Comrade Bernie’s United Socialist States of America

Comrade Bernie’s United Socialist States of America

Comrade Bernie’s United Socialist States of America

Buried behind all the media screeching about Nancy Pelosi’s decision to move ahead with the impeachment inquiry is the latest from Bernie Sanders. The curmudgeon of “Democratic” politics continues to show his true colors as he attempts to prove he is the best socialist in the Democratic presidential race. What has he done this time? He announced his plan “the top 0.1% of U.S. households in order to reduce income inequality and fund his many proposals for new or expanded social programs.”

But that’s not all good ole Bernie had to say:

Asked if he thought billionaires should exist in the United States, Mr. Sanders said, “I hope the day comes when they don’t.” He added, “It’s not going to be tomorrow. . . I don’t think that billionaires should exist,” he said, adding that there would always be rich people and others with less money. “This proposal does not eliminate billionaires, but it eliminates a lot of the wealth that billionaires have, and I think that’s exactly what we should be doing.”

Think about that for a moment. He doesn’t think billionaires should exist here, in a country where being a good businessman was once encouraged. He has no qualms saying he will use the power of the government to take away their legally earned assets. How will that go over with those oh-so-woke liberal drum bearers for the party when they realize their monies will also be forfeit?

I doubt they will be such good little socialist water bearers then.

But it goes beyond that. What is Comrade Bernie going to do when these same billionaires shield their money in trusts and the like? Is the government going to take away money or assets when the person or family involved doesn’t have actual control over it? How are the Kennedys or the Rockefellers or the Bill Gates of the world going to react then?

And there is no justice when a rich man decides those with more wealth than he has should forfeit monies and assets without due process and without any reason other than the fact Comrade Bernie wants to turn the U.S. into a his version of a socialist paradise.

At least he isn’t so cowardly as to deny what he’s doing is raising taxes. He simply tries to couch it in terms of taxing the few for the good of the many. What he doesn’t discuss is that there will come a time when those who aren’t part of the 0.1% will feel the brunt of this new taxation as well.

Ah, socialism. Stealing for the many for the good of the few.

Here is the Sanders plan in a nutshell:

  • 1 percent on married couples with a net worth above $32 million (meaning a couple worth $32.5 million would pay $5,000 annually in taxes)
  • 2 percent on those worth $50 million to $250 million
  • 3 percent on $250 million to $500 million
  • 4 percent on $500 million to $1 billion
  • 5 percent on $1 billion to $2.5 billion
  • 6 percent from $2.5 billion to $5 billion
  • 7 percent from $5 billion to $10 billion
  • 8 percent on wealth over $10 billion
  • For individuals, all of the brackets would be cut in half

There is so much about plans like this that should bother all of us. First, it penalizes those who have been innovators, those who helped make this country what it is today. Second, by doing so, it will discourage most everyone from taking any sort of financial risk because the potential for reward has been diminished, not only for the person taking the risk but for their children and grandchildren. Third, this is such an abuse of power that it is almost unfathomable.

It goes beyond that. It goes beyond stealing from many whose only “crime” has been to be successful. It is the desire to put the government in control of even more of our daily lives, ignoring the lessons history has taught us. Not only in socialist countries but here at home.

Think about the failures or near failures of the federal government. The postal service is a mess. It lost $3.9 billion in fiscal 2018 with warnings it would continue to lose even more money in the future.

For years, we’ve heard horror stories about the V.A. Yet Comrade Bernie and his cohort, Elizabeth “Don’t tell me I’m not Native American” Warren, and others continue to push for even more governmental presence in our medical care. That is exactly what Medicare for all would be. And, let me tell you, if you haven’t deal with Medicare lately, it’s a pain in the ass. It doesn’t pay for everything. If you are lucky, you can find–and afford–a decent supplemental insurance. Then you have to worry about whether your primary care physician will accept 1) Medicare and 2) your supplemental. If not, good luck finding a doctor you like and who can see you any time soon.

Here is something else to consider. According to CNN, this tax would decrease the wealth of those impacted by one-half in 15 years. How many people are going to sit back quietly as this happens? As noted earlier, they will either find new ways to shield their assets or they will leave the country, taking their money with them. Then where will we be?

And where will the various charities and other social programs that are currently being supported by these billionaires be when this tax goes into effect? When it does, how many of these men and women will continue giving as they have in the past? That is one question neither Comrade Bernie or Warren or any of the others ever address. It doesn’t fit their narrative and they don’t want those families who currently rely on some of those programs to consider the possibility that this new world Bernie is promising will actually hurt more than help.

CNBC calls it correctly, whether it meant to or not. When comparing Warren’s plan to that of Sanders, it said:

While Warren’s proposal also taxes billionaires at a higher rate than multimillionaires, Sanders’ plan, announced Tuesday, is far more punitive to those at the very top — reflecting the strong support for taxing the rich among certain voters.”

All of these taxes–hell, let’s face it, all taxes pretty much–are punitive. But pushing for legislation that will steal half of someone’s assets in a relatively short period of time “for the good of others” should be an anathema to all of us. After all, where will they stop?

They want us to agree with the tax on the wealthy. Then it will be easier for them to point to our previous agreement and say, “See, the precedent is there” when they need more money.

There is a quote from Martin Niemöller that has been repeated numerous times when people discuss Nazi Germany.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Except, today, it must be rewritten.

First they came for the straight, white males and I did not speak out–because I was not one.

Then they came for the billionaires, and I did not speak out–because I was not rich.

Then they came for the conservatives, and I did not speak out–because I could not believe it.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me (or for thee).

We cannot let this happen. We cannot hand over control of our country to those who would destroy it. Do not let this become the Dystopian States of America I wrote about last week. Do not buy into their propaganda. Do no accede to their demands that we kneel before the altar of socialism. Do not be distracted by their demands for yet more investigations and the impeachment of Trump. Those are smoke screens as they try to put into place even more seeds for our destruction.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again. Stand up. Speak up. Do not go gentle into the good night.

Welcome, Instapundit readers!

 

Featured image: Bernie Sanders by DonkeyHotey. Creative Commons 2.0 license.

Written by

7 Comments
  • There’s only one conceivable justification for any tax: It is used, rigidly and without diversion, to pay for a local, state, or national overhead. That is:
    1) The thing funded must possess the characteristic of non-excludability that characterizes all public goods;
    2) It must also be neither a consumer good nor a capital good, and therefore no one would purchase it except that it is agreed to be a necessity, such as an army.

    On the individual level, one example of an overhead is auto insurance. No one buys it because he enjoys it or gets any capital utility from it. We buy it because of the perceived necessity, arising from the irreducible possibility of an accident. However, auto insurance is a private rather than a public good: it benefits only the insured individual(s). An army defends the entire country, including persons who pay no taxes: therefore its benefits are non-excludable, making it a true public good. But we would not pay for an army if there were no potential need to defend the country. That makes it an overhead.

    Therein lies the justification for any variety of taxation. Outside it, taxation is theft, pure and simple.

  • alanstorm says:

    Being stupid enough to consider voting for Bernie should disqualify anyone from voting at all. It’s remotely possible he would make an intelligent choice, but only by accident.

  • George V says:

    Again, Democrats take the fruits of the labor of those who work, earn, invest, and save and give it to those who do not. How is this different from slavery?

  • Beet Field Collective says:

    I was hoping esteemed party member comrade kommissar Barnie Sandlers would let me stay at his lakefront dacha and maybe take the sporty red unicorn fart powered sportscar complete with hammer and sickle paintjob out for a spin. Ohh…only a Trabant and a havel for the comrades? Forwarrd! Yes we can.

  • Buzz says:

    Someone please give this old hippie pot smoking communist never-held-a-real-job 1960s throwback a comb.

  • Politically Ambidextrous says:

    “or they will leave the country, taking their money with them”.

    That’s when the idea of a building a “wall” to prevent “illegal emmigration” will suddenly become something that protects “the greater Welfare.” Berlin, 1961 comes to mind.

  • Pete says:

    Let me think, a tax on only the richest Americans.
    Where have we heard that before?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram
Instagram has returned invalid data.