Yes, let’s DO play some “Whataboutism”

ICYMI:

“When Donald Trump was a private business man in New York, he got millions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies to build luxury housing.  That’s called corporate socialism.“ –Bernie Sanders, 60-Minutes (02/23/20)

For the Americans who fear Bernie Sander’s brand of “democratic socialism,” let’s take a deeper look into some of his outrageous proposals:

-Medicare for all (which, btw, probably won’t happen.  Best case scenario, a building on the ACA.  And if no Congress to back him, won’t happen at all; just pie-in-the-sky.)

-Tuition free higher education (best case scenario, it will be cheaper)

-Free childcare (best case scenario, some kind of voucher system to offset the costs)

-Taking on corporate greed (pharmaceuticals, health insurance companies, jails for profits, etc.  You can expect all of these groups to go kicking and screaming into that dark, profitless night.)

These are some of the highlights of what Sanders advocates for, along with, as a potential Sanders supporter, my personal opinions about them.

*          *          *

Now let’s play the whataboutism game.

What about America’s “corporate socialism”:

-Bank and other corporate bailouts
-Farm subsidies and tariff offsets

-Tax loopholes 
-Zero dollars paid in federal taxes companies   

Like it or not, these are four examples of “corporate socialism.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this leads me to wonder, why is one brand of “government socialism” okay, yet Sander’s brand of “democratic socialism” not okay?  Hold that thought.

Granted, we have many socialized programs already in play (Medicare for seniors, Medicaid and other safety nets for those at the poverty level, HUD, etc.).  We also have many, and I mean MANY, social institutions that operate on government budget tax allocations: Teachers, libraries, fire depts., police depts., civil service jobs, etc., all looking out for the betterment of the greater society.  Even the FBI, CIA, and the bloated Military Industrial Complex operate under budgets provided by the government, via our taxes.  A society cannot function very well, indeed is destined to fail, without these basic-type socially-oriented programs.  These social institutions keep our greater society afloat and competitive on the world stage.

Isn’t it time for America to rethink that scary word “socialism” that corporate America has, in the name of obscene profits, indoctrinated us to fear?  Seems to me (and Bernie) that our “just socialism for the rich” is another version of corporate America's dreaded “just socialism for the poor.”

Your Challenge: Defend “socialism for the rich.”

Thanks for posting and recommending.

You say you want a revolution?

Edited:

Well, yes.  Some of us want to change the world.  You can count me in. 

I speak not of a bloody revolution, but rather of an evolution in America’s Capitalistic economic system.  It is not working so well for the vast majority of everyday people.  Costs in healthcare and medicines, child care, school tuitions, etc., are overwhelming.  Credit card and other bills just keep on piling up, in an effort to “stay afloat.”

With yesterday’s overwhelming Nevada victory for Senator Bernie Sanders (last I looked, only some 50% of the vote has been reported in), “the people” spoke up, en masse.

As Bernie puts it, “We are sick and tired of…”  You can fill in that blank.  I will fill it in as “We are sick and tired of the goddamn capitalistic greed.” 😡

Capitalism has failed the vast majority of people

Here in Capitalistic America, as the wealth inequality schism grows ever-wider by the year, we can easily see that Capitalism works quite selectively.  It can and does work beautifully for that “privileged 1%,” but it is not working very well for the other 99%.  They say almost half of the people out there wouldn’t be able to sustain an unforeseen $400 hit on their income.

During the Nevada Democratic Debate, multi-billionaire Mayor Bloomberg claimed he “worked hard for his money.”  Bernie responded, “You know Mr. Bloomberg, it wasn’t you who made all that money.  Maybe your workers played some part in that as well.” (see 50-second mark)  I guess that little bit of intellectual insight had been lost on Mr. Bloomberg, over his "raking in the money" years.

Question: Since it takes money to make money, who has gotten to take the most advantage of the “pot of capitalistic money?”  The “already haves and the well-connected” (1%), or the “working two jobs, likely at minimum wage, with no or few benefits” (99%)?

Make your case.

Thanks for posting and recommending.