Democrats Are Turning To Someone To Lead Them Forward. You’ll Never Guess Who.

The Washington Post reports that the DNC is covering half the cost for the 12-seat chartered plane and the venues as well. Perez told the Post, “Our values are aligned on so many of the critical issues that confront the nation and the Democratic Party. When people actually look at the platform of the Democratic Party — they’ll say, ‘We need community college!’ — well, look at the platform. When they say, ‘We need a $15 minimum wage’ — look at the platform.”

Speaking in Louisville, Sanders ranted, “Our job is to radically transform the Democratic Party into a 50-state party. Our job is to create a democratic Democratic Party, a grass-roots party, where decisions are made from the bottom up.”

The Post gleefully noted that a recent Harvard-Harris poll found Sanders polling at 57 percent favorability with all voters, the best of any well-known American politician.

Perez and Sanders jointly spoke of free college education, and of course, health care, where Sanders favors a single-payer system.

Sanders told reporters, “I suspect that the Democratic Party here in Kentucky has not done the kind of job that it should have done in explaining [that] hundreds of thousands of people have received health care.”

Full article: Democrats Are Turning To Someone To Lead Them Forward. You’ll Never Guess Who.

So, they’re going full retard. Are we surprised? Going full socialist. Nope. Not surprised.

The party that blames old white men for all their problems is looking to an old white man – who scamming the daylights out of them – to save them.

Bless their brain dead little hearts.

More: Jesus Was Not a Socialist, and Bernie Sanders is No One’s Savior

Univision asks Bernie about socialism’s failures, his response is typical…

Via The Blaze:

As first reported by Newsbusters, Sanders was asked by Univision’s Leon Krauze to explain how socialism has failed the governments of Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela. Sanders, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, refused to comment, instead saying he was focused on his own presidential campaign in the U.S.

“I am very interested, but right now I’m running for President of the United States,” Sanders said.

Krauze pressed the presidential candidate and asked if he had an opinion on the dire situation in Venezuela.

“Of course I have an opinion, but as I said, I’m focused on my campaign,” Sanders responded.

Source: Whoa: Univision asks Bernie about socialism’s failures, his response is STUNNING… – Allen B. West – AllenBWest.com

And he can’t answer because it might hurt his campaign! He can’t let the minions think what he wants for America is the same thing as what they have in all those places!

Why socialism always fails

1995 essay “Why Socialism Failed”:

1. Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!

 

2. The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.

 

3. By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit–just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats [and those waiting in long lines today in Venezuela struggling, and often failing, to buy food].

 

4. The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: “give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security.” As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.

Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.

The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving toward freedom.

Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.

Full article: Why socialism always fails – AEI | Carpe Diem Blog » AEIdeas

8 Reasons Millennials Prefer Socialism Over Capitalism

1. Millennials Don’t Know What Socialism Is

The definition of socialism is government ownership of the means of production—in other words, true socialism requires that government run the businesses.

However, a CBS/New York Times survey found that only 16 percent of millennials could accurately define socialism, while 30 percent of Americans over 30 could. Incidentally, 56 percent of Tea Partiers accurately defined it.

In fact, those most concerned about socialism are those best able to explain it.
2. Millennials Don’t Want Government Running Businesses

Young people do not like the true definition of socialism—the idea of government running businesses. If socialism is framed as government running Uber, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple, etc., it does not go over well.

The margin of support for capitalism over socialism is only +10 points, but the margin for a government-managed economy over a free-market system is +32 points.

     3. The Cold War Presented a Stark Contrast

Why might millennials have less negative visceral reaction to socialism? Partly because the Cold War has ended.

It was clear that Soviet socialism was at odds with the American-style free enterprise system. The USSR had a completely centrally planned economy with shortages, rationing, long lines, less innovation, less variety, lower-quality goods and services, and a lower standard of living as the consequence. Thus, free-market economists probably had an easier time convincing Americans that American capitalism was far preferable to Soviet socialism.

     4. Millennials Think There’s a Gentler Version of ‘Socialism’

Perhaps the most important reason millennials are less concerned about socialism is that they associate socialism with Scandinavia, not the Soviet Union. Modern “socialism” today appears to be a gentler, kinder version. For instance, countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway offer a far more generous social safety net with much higher taxes.

These countries actually are not socialist, but “socialistic.” To accommodate their massive social welfare spending, these countries opened their economies to free-market forces in the 1990s, sold off state-owned companies, eased restrictions on business start-ups, reduced barriers to trade and business regulation, and introduced more competition into health care and public services.

In fact, today these countries outrank the United States on business freedom, investment freedom, and property rights, according to the Heritage Economic Freedom Index. So, if anything, the lesson from Scandinavian countries is that market reforms, not socialist ones, explain their prosperity.

Continued: 8 Reasons Millennials Prefer Socialism Over Capitalism | The Federalist Papers

Polls: Sanders-loving millennials have no idea what socialism actually is

A very well-written report in The Federalist by Emily Ekins and Joy Pullmann backs that up with some fairly recent polling, and offers some eye-opening insight on what millennials think socialism is:

First, millennials don’t seem to know what socialism is, and how it’s different from other styles of government. The definition of socialism is government ownership of the means of production—in other words, true socialism requires that government run the businesses. However, a CBS/New York Times survey found that only 16 percent of millennials could accurately define socialism, while 30 percent of Americans over 30 could. (Incidentally, 56 percent of Tea Partiers accurately defined it. In fact, those most concerned about socialism are those best able to explain it.)

With so few able to define socialism, perhaps less surprisingly a Reason-Rupe national survey found college-aged millennials were about as likely to have a favorable view of socialism (58 percent) as they were about capitalism (56 percent). While attitudes toward capitalism remain fairly constant across age groups, support for socialism drops off significantly when moving to older age cohorts. Only about a quarter of Americans older than 55 have a favorable view of socialism.

Conservatives often use the word “socialist” like an epithet, but they don’t realize that neither their audience nor even their political opponents really know what the word even means. This may help explain the inability of free-market advocates to communicate with them using phrases like “big government,” “socialism,” and “collectivism.”

So what do millennials think socialism is? A 2014 Reason-Rupe survey asked respondents to use their own words to describe socialism and found millennials who viewed it favorably were more likely to think of it as just people being kind or “being together,” as one millennial put it. Others thought of socialism as just a more generous social safety net where “the government pays for our own needs,” as another explained it.

If socialism is framed the way Sanders does, as just being a generous social safety net, it’s much harder to undermine among millennials. This narrative says government is a benevolent caretaker and pays for everybody’s needs (from everybody’s pockets), along the lines of the Obama administration’s Life of Julia montage.

Source: Politics: Polls: Sanders-loving millennials have no idea what socialism actually is | Best of Cain

Millennials heed the siren call of socialism

A party divided

The rise of support for socialism among millennials is having an immediate impact on the Democratic Party. Many left-leaning Democrats rightfully detest the kind of modulated crony capitalism epitomized by Hillary Clinton. This could precipitate a civil war among major Democratic donors – notably in Silicon Valley – who may embrace progressive views on cultural and environmental issues, but have little interest in having their massive wealth threatened by regulations or hypertaxation.

“They don’t like [Bernie] Sanders at all,” notes San Francisco-based researcher Greg Ferenstein, who has been polling Internet company founders for an upcoming book. Sanders’ emphasis on income redistribution and protecting union privileges and pensions violates the favorite notions of the tech elite. “He’s an egalitarian liberal,” Ferenstein explains, “these people are tech liberals. Equality is a nonissue in Silicon Valley.”

Although maybe not an issue among the tech oligarchs, class and inequality are not “nonissues” for many progressives of all ages. In blue bastions like San Francisco, grass-roots progressives regard tech billionaires, and their employees, with about the same regard evangelicals have for abortionists. To many old-line Bay Area liberals, the tech moguls – with their tax breaks, special employee buses and expensive tastes – are transforming their once-diverse city into an unconscionably expensive, class-ridden enclave. In many ways, as the Who sang, “the new boss” turns out to be as remarkably oppressive as the “old boss.”

This division will become clearer as the Clinton machine, and its media apparatus, go after Sanders. The Vermont senator was better treated before he posed a serious threat. Now that he is challenging the gentry liberal consensus, the mainstream media, increasingly under the sway of tech oligarchs, are mounting increasingly strident attacks on Sanders. These attacks have been led by the Washington Post, owned by Amazon boss Jeff Bezos, whose fortune and sometimes brutal business practices would fare far better under Clinton than Sanders.

Indeed, the defense of crony capitalism is implicit in the Clinton appeal. After all, she is running with funds collected from financial, technology and other crony industries. Some of these same people have also been quite generous toward the Clinton Foundation, Bill and Hillary’s ethically challenged holding company.

Future of capitalism

Some conservatives – particularly given the chaos of the Republican race – might be tempted to revel in the new Democratic lurch to the left, which conceivably could drive the party too far from the mainstream, at least for older generations. But millennials are the future, and, if the GOP retains its reactionary ideas on key social issues – notably the mass expulsion of undocumented immigrants, legalizing marijuana and gay marriage – its chances of reaching millennial voters may be minimal.

Ultimately, the future of capitalism depends on making the system work for the majority of people, including millennials. The current system, frankly, is producing few benefits for the vast majority of Americans, giving the free market a bad name and turning off millennials. Fully half of them, notes a recent Harvard study, already believe the “American Dream” is dead. More than 10 million millennials are outside the system, neither employed nor in education or training, a population that seems ripe for leftist agitation.

Simply put, to change millennial views, capitalism also needs to change from its current trajectory. The predominant system of crony capitalism, most ensconced in blue states like California, clearly favors the already affluent. At the same time, nonsocialists need to do a better job of explaining the past failures of state control; most millennials, as the Reason Foundation has pointed out, do not even associate socialism with a state-centered economy, which most of them say they would strongly oppose.

And, to be sure, there are elements of millennial attitudes that push back against socialist practices. Millennials, for example, tend to distrust all institutions, including government, according to Pew, and half consider themselves independents, far more than in any other generation. They may be alienated from large financial and corporate institutions but may not remain permanently in the tank for ever more intrusive government.

Ultimately, reality, not knowledge, changes attitudes. Until capitalists focus more on jobs and upward mobility, and less on asset inflation, young people have little reason to change their minds. Unless capitalism or its crony offshoots can create a credible future for the young, there’s little reason to expect that this generation will abandon their determination to change the system that, for all its faults, has created more prosperity over time for more people than any other.

Continued: Millennials heed the siren call of socialism – The Orange County Register

I really blame a lot of this on the education system in the USA, but I also blame parents who decided to never say no to their kids or who fought to make sure their kids got trophies for showing up. This is what happens when kids grow up thinking they are owed everything because they exist and are never taught the value of a dollar or where all that stuff mom and dad got them when they threw tantrum actually came from. These are people who don’t understand that just because you want it doesn’t mean it never gets paid for. Someone has to pay for it, and they’ll be paying along with everyone else who knew better, only they still won’t make the connection. And then we’ll be dealing with a bunch of people who are screaming and hollering because their taxes are so high but pitch a fit whenever someone proposes cutting services and other “free” crap they are getting. We never taught our kids the value of a dollar, cause and effect, etc. And now we are stuck with a candidate that should have the poll numbers that O’Malley has now threatening to be the nominee of the dem side.

Bernie: No, I won’t explain how I’ll pay for everything for everyone

CNN reports:

Bernie Sanders could break his pledge to release details on how he would pay for his health care plan before the Iowa caucuses, according to a top aide.

His campaign released details Wednesday of how Sanders will pay his $1 trillion dollar infrastructure plan and his $75-billion-a-year plan to make public college and universities tuition-free. But noticeably absent was his plan to pay for Medicare for all, a price tag that some estimates put at $15 trillion.

Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, isn’t saying when those numbers will be released.

“I don’t have a date for that,” he said earlier this week. “Not necessarily before the caucuses.”

Weaver stood by his comments on Wednesday, stating that the campaign does not yet have a date for when to release the Medicare-for-all plan. He added that Sanders’ health care plan would be paid for “progressively,” similar to the way his previous Medicare-for-all proposals have been paid for.

Paid for “progressively”?  The track record on that is typically “not at all” and/or at huge cost to the already struggling middle classes.  If “progressively” is the “plan” to pay for his agenda, it’s no wonder Sanders may not release it ahead of the Iowa caucuses . . . even though he had stated earlier that he would do so.

CNN continues:

. . . . That’s a change from what Sanders first told Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union” earlier this month that he would release his details for paying for his health care plan before the caucuses on February 1. Bash pressed the Vermont senator again on Tuesday after President Barack Obama’s final State of the Union when she asked if Sanders would make good on his pledge to release his single payer plan.

Source: Bernie Sanders | “Medicare for all” | 2016 Democrat primary

12508760_10153772065790520_4117774644894036487_n