Tollorin wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:
In defining what democratic socialism means to him, Sanders said: "I don’t believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a decent standard of living and that their incomes should go up, not down. I do believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America, companies that create jobs here, rather than companies that are shutting down in America and increasing their profits by exploiting low-wage labor abroad.”
Bernie Sanders is not Hugo Chavez, even less so Lenin, Stalin or Mao. Part of what is considered socialism today have proved a efficient system providing never before seen prosperity in the United-State during the 50s and the 60s with a tax rate of 90% for the wealthiest. The personal freedom was not so good, by it had nothing to do with economy. Supply-side economy however didn't proved to work well after, so far, about 35 years.
If Sanders uses words without knowing what they mean, that is all the more reason not to support him.
I have learned to trust people's confessions. If a coworker tells me, "I'm a thief! Ha ha, but my idea of a thief is someone who hunts for bargains," I won't be asking him to housesit.
A century ago it might have been excusable for someone to think that socialism sounded daring and idealistic. But after an endless parade of state-controlled economies, each resulting in misery, slavery, and death in exact proportion to the degree to which it was state-controlled, an adult who today actually calls himself a socialist has the same moral standing as one who calls himself a fascist.
If you or Sanders think the prosperity of the Fifties was somehow caused by high taxes, you are confused. The 90% was a marginal rate, meaning it applied only to income over $1.39 million. Something like a half of one percent of taxpayers were earning on that level – before deductions. The 95th percentile made about $62,000, and they paid only a 30% marginal rate.
In 1950 taxes were roughly comparable to today's, and the regulatory burden was almost nonexistent. An entrepreneur could start a new business without first satisfying the arbitrary whims of a million bureaucrats. If the federal government were trimmed back to that level, it would indeed jumpstart the economy, and real earnings would increase, as they did then. But I'm pretty sure Bernie Sanders doesn't want to do anything of the kind, and neither does any other Democratic politician today.
_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand