Socialism is a Ponzi Scheme
Our Founding Fathers built the foundation for this greatest nation on their history, and prepared future generations for the same. The selfishness professed by socialism has stolen the honor they fought for and left us.
Socialism has been the goal. But, what no one has asked themselves is simple...why would the wealthy support 'reallocation' of wealth. Of course they don't...socialism creates barriers to wealth and greater divisiveness. That is the goal of the powerful. There can be no utopia, but ask a parasite who pays no taxes and they are entitled to everything. These are the Parasitic Cult as defined in my book, ‘Beers with our Founding Fathers’ and they do not realize they are simply victims of a self-perpetuating Ponzi Scheme.
Socialism – a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
(see ‘What do socialism and utopia have in common?’ at http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/07/what-do-socialism-and-utopia-have-in-common.html)
Ponzi Scheme – a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.
The form of ‘exchange’ is socialism is the economic means, just as a Ponzi Scheme. The economy, as defined in my book, is a circular ripple effect as long as all parties are contributing to and taking from the economic pool. However, implementing socialism redefines the economy as linear, and beginning and ending with the government.
Income inequality...
Coming from a guy who received aid as foreign student, has never released his college financial or scholastic records, has lived rent free in the People's house (in which they were later not allowed to visit), has spent taxpayers' millions on vacations and a perpetual socialist campaign, receives $400K annually, has no living expenses, has received millions from the less economically disadvantaged and better economically advantaged alike, has seen substantial increases of those in need and taking advantage of taxpayer funded government handouts, has seized both the college student loan program and healthcare - significant economic bases, and has seen more become uninsured than insured by about 5 to 1.
And he wants to talk about an economic policy to create income equality!
Let me give you two quick lessons from Beers With Our Founding Fathers (www.BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com):
1. The economy is a RIPPLE - not a trickle up or down (though down might be better descriptive and advantaged, but it is less of a failure than trickle up); and
2. Disparities of all kinds (race, economics, etc.) are a result of random data resulting in a bell curve. A bell curve is a proven mathematical result. It cannot be eliminated - such as by 'equality' and cannot be created by placing expected results in desired places and hoping for the expected result.
Income inequality…
The revitalized agenda of the chief socialist. What is this? Income redistribution (not just wealth - forget wealth, think YOUR income). We’re all familiar with school grades, so let’s use that as an example.
Some people are getting an 'A', others are getting a 'C' and others are failing - 'F'. We can all remember from school that some got an 'A' easily, others worked hard for it. Some did what it took to be the 'C' average, and others it was all they could do. Of course, some could care less and would live with an 'F', or even a 'D' just to move to the next grade - and some needed special help just to avoid an 'F'.
That's life, that's the natural bell curve -- more will be in the C (that's why its 'average') an on either side some will have Bs and Ds. At the very top and very bottom are those 5%-10% that get an 'A' or an 'F' - either through hard work or not.
Income redistribution is not about fixing an inequality - not everyone can win, more will lose (no, 50/50 don't win or lose - otherwise you would not have sporting championships of the top and then final two best teams).
Socialists feel that everyone can live with being a 'C'. Communists feel that the elite will be 'A' and everyone else can live with a 'D', because everyone should sacrifice - everyone. Socialism is but a very small step from communism. Some feel socialism is Utopia (see the blog just posted at Beers With Our Founding Fathers).
Socialism is unconstitutional. There is no question of this. What laws, such as Obamacare, are is what I would call para-constitutional laws. Those that look real, appealing and even constitutional; but are not and have subversive intentions.
There can be no ‘one class’ system of equality – it is impossible and not the goal of those pushing socialism.
Another analogy we could all be familiar with would be dinner with friends. Friends come from various socioeconomic backgrounds. Some can afford nicer restaurants with more frequency, and others can only go infrequently and are selective based on affordability.
Why is the concept of ‘fair share’ imbalanced, impractical and impossible – and certainly nothing to do with ‘fair’ or ‘share’. A simple demonstrative analogy will put this in perspective. Friends like to go out for dinner, and when the check comes around there is the question, as soon as the check hits the table, of how to divide the check. There are only two ways to do it: 1) Divide the total by the people – everyone pays an equal amount; or 2) Figure out what each person owes. However, both need to consider: 1) Perhaps some were compelled to consider a budget or other concerns, and others were no; and 2) Perhaps some consumed alcohol or dessert, items that can add significantly to the cost of a meal. What would each person’s ‘fair share’ be? If the total bill is $100 for four people, that is $25 each. What if the meals were $20 each and one person had a $5 drink and as a couple they had a $15 dessert? It is not $25 each or even $50 per couple. If split evenly, none of the party pays their actual cost. The next time, each that paid less will repeat their actions of ordering higher, and those that paid more will recall the last experience. It will not ‘work out in the long run’ or ‘balance out’ – eventually one or two in the party will continually pay more than they should, and the others will pay less. A Parasitic Cult socialist will say this is how those that can afford to help out those that cannot. A free market capitalist will determine it is harmful. For those that would say that friendship should not get in the way, we are not analogizing friendship. This could be applied to office dinner gatherings or other social events, but not among friends, environments. The real definition of ‘fair share’ is simply paying what you owe for what you consume, or in the case of taxes – for what you earn. In this scenario, ‘fair share’ is to pay for your personal liabilities of consumption.
At first it seems easier to just divide the bill equally between the four couples attending. Some couples will have ordered more, others less, and even within a couple this may be true. The next outing there will be those that think they were ripped off last time – having ordered less and paid more; and others who will think they should order more because everyone else will be contributing and fair is fair. This fairness thinking simply increases the total dinner tab and everyone’s ‘equal’ contribution; but not equal consumption. It will not take long for one couple to back out, realizing they are subsidizing the selfishness of another couple. This again alters the dinner tab and everyone’s ‘equal’ contribution, but not equal consumption. The solution to this would be agreement following discussion, having separate tickets by couple, or calculating the actual cost per couple.
This is what the current socialist administration and Congress have devised with the healthcare scam, nationalizing auto manufacturer and investment banking bailouts, etc. This is what the socialist media is supporting by handing up their ideal candidate for the next presidential election. If the 2014 mid-term elections are not successful in returning Constitutional Conservatism to Congress, and if the 2016 presidential election falls to a socialist, the future of our Country and Constitution are essentially irreversible.
Fiscal Culture of Capitalism vs. Parasitic Cult of Socialism
The history of a Government of the People, by the People and For the People to
a Socialist Government of the People, by the Government, for the Government
– Socialism. It is one or the other, we cannot have it both ways.
#####
Dean A. Beers is a United States Citizen, born in Fort Collins, Colorado. The author is straight-forward, no non-sense and not politically correct. A business owner, capitalist pig, and firm believer in the foundation and intent of our Constitution, Freedoms and Sovereignty.
Dean A. Beers, author and speaker
American Patriot
[email protected]
www.BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com
Our Founding Fathers built the foundation for this greatest nation on their history, and prepared future generations for the same. The selfishness professed by socialism has stolen the honor they fought for and left us.
Socialism has been the goal. But, what no one has asked themselves is simple...why would the wealthy support 'reallocation' of wealth. Of course they don't...socialism creates barriers to wealth and greater divisiveness. That is the goal of the powerful. There can be no utopia, but ask a parasite who pays no taxes and they are entitled to everything. These are the Parasitic Cult as defined in my book, ‘Beers with our Founding Fathers’ and they do not realize they are simply victims of a self-perpetuating Ponzi Scheme.
Socialism – a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
(see ‘What do socialism and utopia have in common?’ at http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/07/what-do-socialism-and-utopia-have-in-common.html)
Ponzi Scheme – a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.
The form of ‘exchange’ is socialism is the economic means, just as a Ponzi Scheme. The economy, as defined in my book, is a circular ripple effect as long as all parties are contributing to and taking from the economic pool. However, implementing socialism redefines the economy as linear, and beginning and ending with the government.
Income inequality...
Coming from a guy who received aid as foreign student, has never released his college financial or scholastic records, has lived rent free in the People's house (in which they were later not allowed to visit), has spent taxpayers' millions on vacations and a perpetual socialist campaign, receives $400K annually, has no living expenses, has received millions from the less economically disadvantaged and better economically advantaged alike, has seen substantial increases of those in need and taking advantage of taxpayer funded government handouts, has seized both the college student loan program and healthcare - significant economic bases, and has seen more become uninsured than insured by about 5 to 1.
And he wants to talk about an economic policy to create income equality!
Let me give you two quick lessons from Beers With Our Founding Fathers (www.BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com):
1. The economy is a RIPPLE - not a trickle up or down (though down might be better descriptive and advantaged, but it is less of a failure than trickle up); and
2. Disparities of all kinds (race, economics, etc.) are a result of random data resulting in a bell curve. A bell curve is a proven mathematical result. It cannot be eliminated - such as by 'equality' and cannot be created by placing expected results in desired places and hoping for the expected result.
Income inequality…
The revitalized agenda of the chief socialist. What is this? Income redistribution (not just wealth - forget wealth, think YOUR income). We’re all familiar with school grades, so let’s use that as an example.
Some people are getting an 'A', others are getting a 'C' and others are failing - 'F'. We can all remember from school that some got an 'A' easily, others worked hard for it. Some did what it took to be the 'C' average, and others it was all they could do. Of course, some could care less and would live with an 'F', or even a 'D' just to move to the next grade - and some needed special help just to avoid an 'F'.
That's life, that's the natural bell curve -- more will be in the C (that's why its 'average') an on either side some will have Bs and Ds. At the very top and very bottom are those 5%-10% that get an 'A' or an 'F' - either through hard work or not.
Income redistribution is not about fixing an inequality - not everyone can win, more will lose (no, 50/50 don't win or lose - otherwise you would not have sporting championships of the top and then final two best teams).
Socialists feel that everyone can live with being a 'C'. Communists feel that the elite will be 'A' and everyone else can live with a 'D', because everyone should sacrifice - everyone. Socialism is but a very small step from communism. Some feel socialism is Utopia (see the blog just posted at Beers With Our Founding Fathers).
Socialism is unconstitutional. There is no question of this. What laws, such as Obamacare, are is what I would call para-constitutional laws. Those that look real, appealing and even constitutional; but are not and have subversive intentions.
There can be no ‘one class’ system of equality – it is impossible and not the goal of those pushing socialism.
Another analogy we could all be familiar with would be dinner with friends. Friends come from various socioeconomic backgrounds. Some can afford nicer restaurants with more frequency, and others can only go infrequently and are selective based on affordability.
Why is the concept of ‘fair share’ imbalanced, impractical and impossible – and certainly nothing to do with ‘fair’ or ‘share’. A simple demonstrative analogy will put this in perspective. Friends like to go out for dinner, and when the check comes around there is the question, as soon as the check hits the table, of how to divide the check. There are only two ways to do it: 1) Divide the total by the people – everyone pays an equal amount; or 2) Figure out what each person owes. However, both need to consider: 1) Perhaps some were compelled to consider a budget or other concerns, and others were no; and 2) Perhaps some consumed alcohol or dessert, items that can add significantly to the cost of a meal. What would each person’s ‘fair share’ be? If the total bill is $100 for four people, that is $25 each. What if the meals were $20 each and one person had a $5 drink and as a couple they had a $15 dessert? It is not $25 each or even $50 per couple. If split evenly, none of the party pays their actual cost. The next time, each that paid less will repeat their actions of ordering higher, and those that paid more will recall the last experience. It will not ‘work out in the long run’ or ‘balance out’ – eventually one or two in the party will continually pay more than they should, and the others will pay less. A Parasitic Cult socialist will say this is how those that can afford to help out those that cannot. A free market capitalist will determine it is harmful. For those that would say that friendship should not get in the way, we are not analogizing friendship. This could be applied to office dinner gatherings or other social events, but not among friends, environments. The real definition of ‘fair share’ is simply paying what you owe for what you consume, or in the case of taxes – for what you earn. In this scenario, ‘fair share’ is to pay for your personal liabilities of consumption.
At first it seems easier to just divide the bill equally between the four couples attending. Some couples will have ordered more, others less, and even within a couple this may be true. The next outing there will be those that think they were ripped off last time – having ordered less and paid more; and others who will think they should order more because everyone else will be contributing and fair is fair. This fairness thinking simply increases the total dinner tab and everyone’s ‘equal’ contribution; but not equal consumption. It will not take long for one couple to back out, realizing they are subsidizing the selfishness of another couple. This again alters the dinner tab and everyone’s ‘equal’ contribution, but not equal consumption. The solution to this would be agreement following discussion, having separate tickets by couple, or calculating the actual cost per couple.
This is what the current socialist administration and Congress have devised with the healthcare scam, nationalizing auto manufacturer and investment banking bailouts, etc. This is what the socialist media is supporting by handing up their ideal candidate for the next presidential election. If the 2014 mid-term elections are not successful in returning Constitutional Conservatism to Congress, and if the 2016 presidential election falls to a socialist, the future of our Country and Constitution are essentially irreversible.
Fiscal Culture of Capitalism vs. Parasitic Cult of Socialism
The history of a Government of the People, by the People and For the People to
a Socialist Government of the People, by the Government, for the Government
– Socialism. It is one or the other, we cannot have it both ways.
#####
Dean A. Beers is a United States Citizen, born in Fort Collins, Colorado. The author is straight-forward, no non-sense and not politically correct. A business owner, capitalist pig, and firm believer in the foundation and intent of our Constitution, Freedoms and Sovereignty.
Dean A. Beers, author and speaker
American Patriot
[email protected]
www.BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com
RSS Feed