Wealthy Socialists are Liars and Hypocrites

Tom Sheppard

11/22/2019

What do Bernie Sanders, George Soros, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Danny Devito, and Mark Ruffalo (AKA Bruce Banner) all have in common?

They all profess to embrace socialism, but they don't practice what they preach.  In other words, they are liars and hypocrites.

Unlike Mahatma Ghandi, who literally gave his all to live his beliefs, these wannabe-socialists don't walk the talk.  Not. At. All.

Granted, Elizabeth Warren claims to be "capitalist to the bone."  Notwithstanding her very public claim, the policies she proposes are decidedly socialist.  So, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, I am going to call it a duck, or in this case she walks and talks like a socialist, so I am calling her a socialist.

Here is the real test they should all take to see if they are really ready and willing to embrace socialism.  Let them give everything they own to charities for the poor (or the government) and make sure they work at least 40 hours per week while only getting an income of $45k per year, pretax.  This means they give up their bank accounts, investments, real estate, royalties, and all other sources of income except their job, which will never pay them any more than $45k per year.

Why $45k?  Because that is about the median pre-tax household income in the US.  In other words 50% of the people in the US live on that, or less.  The other 50% live on that, or more.  The actual median may be more or less than that, and we can agree to adjust the number to that, but the point is that they need to live by what ordinary, working-class people can expect to earn, and no more.

Did I mention this would be pre-tax?  Yes, taxes should be taken out of that gross pay.  Take the same amount of taxes out that anyone in that income bracket would usually pay.  That means their take-home pay is reduced by at least one-third, down to about $30k+ per year to actually live on.

Let them buy or rent a house, pay for their meals, cars, and transportation with this after-tax income.

Furthermore, regardless of what they do, contribute, invent, write, say, etc. limit their income to that $45k pre-tax ceiling.  Anything they get paid above that number goes to the state.  They never get to enjoy any fruits of their labor beyond what the $45k pre-tax income can buy.

"I wrote a best-selling book," Sanders told The New York Times in April. "If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too."

Bernie Sanders 

Bernie, that simply isn't true under socialism.  That is only true under capitalism.  Under socialism, you don't get to keep the fruits of your labors.  All the fruits of your labors go the government and the government bureaucrats give you back what they feel you need to live.  

A socialist government owns you, and all you produce.

Ann Schmidt reports that "after receiving pressure to release his tax returns during his presidential bid, Sanders released 10 years' worth of returns ... According to those returns, the independent Vermont senator's adjusted gross income was $561,293 in 2018 and he paid a 26 percent effective tax rate. In 2017, his adjusted gross income was $1,131,925."

So, Bernie would go from an annual income of anywhere from $500k or $1,132k down to just $45k per year.  On the low end, that means he would give up 90% of his income.  On the high-end, he would be giving up 96% of his current annual income. 

Given that his campaign workers had to go on strike just to get him to pay them $15 per hour, do you really think he would be happy to give up all that income and live on $45k per year?  I don't think so.

How much would they be giving up?

According to my research, what follows are the estimates of net worth of the folks I named above, in ascending order.

• Bernie Sanders (Net worth estimate: $2 million)
• Elizabeth Warren (Net worth estimate: $12 million)
• Michael Moore (Net worth estimate: $50 million)
• Susan Sarandon (Net worth estimate: $50 million)
• Danny DeVito (Net worth estimate: $80 million)
• Mark Ruffalo (Net worth estimate: $20 million)
• George Soros (Net worth estimate: $8,300 million)

While this is a lot of money, net worth doesn't really tell the whole story of what they would give up if the USA embraced socialism, as these folks profess to want.  They would give up much more.

Net worth represents the total value of your assets less the debts associated with them.  So, if you have, as many of these folks do, a house worth $1 million and it has a mortgage of $500k, the net worth of that house is $500k.

Under socialism, you would not only get that $500k mortgage cancelled, you would also lose ownership of and the use of that million dollar home.  

All their private planes, mansions, luxury cars, fine foods, expensive clothes, etc. would be taken from them.  They would all become property of the state and they could only buy what they could afford on their $45k per year (less taxes) salary.

Does anyone really believe that these very wealthy people would be at all happy about giving up ALL that they have earned and ALL that they may yet earn, for any reason, ever?  No, they don't want to give that up.  

They want YOU to give up your opportunity to ever become wealthy like them. 

Capitalism = Opportunity

None of these people inherited their wealth.  They all earned it by their skills and ingenuity in a capitalist economy that lets people vote with their money for the most skillful and ingenious by paying for goods and services.  Under socialism, the economic mechanisms that allowed them to attain their wealth would not be available to them, or anyone else.

So, if they say they want socialism, and socialism would take away all that they have, and they don't want to give up all that they have, what is it that they really want?

Actors like Sarandon, Ruffalo, and DeVito would be paid by the government only what a bureaucrat decided was appropriate.  Likewise movie directors such as Michael Moore.  And, when their performances waned in value for the state, their privileges would be curtailed or revoked and they would soon find themselves living hand-to-mouth, like every other impoverished citizen. Oh, and when they produced a "block-buster movie" they would still only get paid their $45k per year, no matter what the show did at the box office or in video sales all over the world.  As good socialists, they would all be happy to see that their acting and directing efforts produced such a wonderful cash flow for the state.

In a socialist state, wealthy investors like George Soros would not exist, nor would they be allowed to exist.  Their very activities would be unlawful.  Soros himself would likely be killed outright, or arrested and convicted on trumped up charges of treason against the state. Regardless of the path of his fall, all his wealth would be confiscated, with selected holdings made available for use by social party loyalists and those in political power.

What do they really want?

I suggest that what these wealthy "socialists" want is not socialism.  What they want is a form of oligarchy where they are the aristocrats and no one else is allowed to enter their ranks, except through either birth to aristocracy or by power politics in the government.  

As aristocrats, they would retain their wealth and their privileges. Further, they would pass these on to their children in perpetuity.  As aristocrats, their children would have unequaled opportunities to rise to political power, along with all its perks.

In their world, aside from themselves, the government would be the sole vehicle for attaining the perks of wealth and privilege.  No other profession, outside of government, would control the spigots of wealth.  Those spigots would only open for those whom the power-elite and the aristocrats decide is worthy of living an abundant life.

Everyone else will need tighten their belts "for the greater good" and learn to live without.

References

L Maxim Lott, 30 April 2019, Lifestyles of the rich and socialist: American celebs who blast capitalism while making millions, Fox News, https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-socialist-american-celebs-capitalism-millionaires

Ann Schmidt, 21 November 2019, What is Bernie Sanders' net worth?, Fox News, https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/bernie-sanders-net-worth

Anne Sraders, 21 May 2019, What Is Bernie Sanders' Net Worth?, The Street, https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/bernie-sanders-net-worth-14678955

Michela Tindera, 20 August 2019, How Elizabeth Warren Built A $12 Million Fortune, Forbes Magazine, https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2019/08/20/how-elizabeth-warren-built-a-12-million-fortune/#1eecc607ab57

Taylor Nicole Rogers, 28 June 2019, What George Soros' life is really like: How the former hedge-fund manager built his $8.3 billion fortune, purchased a sprawling network of New York homes, and became the topic of international conspiracy theories, Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/george-soros-net-worth-wife-sons-news-house-career-2019-6

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2019 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Are You Too Selfish for Socialism?

Ocasio Cortez in Action

Tom Sheppard

3/22/2019

There are lots of folks today talking about the wonders of socialism.  OCA and Bernie Sanders are both promising free education and free healthcare.  There seems to be lots of support for their ideas from the so-called Millennials.  But, I am not sure the Millennials, or anyone else, is really selfless enough to live with real-world socialism.

FREE EDUCATION - NO STUDENT DEBT

You won't have to worry about student debt under socialism.  But, it isn't because the education is free.  It is because most people won't be allowed to go to College.  You will take tests along the way from your earliest years.  Based on the tests you will be assigned a job or allowed to further your education in the field that the tests indicate you will succeed at, if the government has need of people with that degree.

If you don't have good enough test scores to convince the government to send you to college, you won't be able to go work in your Uncle's business, because having a business is subversive and illegal.  You won't be able to start your own business either, so you can say goodbye to any dream you might ever had of living a life of abundance.  You will spend the rest of your life leaving the dream of Nietzsche, living a life of quiet desperation.

If you are one of the ones lucky enough to be selected to go to college, you can forget about taking a year off, or even a semester off.  If you don't get good enough grades, you will be removed from college and assigned a job.  Also, you can forget about frat-house parties and college pranks.

Education is a serious government business under socialism.  It is your civic duty to do your best, and to complete your college education as quickly as possible so that you can begin to contribute to the society that paid for your education.

College bacchanals WILL get your thrown out of college.  If you don't end up taking a detour through jail, you will count yourself lucky as you put your dreams of college in the trash and take the job the government assigns you to, even if it is working at a collective farm, picking potatoes in Idaho.

One last point.  As a college student, don't even think about staging a sit-in, or mounting any other kind of protest.  That will get you beaten, thrown out of school, and carted off to a re-education camp in North Dakota, or the Bering Straits of Alaska.  If you survive that, you will never the see the inside of a college again, unless you are assigned to be a janitor there.

Just to recap on the Free Education under socialism:

1. You won't get to go to college unless your test scores in high school were good enough.
2. You won't get to stay in college if your grades don't stay good enough.
3. There won't be any partying at college for you, or anyone else there.
4. If you are thrown out of college for bad behavior, you WILL go to jail.
5. If you flunk out of college, you will work at whatever job the government assigns you to, even if it is manual labor on a farm in Idaho.

Of course, you will be happy to accept all these conditions, because you believe everyone shouldn't be selfish, and you want to be a good citizen, doing your civic duty.

Zero Unemployment

If the socialist government hasn't quite progressed to the point where they assign your job (they haven't yet in Denmark), that is simply because the unemployment problem hasn't gotten bad enough yet.  When it does, they will fix unemployment by guaranteeing everyone a "good paying" government job.  You will take the job they assign you, or you be labeled a subversive and you will go to jail and get re-educated to quit your selfish ways, or it will kill you.

Live Rent Free

You won't have to worry about rent payments or house payments under socialism.  You will live in the apartment that a government official decides is appropriate for you.  Most of them will be very much like the public housing projects of the poverty stricken inner cities of the US today.  They will be cold, gray, lifeless buildings designed for their use, not wasting anything on pleasing aesthetics.

No House Payments Either

Forget about needing to save up to buy a house.  You won't get a house.  Ever.  Unless you manage to become one of the very, very top 1/2 of 1% of government officials.  And when you get to that level, you not only have a house, but you can go to stores that are stocked like an average supermarket here in the US.  Below that level, you won't see anything that even vaguely resembles a Kroger, and certainly not a Wal Mart.

No Big Utility Bills

If the USSR (70+ years of socialism in practice) is a good indicator, although the costs for your electricity will be low, you won't want to leave the water running too long in the shower under socialism either.  No long-hot showers.  And make sure to turn off the lights when you leave your apartment.  Because the state is paying the hot water bill, if you use too much that makes you both selfish and a subversive.  And, if they label you a subversive, your life is pretty much over.  First you will go to jail.  When your trial comes up, they will find you guilty and sentence you to spend some time in a re-education camp where they will beat all the selfishness out of you, or you will die as they try it.

You may think I am painting an overly grim picture here.  However, I am actually doing two things.  First, I am carrying the tenets of socialism to their logic ends.  Second, I am looking at what has actually happened in socialist countries.
Read on for a few tidbits from history.

The Soviet Union was supposed to be “a society of true democracy,” but in many ways it was no less repressive than the czarist autocracy that preceded it. 

From The Fall of the Soviet Union, The History Channel

Housing in the USSR

Communist Era Housing in Russia

"Poverty and privation drove people from the countryside, while Soviet official industrialization campaigns encouraged (and sometimes forced) their movement to cities. From the 1920s into the 1950s, a significant number of Soviet families lived in communal apartments, while many lived in worse conditions in barracks or "dormitories" (mass housing for workers). For many families, gaining a room in a communal apartment represented a step up in their housing, especially if they found themselves in the most desirable cities of Moscow or Leningrad. Like Iraida Yakovlevna from "A Room for Her Daughter," many people without housing, especially people from the rural areas, tried to get work as janitors so as to gain a room in the city.

"In the Soviet Union, housing in cities belonged to the government. It was distributed by municipal authorities or by government departments based on an established number of square meters per person. As a rule, tenants had no choice in the housing they were offered. Rent and payment for communal services like water and electricity did not form a significant part of a family's budget. They did not cover the real costs, and were subsidized by the government.

From Communal Living in Russia

Free Education

"The goal of education policy was to teach the masses how or read and write, and channel talented young people into science and technology. It was oriented more towards meeting the needs of society and the state rather than fostering individual development. Schools were free, compulsory, universal and classless and were used disseminate Communist doctrine as well as educate children. The set of ethics stressed the primacy of the collective over the interests of the individual. Therefore, for both teachers and students, creativity and individualism were discouraged.[Source: Library of Congress, July 1996 *]

"The Soviet system dictated what classes university students would take and decided what jobs they would take after they graduated.

From Education in the Soviet Era

Zero Unemployment

"the right and the duty to work were enshrined in the Constitution of the USSR"

From The Soviet Union Achieving Full Employment

• There were no unemployment benefits.
• If you were out of a job for more than four months you were legally labeled a "parasite" and could go to prison.

Millennials and Socialism

Jessica Litras, a self-confessed Millennial, notes five reasons Millennials are considered selfish.  Along the way, she notes a few points which, although not selfish, will definitely get you on the wrong side of a socialist government.  Her five points are:

1. Glued to their phones - we have adopted the innovative life.
2. Love social media - we like to promote our lives and our accomplishments.
3. Spend lots of money - we are more concerned about living in the present than denying ourselves something so we can have a better future.
4. No rush for marriage or kids - we don't want to share our lives with others or reproduce
5. Put themselves first  - we make decisions based on whether or not it will make us happy.

Here is the rub.  Each of these things won't play well in a socialist world where every act, every word, every thought, must first be about how does this make things better for everyone else?

The innovative life - Innovation is based on creativity and creativity is based on individuality and the opportunity to explore different ways of looking at things.  Looking at things in an unapproved way in a socialist country is how you get to be unemployed and unemployable, if not in jail.

Promoting yourself and your accomplishments is all about you, the individual.  That is about as anti-socialist as you can get.  There is no place in socialism for the needs, wants, or accomplishments of the individual, unless they are for the good of everyone.

Spending lots of money - good luck with that.  Money, as we know it, doesn't exist in socialism.

No rush for marriage or kids - "we don't want to share..."  That pretty much says it all.  Selfish behaviors are frowned on in socialism.

Will it make us happy? - Socialism is not about your individual happiness.  It is all about the happiness of the collective.  If you make decisions because they make you happy, eventually the socialists will throw you in jail for it.

Litras admits that "It’s made millennials open, outspoken and more comfortable with not only what they to say, but the person that they are."

All of this little jaunt through some historical facts entirely avoids the human costs of implementing socialism.  It doesn't speak to the millions who have died because they were 'too selfish' to live a life dedicated to the common good where even their thoughts and every word had to be unoffensive to the government and its officials.

The bottom line here is this.  The propaganda and misinformation about socialism is that it is all about doing what is good and right.  The reality is that socialism is all about doing and thinking what you are told to do.  No more, and no less.  So individualism, all those things that make you who you are, those things that make you standout, they are not tolerated in socialism.  

The only thing tolerated in socialism is blind obedience to the orders of those above you. 

Is that really what Millennials want?  I don't think so.  But, it is what they are working hard to get.

~

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2019 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Sanders Anti-Socialism and Stock Buy Backs Regulation

PHOTO: Associated Press

Tom Sheppard

2/16/2019

Bernie Sanders, the perpetual Socialist and Chuck Schumer, the opportunistic Socialist recently published an editorial in The New York Times advocating a new regulatory scheme to oversee company stock buy backs.  They pretend that they see buy backs as some nefarious scheme by corporate boards to rip off the working man and woman.  The reality is that the effects of excessive regulation of publicly owned corporations has a very anti-socialist impact.  The Wall Street Journal report that "the number of publicly listed companies has dropped by half in 20 years."

Driving companies away from being publicly traded and into private ownership is the most anti-Socialist acts Sanders and Schumer can commit.  

No less a capitalist than management guru Peter Drucker pointed out in his book Post Capitalist Society pointed out that the massive levels of retirement fund investments in publicly traded corporations means that the US is where the workers really do own the means of production, which is what Karl Marx defined as the primary purpose of Communism, and by association its less international little brother Socialism.

So, while Democrats, Socialists and RINOs all push harder for government regulation of publicly traded companies what they are really doing is pushing companies to go private, which will take their dividends and rising stock values out of the hands of the pensions of ordinary working folks and place them firmly into the hands of multi-millionaires (like Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer).

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

 The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

 (c) Copyright 2019 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Learn more about Tom Sheppard at his Amazon Author Page:

https://www.amazon.com/Tom-Sheppard/e/B0073GEHIK

Get your own copy of Tom's blockbuster Godvernment today.

Trump Trauma

Tom Sheppard

11/10/2016

Are you one of those feeling Trump Trauma in the aftermath of the Presidential election of 2016?  If you are, then read on...

#TrumpTrauma has been sweeping the country in the aftermath of the 2016 election.  Many of those who backed Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, or one of the many other candidates whose aspirations were dashed in this election cycle, are taking to the streets to voice their discontent with their new president.

From their statements, "Not my President", they appear to believe that the world as they know it has somehow come to an end.  Other chants of "No KKK.  No fascist state," just reveal their own gullibility to media hype and their lack of understanding of what the word "fascist" actually means.

Many young people today equate the term fascist with the word oppressor.  Some bring in the notion of capitalism and believe the term fascist refers to a capitalist oppressor.  Unfortunately for them, fascist has a very specific meaning, one that is not changed by their opinion.

Fascism, as both a term and a reality, arose in Europe in the days before World War II.  It was attached to both the regime of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis in Germany and Benito Mussolini with his Brown Shirts in Italy.  Both Hitler and Mussolini were one-time Communists.  They each broke with the Communist party over the issue of nationalism.

In contrast with the international struggle and triumph envisioned by both Marx, Lenin and Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini wanted to implement a flavor of communism which was focused on the supremacy of their own nation.  With Hitler it narrowed further to focus on the superiority of the Aryan race.

In order to implement their national socialist agendas, they needed to control the levers of power in their countries.  Business was and is a significant source of power in any nation where capitalism prevails.  This fact was not lost on Hitler and Mussolini.  They used the power of their governments to regulate business to the point where it became a tool of government, an arm of the government.

Hitler and Mussolini ruthlessly and relentlessly used all the powers at their command to attempt to subjugate the entire world to their Nationalist Socialist governments.

The transformation of big business into an arm of a socialist government gave birth to a new form of socialism called Fascism.  Among its many admirers in the US were the likes of Henry Ford and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In more recent years, many of those in the US with Socialist leanings have conveniently forgotten the Socialist part of Fascism and instead of being truthful and accurate, use the term Fascist to attempt to paint all capitalists with the oppressive clothing of those socialist collaborators from World War II.

But enough with this history lesson.  I was wanting to address the phenomena I call #TrumpTrauma.

For those who today are despairing because Trump has been elected President, they need to remember a little more recent history.

When Barak Obama was elected President, Republicans and conservatives felt some of the same despair you feel today.  And here, eight years later, they are feeling elated.  The world did not end when Barak Obama was elected President.  It will not end because Donald Trump was elected President.

For those who disagree with the policy inclinations of Mr. Trump, they can do as many conservatives have done for the past eight years, pray for political gridlock in Washington.

As I am given to general pessimism about the value of federal government intervention, I am very much a fan of political gridlock in DC.  Gridlock means that the politicians are unable to screw things up any worse than it is today.

Don't despair those suffering #TrumpTrauma today, the sun will rise and in four to eight years, someone else will take office in the White House.

It is time to behave like mature adults.  Come in off the streets.  Realize the differences between fact and media hype and join the rest of the adults in the country.  There may come a day when your political aspirations of today will come to pass.  You can thank God and the wise men who penned the Constitution of the United States that your political disappointment won't inevitably lead you to a jail cell or to be stood against a wall and shot because the other side won.  Unfortunately, that is what happens today in many other countries around the world, but not in the USA.

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

 The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2016 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

You Have Done It Unto Me: The Lie of Liberal Altruism

In the 25th chapter of Matthew, the Savior speaks of the final judgment.  To those who have done well and to those who have not, he offers the same explanation for the reward they are offered.  He tells them all that, "... inasmuch as ye have done [or not done] it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

He is referring to how they did, or did not, take care of the poor, the sick, the destitute and the afflicted among them.

Today, much of our political debate and divide appears to be focused on how we, as a society, believe we should go about taking care of the least advantaged among us.

For many years, as I read or heard these words, I believed that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. I believed he was saying that he was holding us accountable for our treatment of our fellow human beings.  And, he is certainly saying that.  However, I am now convinced that Jesus was not speaking metaphorically in this matter.  Rather, he was being completely literal.

We learn elsewhere that in his atoning sacrifice he suffered all the pains of humanity (D&C 18:11), so that he could learn to succor those in need (Hebrews 2:18).  I suggest that in a very real way, he has actually shared and felt the very pains of the homeless, the hungry, the naked, those in prison and those who wash up on the edges of our society like flotsam washing up on a beach.  And, that he did not suffer those pains in some abstract way, or as a derivative of what those people suffer, rather, through some incomprehensible mechanism he is and was able to fully feel the actual pains that each of us has and will suffered.  And, feeling those actual pains, he then can understand completely our situation and can comfort us, or forgive us, in exact measure according to our pain and need.

Knowing then, that He feels the pains of others, when we help those in need, when we relieve the suffering of those in anguish or pain, when we feed the hungry, we directly reduce the amount of suffering and pain that Christ suffers.  Likewise, when we cause others to suffer, we add to pain He suffers.  And when we fail to act to alleviate the pain and suffering of others, we fail to alleviate His pain and suffering.

I believe that is true.

In the light of that belief, some would suppose that I would be driven to embrace the social welfare model of government (aka Socialism, Communism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Fascism).  In fact much of the social welfare model of government wraps itself in a mantle of altruism about caring for the less fortunate among us. But, nothing could be further from the truth.

Socialists like Bernie Sanders and Liberals like Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama, seek to destroy the rich (other than themselves) and even to destroy the middle class, and make us all equally poor together.

I despise their cries to destroy the wealthy in order to help the poor.  And there is no hypocrisy in my feelings.  You cannot lift anyone up by tearing someone else down.

When Bernie Sanders, Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama and their ilk talk about helping the poor and relieving suffering, they are not talking about digging deep into their own pockets and giving until it hurts themselves in order to help others.  They are content to keep their own wealth, gained by feeding at the trough of the taxpayers.  They will keep their wealth, and instead they will dig deep into the pockets of others and force them to give until it hurts.

Their hypocrisy in their failure to live the very principles they are espousing is as clear and horrendous as that of any Christian preacher who rails from the pulpit against the evils of the flesh, and then is caught in adultery and debauchery.  And their altruistic battle cries of "soak the rich" mask the brutal reality of their policies which actually soak everyone who is above the poverty line in order to make us all poor together and ensure that the only path to wealth and comfort is through service to the State.

We need to re-enshrine the notion of individual action and individual accountability in our nation, especially when it comes to the issues of caring for the poor and disadvantaged.  A thrust toward individual accountability is in direct opposition to the Socialist thrust of collective accountability.

Each individual should take personal action to help those who are less advantaged than they.  Each person should do according to their ability and means.  This does not mean that we cannot band together into charitable organizations to magnify our efforts.  But, we should not ever rely upon the power of taxation, which is nothing less than forcible redistribution of wealth, in order to take care of those who are disadvantaged.

I make a notable exception in this for military veterans.  Military veterans are the only organization which has earned the right to partake of a portion of the public treasury to support them in their times of trouble. Because they have literally offered their lives in the service of our country, they are actually entitled to support through taxation.

Links Related to this Post:

• Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
• Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It
• Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome and invited. Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome, even ones that may unsettle me.

Bernie Sanders v Donald Trump for President - Hurray!

Today's Wall Street Journal features a front page article titled, "Unhappy Voters Shake Up Contest."  The article notes that Hillary Clinton's lead in the polls is sinking while her Democratic opponent Bernie Sanders has jumped to 25%, from less than 10%.  Likewise, it points out that Jeb Bush, once the heir apparent now finds himself running in third, with Donald Trump pulling the top numbers among Republicans.

I look with relish and uncommon excitement at a presidential election that would pit Bernie Sanders against Donald Trump.

First of all, if those were the two picks, for the first time in decades we would have two contenders who are truly, fundamentally, different from each other, instead of having candidates who were just two different shades of the same color.

Second, this would be the first presidential election in my memory where the two candidates are not saying whatever they think it takes to get elected and instead are taking principled, and frequently unpopular stands that are consistent with their ideologies.  Both men appear to be willing and able to state their convictions and stand up for them, regardless of any pressure to do otherwise.

Third, this particular match-up would give Americans the chance to make a clear choice between the two competing economic models of the last century - a choice that historic facts would appear to be moot, but still it persists.

Bernie Sanders is an unapologetic Socialist.  For decades he has consistently voted for laws and measures that drove this country closer and closer to the socialist ideal.  He makes no apologies for his approach and he doesn't try to hide it. 

While I personally find it amazing that anyone can look at the lessons of history and see the massive failures of socialism in the former USSR and China, and any other country that has embraced the policy of trying to make their people all equally poor (except for those ruling elites), and yet continue to espouse such blatant stupidity, nay economic suicide; still, I find Bernie Sanders admirable in his consistent commitment and advocacy of his principles.

In sharp economic contrast to Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump is an unapologetic capitalist.  Unlike the hypocrisy of uber-rich George Soros, Warren Buffet and Oprah Winfrey, who having feathered their own nests through capitalism now seek to destroy the means for others to attain similar levels of prosperity, Donald Trump continues to espouse policies that would keep the American Dream alive and keep the doors to individual success and prosperity open to all comers who are willing to work hard and smart.

Unfortunately, I suspect that if the establishment fails to keep these two zealots out of office, they will arrange for the untimely demise of any President of the United States (POTUS) who they cannot control.  And neither Bernie Sanders nor Donald Trump sound at all like the kind of men who will dance to any tune that is not their own.  I am not one of those crackpot conspiracy theorists, seeing some nefarious hand in everything.  Still, I recognize the realities of human nature and power.  Those who benefit from the ongoing trend toward socialism in this country will do what they can to encourage the movement that direction.

I know many Republicans are as horrified at the prospect of having The Donald as their candidate or POTUS as some Democrats are at the prospect of having Bernie as their front man.  Still, for the American People, I hope that each of these two contenders manage to knock out the same-old-same-old front runners from both parties and give us a real, discernible choice in this upcoming presidential election.  I think it would be just what the country needs - a clear choice instead of choosing between socialism (liberal Democrats) and socialism lite (moderate Republicans).

Let's have a real, public, debate over the virtues of capitalism v socialism.  Let Donald and Bernie go toe-to-toe and let the American People make a clear choice for one economic approach versus another.  I am hopeful that the majority will choose the opportunity of capitalism over the oppression of socialism.

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.