deal. He never saw anything wrong with the atrocities he facilitated. Perhaps voters feel as though Grandpa Bernie will swaddle them and rock them to sleep every night after powdering their bottoms. He's "someone voters would like to have a beer, or perhaps a line of cocaine" with. This is another reason why Barack Obama won in 2012--even though the majority of voters sided with Mitt Romney on policy. It's crucial to realize that the policies Bernie proposes will exacerbate our economic problems. They've been tried, and they have failed every single time. He isn't the answer, unless the question is "How do we become
Venezuela?"
By Krystle Schoonveld and Mitch Arseneau
Special shout out to @MCCountchill for the initial proof read. Follow him.
