Free Markets, Free People


Bernie Sanders–“when is enough enough?”

Yes, our token socialist (declared socialist that is), during his filibuster of maintaining the current tax rates (i.e. calling for a tax increase), asks the question of the “crybaby rich” – “when is enough enough?”

He goes on to lambast the “rich” for being “greedy” and “addicted”.  Here, listen for yourself:

But, in fact, who is the “crybaby” here?  Who is “greedy” one calling for more and more money that he hasn’t earned and can only get by taking it from those who have?  Who is it who is “addicted” to spending and refuses to acknowledge it, instead projecting all of his vices on those who actually work to earn their riches?

This sort of class warfare is destructive.  Both literally and figuratively.  Primarily it attempts to set the rest of America against those the Bernie Sanders of this world arbitrarily designate as “rich”.  The purpose of such attacks is to dehumanize them and rationalize taking their money without guilt.  It is also designed to deflect the issue to a lack of revenue vs. an addiction to spending and an outright greed for other people’s money.

And those who parrot the line that this will “cost” the government x amount of money are just as guilty.  This isn’t costing the government one red cent.  This is about keeping the tax rates we’ve had for over a decade current.  Anticipated revenue based in a hoped for change in the tax rates is not a “cost”.  Spending anticipated revenues before they’re authorized or collected isn’t a “cost” either – it’s a criminal breech of the public trust and addiction that needs to be stopped immediately.   We aren’t in the fiscal shape we’re in from a lack of revenue – we’re in the shape we’re in because people like Sen. Bernie Sanders have spent other people’s money recklessly and without a thought to the future. And it turns out they’ve hocked our future and the future of our children and grandchildren through their profligate behavior. It is they who are the problem – not the "rich".  It is we, the people of the United States who should be asking of Bernie Sanders, “when is enough enough”?  The answer is “you had enough a long time ago and you’ll get no more – from anyone”.

If anyone is a crybaby, addicted and greedy, it is the man in the video.  And it is men and women like him who need to be run out of DC post haste.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

25 Responses to Bernie Sanders–“when is enough enough?”

  • There is no doubt that the government needs to begin an independent, well funded study of class warfare!—–CONEY

  • You know i try to convince my friends who think this way that it is nonsense. I ask them to give me a reason why we should tax a man more simply because he has more and i usually get some flailing about being able to afford it and starving children or something. It just never seems to sink in.

  • Oh, I think its fair enough to tax the rich a little more than the poor, even progressively, as long as the government does not grow bloated and the redistribution of wealth does not start creeping up into income brackets where people really should be able to take care of their own problems.
    Unfortunately, we have a bloated government that wants to hand out ever-increasing amounts of goodies. Now is the time to truly starve the beast, not keep feeding it. Once its been on a diet for a while, we can talk about increased taxation.

    • What is your reasoning to taken even 1% more from a rich person than a middle class person? In what crazy world is that “fair”? If you gave every student in the class below a B extra credit to raise them to a B would that be fair to the students who got a B to begin with?

      • The reasoning is in the form of the relative utility of that extra $1 for the rich vs the poor. Or contained in an argument that the rich get more value from the government than the poor due, better police protection, etc. But bottom line, it represents a twisted view of what’s fair.

        The flip side is that high earners are often small buisness owners who are using those earnings to run their buisness and hire employees. Just because you have a big paycheck does not mean you are rich.

        • Or contained in an argument that the rich get more value from the government than the poor due, better police protection, etc.

          That might be valid if it wasn’t a myth.
          Foe example, cops hang out where the crime is, and that’s in the crappy neighborhoods. Any other protection they get is usually privately contracted and funded.
           

          • SBA loans. Ethanol. Mortgage interest deduction. Let’s not kid ourselves that everyone’s at the trough.

      • Well, if a flat tax with a large personal exemption could cover everything, I would prefer that. A little progressive taxation isn’t the end of the world though. Say it covers the “luck” factor of getting rich. Plus, there is a benefit for the rich if the lower income classes feel life is “fair.” In no way does this mean I am for soaking the rich.

  • Greed, that’s what Sanders represents. Eventually, idiots like him and the people that vote for him will get us to the same place the Soviet Union was when they crumbled… long lines after the last loaf of bread is gone. Then those left in line, the ones Sanders would represent, will blame the favored “rich” who always seem to get in line the earliest.  Sanders and his ilk are looking for Heaven where there’s none to be found and are willing to take the rest of us to hell to get there.

  • “Greed” or envy, class warfare == Going Galt

  • I wonder when socialism will become sufficiently acceptable that MiniTru will start telling the truth:

    Senator Bernie Sanders
    S – Vermont

    HarunI think its fair enough to tax the rich a little more than the poor, even progressively, as long as the government does not grow bloated and the redistribution of wealth does not start creeping up into income brackets where people really should be able to take care of their own problems.

    Aside from my objection to the inequity of taxing people at different rates, I don’t see how one can draw the line between “sensible tax rates” and “redistribution of wealth”.  I’m sure that Bernie and his fellow socialists in the Congress would argue that we are nowhere NEAR redistribution levels, and indeed aren’t taxing enough to take care of the vital functions of government.

    Our noble ancestors had it nailed: make a very short list of things that the federal government should do and leave it at that.  Imagine our budget if we funded only the DoD and other defense-related agencies (CIA, for example); a much-reduced State Dept.; the Treasury Dept.; a Dept. of the Interior to administer (much smaller) federal lands and roads; the DoJ to prosecute a relative handful of federal crimes; the federal courts; and the post office.  Off the top of my head, this pretty much covers the enumerated powers.  No more DoE, DoT, HHS, HUD, Education, Veteran’s Affairs, Homeland Security, and the other alphabet soup of departments, agencies and administrations that have slowly made our country into USSR-lite.

    • Ditto.
      Every American should pay for government.  Government should do nothing but GOVERN…which is a very limited concept under the Constitution.

      • I agree with that as well. Payroll taxes sort of accomplish that though. Again, I don’t like the current system, I just don’t think a little progressivity would kill.

    • That’s my point. If the government wasn’t trying to do everything, any progressive rate wouldn’t be needed or it wouldn’t be to onerous.

  • I’m fairly certain that Socialist Sandy here lives in a much better house and enjoys generally much better accomodations than 99% of the country.

    Some “socialist”  *snort*

    Just another pig who needs to sleep in a comfy bed.   So I guess I’d ask Sandy when he personally has enough. Because he seems to have plenty…

  • It’s possible that Obama’s bizarre press conference with Clinton was intended to distract from Sanders’ filibuster, which might explain Obama’s lack of seriousness.

    If so though, it means a half-clever idea was negated by mostly foolish execution.

  • In the software world, there’s a stereotype of the clueless manager to whom the entire process of software development is some sort of magical activity. He believes that his commands should simply cause a development team to produce what he wants, in the time frame he wants it, at the cost he wants to pay. He is literally incapable of understanding why reality is simply not constructed to allow his commands to translate into results.

    So he lays down arbitrary deadlines, refuses to listen to anyone who says they can’t be met, browbeats everyone who challenges him, and ends up driving off the best people to make the situation worse.

    Then the deadline comes, and his entire effort is focusing on finding out whose fault it is. First in line are those not present; the ones who were talented enough to find other work and refused to accept his magical reality are normally at the top of the list.

    This cycle can happen as many times as it takes to remove him from any position of responsibility in the industry, or until he thankfully retires. He is impervious to the facts on the ground. Things can’t be his fault; they just can’t. He’s the one who, in his mind, sees further, and prattles on about how this impossible deadline must be met “because the business requires it” as if that phrase somehow makes the impossible possible.

    Socialist politicians have a similar mindset. They too have a magical version of reality, in which intentions translate into results and which contains an infinite amount of money and resources to do their will. The source of that infinite amount is the part of the economy they are simply unable to comprehend – the private sector. They no more understand how a real business work than they understand quantum physics. What they think they know about it is almost entirely wrong.
    In their magical reality, the following nonsensical assumptions about the “rich” are commonly, though sometimes unconsciously, held:

    - It wasn’t that hard to get the money. Socialists literally have no comprehension of the amount of work it takes to build a business – the hours, the abuse of family and health, the risk and stress.

    - The rich have far more than they need, with “need” defined as “what I need and not one thing more”.

    - The money is just lying around in a mattress somewhere, begging to be confiscated. The fact that it might be tied up in complex business arrangements is again incomprehensible.

    - Taking the money doesn’t hurt anyone. It doesn’t hurt the rich because they don’t need it, and it helps the poor downtrodden folks socialists envision as the underclass. They are totally oblivious to the effects on such parties as the employees of the company owned by a rich person, the future entrepreneurs who are dissuaded from trying because most of their gains will just be confiscated anyway, and the employees of those future companies. They’re also completely blind to the greed and unethical conduct the whole thing fosters in the entitled class and the political class.

    These people never learn, because they can’t. They don’t look at the collapse of the Soviet Union and realize that it failed because it embodied their worldview taken to the logical end result. That defended the Soviet Union while it existed and never admitted that they were wrong about it. They defend Castro and Chavez today, and they won’t admit they were wrong about them either. They won’t admit that California is teetering on financial meltdown because of their precise philosophy was followed more vigorously there than elsewhere. They won’t admit they’re wrong when California goes bankrupt. They won’t admit they were wrong when Illinois, Michigan, and New York follow them. They won’t admit they’re wrong when various European countries go bankrupt.

    They’ll go to their grave believing that their grand schemes were ruined by selfish people who were not at the level of moral enlightenment they consider themselves to be. They’ll write books no one will read explaining how their utopian schemes were ruined by… well, by people like us.

    It does no good to argue with them. It does no good to point out their mistakes, or the bad results of their policies – those things are always somebody else’s fault, and they’ve got a lifetime of experience in rationalizing who those nefarious parties are. They have post-modern epistomology down pat; their excuses and rationalizations contains so many contradictions and false-to-fact assertions that it would be far too laborious to point them all out.

    It does no good to argue with their political base. I’ve talked to fools who live in Vermont. They idolize Sanders, and think the rest of the political class ought to be just like him. They will accept whatever rationalizations he hands out, because he’s a saint with good intentions, and they don’t understand the real world any more than he does.

    We stand some chance of educating and co-opting mushy moderates who don’t think much about politics, and are indoctrinated by a failed educational system and a leftist media class to believe in the magical version of reality. Some of them are not completely blind to reality and Enlightenment thinking, and are reachable. But talking to the left and trying to find “common ground” is at this point stupid and self-defeating. I just hope the more naive people on the right have realized that by now. 

    {Excuse the long ranting. I’m back off a trip that contained no spare time, and been muttering to myself about this stuff for a week. You don’t have to read it; it was just therapeutic for me to write it.}

  • “{Excuse the long ranting. I’m back off a trip that contained no spare time, and been muttering to myself about this stuff for a week. You don’t have to read it; it was just therapeutic for me to write it.}”

    Well, you could have put this at the beginning of your rant! ;)
    sarc/off

    I think you’ve got it right.

  • I ol’ Bernie is going for the land world speed record for the most fallacies in one short clip.
    One of the biggest is the ASSumption that people making lots of money don’t “share” it, unless it is TAKEN from them by government.
    Still another is that Americans are stuck in static “classes”.  We know that to be a lie, and that people with a lot of money today may be poor in ten years, an vise verser (as Archie Bunker would have it).

  • I feel the same with the post about those claiming ‘costs’ to the government. Here in the UK the government use this line all the time. Tax cuts don’t ‘cost’ the government anything, it’s nonsense!

  • I did a “back of the envelope” calculation that if the government took 100% of all dollars of the “rich” over $1 million/year (and the “law of unintended consequences” was suspended), that the government would take in about an additional $850 billion/year.  Given the deficit for this year is about $1100 billion, there aren’t enough “rich” folks.

  • Sarah Palin of Alaska,whom the deranged lefties claim is the epitome of stupidity once said of Gov’t spending;
    ” these politicians think that all that money is there to be spent,it isn’t. the money isn’t there,it has to be taken away from the people who earn it.” That statement by Mrs. Palin is why I will vote for her for President of the United States if she decides to run.
    And that is why the left hate her and some GOPers fear her. She gets it.

  • I’m curious.  If people who manage anywhere from hundreds of thousands to tens of billions of dollars qualify as “the rich” then what of the people who (mis)manage (literally) trillions of dollars every year?  My question to Senator Sanders: you and your co-workers in Congress are unable to balance a budget even though you start off with more than two trillion dollars to spend.  When is enough enough?