The Price of Socialism

Holy cow:

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ tax and spending proposals would provide new levels of health and education benefits for American families, but they’d also blow an $18-trillion hole in federal deficits, piling on so much debt they would damage the economy.

That sobering assessment comes from a joint analysis released Monday by the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and the Urban Institute Health Policy Center, well-known Washington think tanks.

The bottom line: Democratic presidential candidate Sanders would raise taxes by more than $15 trillion over 10 years, with most of that paid by upper-income earners. But that wouldn’t be enough to cover the cost of his proposed government-run health care system, along with free undergraduate college, enhanced Social Security, family and medical leave, among other new programs.

As a result, Sanders would add $18 trillion to federal debt over a decade.

The Sanders campaign is trying to wriggle out of this, claiming that their healthcare plan will save lots of money because … because … well, because they want it to. But I am totally unsurprised by this. I have said it in this space a million times: you can’t pay for a social welfare state just by taxing “the rich”. There’s not enough money. Every European welfare state pays for itself with heavy taxes on the middle class — VATs, sales taxes, excise taxes, income taxes. Their tax systems are way less progressive than our because they have to be. In the end, you have to go where the money is.

This is the big problem with Sanders’ promises. You have to raise taxes on everyone to pay for them. And people don’t want higher taxes even if they supposedly come with Awesome Government Benefits. Sanders’ own state rejected socialized medicine because it was too expensive.

I’d say this would be the nail in the coffin of the Sanders campaign except that (1) many of his supporters don’t care about math; (2) I’m sure Clinton will find a way to bungle this incredibly easy and salient talking point.

The Criminalization of Foolishness

This story evolved a little too fast for my slow blogging pace over the last few weeks. But it’s a great illustration of how far down the rabbit hole our society has gone:

Mesa police announced late Wednesday afternoon that the case against a Red Mountain High School student accused of indecent exposure was closed because “all parties involved no longer desire prosecution.”

The announcement came hours after a Maricopa County Attorney’s Office representative announced the office had decided against prosecuting the student. He had been booked on a felony charge related to exposing himself in a team photo that appeared in the school’s yearbook and in programs sold at football games.

Osborn was arrested Saturday. Officers said he told authorities he was dared by a Red Mountain High School teammate to do the stunt when the photo was taken on the school bleachers in August. It shows a smiling Osborn, then 18, standing in the second row; his penis was exposed through the top of the waistband of his football uniform.

Police said Wednesday the school’s principal reported the incident in compliance with Arizona’s mandatory reporting laws.

Mesa police booked Osborn on one count of furnishing obscene material to minors, a felony, and 69 misdemeanor counts of indecent exposure. Ten faculty members and 59 students were present when Osborn exposed himself and are considered victims, according to police and court documents.

So, let’s sum up. Kid does stupid prank on a dare. No one notices for a long time. Then someone does notice and hides behind “mandatory reporting laws” for turning the case over to police. The police then do what police do: arrest him and charge the shit out of him. Only a social media campaign and the refusal of his teammates to press charges kept him out prison and off a sex offender registry.

Set aside the issue of whether the principal had a choice or not. Mandatory reporting laws are tricky and it’s possible that he had to turn this over, no matter what his personal views on the subject. The general point stands: our schools have adopted the mentality of routinely calling the police to handle issues that could be handled with internal discipline. And then they always act shocked when this results in massive criminal charges against a kid for exposing his pecker or a girl being bodyslammed or kids being expelled/charged for stuff that isn’t even a crime.

Angry loser being a douche

Whether you like the republican nominee Trump or the more than likely democrat that has rigged they system in her favor Clinton, I bet if you are like me you are happy that this asshole got crushed. Sure he is right on about Clinton being a crime boss, and if you are part of the establishment that liked the status quo and didn’t want Trump, you are going to say what he said about Trump, but we are lucky he isn’t the nominee either. And I am sure this bitter douche doesn’t even get it. The fact is that things have gotten so bad that we need to tear the establishment down if we want to give this country a chance.

It’s All The Republicans Fault. Or Not.

One of the worst things that happens after an unexpected political event is that the media scrounges around for someone who predicted it. With thousands of pundits making millions of predictions, you’re bound to find someone who predicted anything. They then proclaim this person to be a genius and hang on his every word.

The rise of Donald Trump was unexpected. Many of the wise Washington insiders proclaimed that that it could never happen. So now they are scrounging around, trying to find out why it happened.

For me, there is no one reason. It’s a combination of many factors. Here are a just a few I think contributed:

  • A general dissatisfaction with political system and the economy. Specifically, a government that keeps expanding its role while unable to handle the duties it already has assumed. And an economy that seems to be making a lot of people at the top rich while the middle class stagnates.
  • A conservative field that was weaker and more divided than expected. Trump jumped on the one issue that made him stand out: immigration.
  • Trump’s celebrity status gave him an instant advantage over a bunch of guys most people had never heard of.
  • The GOP front-runners didn’t recognize the danger and spent more time fighting each other and supporting weak candidates than stopping Trump.
  • A conservative pundit class that has demonized Obama, blasted Republicans as enablers and portrayed compromise as surrender.
  • A GOP leadership that was happy to sow that whirlwind.
  • A liberal punditsphere that has portrayed almost every conservative as an uncaring, incompetent vileness. So when a truly bad GOP candidate came around, they were the boy who cried wolf.

Even then, I’m not sure I’m right. Sometimes … things just happen. There isn’t a really compelling reason. Only a small fraction of voters vote in primaries and they are somewhat subject to whims and bandwagons. I always leave open the possibility that this is just one of those things.

Still, it’s food for thought for the next few months. But Vox has decided to scrounge around and find one of the few pundits who did see it coming. And, for someone who correctly predicted the rise of Trump, I have to say … he’s really full of shit. He starts with having met New Gingrich.

And over the next 16 years, [Gingrich] put that plan into action. He delegitimized the Congress and the Democratic leadership, convincing people that they were arrogant and corrupt and that the process was so bad that anything would be better than this. He tribalized the political process. He went out and recruited the candidates, and gave them the language to use about how disgusting and despicable and horrible and immoral and unpatriotic the Democrats were. That swept in the Republican majority in 1994.

The problem is that all the people he recruited to come in really believed that shit. They all came in believing that Washington was a cesspool. So what followed has been a very deliberate attempt to blow up and delegitimize government, not just the president but the actions of government itself in Washington.

This is garbage. The reason Newt portrayed the Democratic Congress and leadership as corrupt and arrogant is because they were. They had exempted Congress from numerous laws that applied to the rest of the country. Their speaker, Jim Wright, was using his garbage “book” to rake in millions of dollars under the table from special interests. The powerful head of their ways and means committee, Dan Rostenkowski, wound up serving 17 months in prison for mail fraud.

When the Republicans swept into power in 1994, they didn’t try to tear down everything government did. They tried to tear down things they didn’t think government should be doing in the first place. They instituted spending restraint, they passed government reform laws and they worked with Clinton to balance the budget. This is a very weird alternate version of history.

Then, there’s a more radical conservative ideology that has been a dominant force out there in Washington and in a lot of states. That’s the Freedom Caucus and Cruz, and that’s what we wrote about in the book. This is a radical set of beliefs. They want to blow up all of government, and are willing to use more radical tactics. They don’t much care about shutting down the government or breaching the debt ceiling, or any of those things.

There’s some element of truth to this in that there is a faction of the GOP that sees Washington as irreparable and shutdowns/defaults/debt ceiling crashes as acceptable. I’ve railed against it myself. But to say that there is something new and awful in the way the Republicans oppose Obama is to elide huge chunks of recent history:

  • Government shutdowns are not new. The first government shutdown was in 1976, when Democrats opposed President Ford. When Reagan was President, the Democrats shut down the government seven times (albeit usuaully for short periods.)
  • The GOP has used the filibuster a lot and won’t consider Obama’s SCOTUS nominee. But this has been building for a while. The Democrats filibustered Bush all the time and specifically filibustered numerous Bush judicial nominees. Early on in Bush’s presidency, the Democrats warned that they would filibuster any Bush SCOTUS nominee for up to four years if necessary.
  • Under the Democrats, the budget process basically stopped, at one point going more than three years without passing an actual budget. One of the few things the GOP has done right in the last year is to return to a normal budget process.
  • Under both Democrats and Republicans, the federal bureaucracy has basically run unhindered, passings thousands of regulations without any oversight that cost the United States at least a couple of trillion in lost economic activity. In fact, Obama’s big achievements — financial reform and Obamacare — specifically left parts of the bill to be written by the bureaucracies.
  • The few Republicans trying to get control of the process and make government work — e.g. Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell — have been relentlessly demonized by the liberal pundit class.
  • A huge amount of government dysfunction can be traced to how the Democrats treated President Bush, whom they proclaimed to be “selected not elected” and often simply refuse to work with.

In short, this isn’t just a Republican thing. The dysfunction of Washington has been building for a long time. It’s been a tit-for-tat political tribalism that places party loyalty and beating the other side over anything else.

Where the Republicans worse? Probably. They reflexive opposition and demonization of everything Obama does has been a big problem. And Republicans, because they value smaller government, have less of a problem with government not being able to do the things Democrats want it to do.

However, it is foolish to say Republicans want to “blow the whole thing up”. They simply want government to do fewer things. No Republican is talking about dismantling the military or abolishing police. No one is going to end highway spending or Social Security. It is the height of hyperbole (and part of the problem) when wanting to end the staggering expensive dysfunction that is Obamacare is portrayed as “blowing up the government”.

Moreover, the Democrats have more than played their role in creating this problem. They have expanded government power in every direction. They have completely sold out to unions, racking up huge retirement obligations that no one can pay and raising the minimum wage to economy-killing levels. They have ignored the critical need for regulatory and tax reform. They’ve dragged their heels on criminal justice reform. They’ve made a lot of noise about special interests but done nothing to actually stop them (big part of stopping them: reduce the need to peddle influence by shrinking government power). The Democrats had completed unfettered control of the federal government for two years and mainly used that window to shovel money at their interests and layer on thousands of new regulations in the service of the big banks and insurance companies.

I do think the system has gotten to a critical juncture. We’re facing trillions in future debt and a hamstrung economy. We need a functional Congress and a competent President to fix this. That’s absolutely not Trump, who recently talked about “negotiating our debt” and causing a global financial crisis. But I’m not sure there’s anyone on the national scene right now — except maybe Paul Ryan — who both grasps what needs to be done and has the political acumen to get it done.

Study makes the wrong conclusion.

I was quite baffled when I saw the title for a study posted on science daily that reported that “Skepticism about climate change may be linked to concerns about economy” because while I am certain that in good economic times people are less resistant to government fleecing, I still have a hard time believing people would buy the AGW lies. from the article I see the following declaration:

Americans may be more likely to accept the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change and its potentially devastating effects if they believe the economy is strong and stable, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

I could not fathom any study that would produce these results, and immediately suspected some kind of bullshit. My first inclination was that they very likely had loaded questions designed to illicit responses that would allow them to make this ludicrous claim. After all, there is a historical precedent that most people are willing to tolerate a heavier hand from Uncle Sam, the one going straight into their pockets where they keep their money, when their own income and potential for income looks good. I can see a study rigged to use that mechanism to make this idiotic claim that resistance to this nonsense and the political agenda is economic, but I wanted details, so I decided to take a closer look at the article, and the answer was right there. This was a bunch of bullshit wrapped in pretty paper to sell another lie. let’s start with this:

In an experiment conducted online, 187 Americans ranging from 18 to 70 years old watched a newscast with skeptical commentary about a NASA documentary on climate change. Participants who more enthusiastically supported the capitalist system were more dubious about climate change, and they misremembered facts from the newscast about the severity of climate change. Conversely, participants who were more critical of the capitalist system and more interested in social change recalled the information about climate change as being even more severe than the facts that were presented.

So first off, let me point out that the “mischaracterization” made by this idiot author about how supporters of the capitalist system were more likely to “misremember facts” or “not grasp the severity of the problem”, was nothing but his biased attempt to discredit people that pointed out what they were shown was a pile of bullshit. The likely scenario is that these people, less ruled by fucking feelings, pointed out that this cult is based on a well orchestrated campaign of falsehoods, flawed models and systems, manipulation of the facts and data to create a desired results, a peer review circle jerk, the demonization of anyone not willing to let them get away with this shit, and that not a single one of the horribly exaggerated effects have come to pass, isn’t “misremembering” or “not seeing the gravity of the situation”, but pointing out why this thing is a scam. Cultists don’t like that.

I also am not surprised people that saw the inherent value of the capitalist system were less prone to bullshit than their collectivist counterparts, because it has always been obvious to me that collectivists tend to be ruled by emotion and emotional appeal. Show a bunch of collectivist twits a fictional piece like Al Gore’s idiotic movie, hilariously titled “An inconvenient truth” of all things, that proposes draconian collectivism to deal with the coming apocalypse, and one shouldn’t be surprised these twits gobble up that shit sandwich either.

Anyway, back to the point here. The study, as practically every one of these pro AGW propaganda pieces tends to do, made a totally wrong conclusion from what they saw. The conclusion they should have made was that people inclined to believe the unwashed masses have a right to use government force to steal from the productive to benefit themselves are far more likely to buy a pack of lies when it pushes their agenda, while those that don’t buy theft by government and totalitarianism as good, are far less likely to fall for that bullshit.

Next we get the following doozy:

In another experiment, with 57 college students, participants were divided into two groups: One read a statement that the federal government had very broad power to influence the economy and the availability of jobs; the other, a statement that the government’s power was limited. The participants then read a news article that recounted some errors that were inadvertently included in a scientific report on climate change. Participants who thought the economy had a strong influence on their lives were more skeptical about climate change and were less likely to remember facts from the news article about the severity of climate change.

In a third experiment, with 203 college students, one group listened to a podcast that reported the U.S. economy had recovered from the recession, another group heard the recession was continuing, and a control group didn’t hear any podcast. All of the participants then watched a NASA documentary about scientific evidence of climate change before completing a survey about their support for the current U.S. economic system. Participants who more strongly endorsed the legitimacy of the economic system were more likely to believe in the severity of climate change only when they thought the economy was strong and stable.

Let me start by pointing out that when you pick a bunch of college students that are not in engineering, math, physics, chemistry, medicine, accounting, or something that actually involves not just regurgitating bullshit liberal dogma, for their opinion on things scientific, you shouldn’t be surprised to see the stupidity the experimenters did. I am sorry, but “Studies” or “Poli Sci” majors are neither hard science types nor – yes it is my opinion – really learning anything of value outside an artificial world created by the grand collectivist machine. They are a plague on the universe. I should have probably at the point of the realization how unscientific this scientifc study was, just moved on to something less brain damaging than this idiocy, but I couldn’t pass the opportunity to showcase what we are dealing with here.

In the first example, where they used some college students that were likely some 7 year geniuses of the humanities fields, we should begin with the fact that nobody with any common sense would buy the idiocy that government, by its very nature, has any form of control on economic activity, other than to impede, degrade, or piss away tons of tax payer dollars on it. But it remains baffling to me that this experiment led to the conclusion that good economic metrics influence people to dismiss the AGW bullshit. Again, I see that the correlation here isn’t faith in good economic times over AGW dystopia as much as how much more inclined someone was to accept the AGW nonsense as gospel if they lacked a solid grasp of economics and the impact of government on that activity.

If anything, the third experiment shows that the AGW cult is bull. Believers are far more likely to endorse the agenda while they felt they had little to lose and a lot to gain from the wealth transfer agenda behind the AGW movement. But as happens in real life, as soon as things got good for them, they were far likely to want that wealth transfer. Seriously, if you take a look at the supporters of Bernie Sanders and then at the supporters of Donald Trump, the big difference is the fact that the Sanders camp is comprised of people that are in deep debt and are looking for someone to bail them out (lots of jobless humanities students with big loan debt), while the other camp lacks that crowd.

These experiments should have concluded that collectivist are far more likely to like collectivist agendas when they gain from them, and much less likely to do anything but pay lip service to them when they find out they will foot the bill. Also that non-collectivists will focus on the reality of economics and human nature over some apocalyptic fantasies collectivists hope will convince people to let them fuck us all over.

That ain’t mayo, baby!

Talk about getting more than you paid for:

MAY 3–A woman last week contacted Florida cops to report that she believed a pair of chicken sandwiches purchased at KFC “contained semen,” according to a police report.

The unidentified customer went to the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office and told officials there that she bought the sandwiches from a Bradenton restaurant.

This reminds me of the girl in my junior year biology class that asked the teacher if cum had a high concentration of sugar (fructose) why it tasted salty, then realized she had just admitted to being a fun date. That or maybe this chick was just looking for a pay day.

I never worked in fast food, although I did a brief stint in a restaurant my parents owned, but I have plenty of friends that have told me stories that make it very clear that you avoid this stuff unless you can watch them make it. Sully was not available for comment…

Sully Panics

With the GOP race basically over (Trump won Indiana overwhelmingly last night), Andrew Sullivan has emerged from hiding to pen a piece for the New Yorker that sites Plato, Sinclair Lewis and Eric Hoffer to argue that Trump represents the end of our democracy.

Seriously.

For Trump is not just a wacky politician of the far right, or a riveting television spectacle, or a Twitter phenom and bizarre working-class hero. He is not just another candidate to be parsed and analyzed by TV pundits in the same breath as all the others. In terms of our liberal democracy and constitutional order, Trump is an extinction-level event. It’s long past time we started treating him as such.

No, he’s not.

I’ve said this before and I expect to say it again a lot over the next six months, especially if Trump begins to close in the polls or, Heaven help us, wins. Trump is not Hitler. At worst, he is a low-rent George Wallace. We can survive him. And we will.

Nick Gillespie has a great response:

The most important thing to understand about Trump is that he is not the start of anything new but the culmination of a long degenerative process that has been at work for the entirety of the 21st century. He is a sterile mule in the end, not a jackass who might have hideous offspring. He is the effect, not the cause, of the ways in which the two major parties have destroyed themselves by refusing to take their own rhetoric or govern seriously. The Republican Party said it stood for small government when virtually every major action it has pursued at least since the 9/11 attacks has yielded the opposite result. The Democratic Party, still trying to maintain a disparate collection of special-interest groups that started morphing and changing and expiring by the mid-1960s, lays claim to the mantle of caring about regular Americans even as its last three major presidential candidates (John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton) long ago achieved escape velocity from caring about anything resembling everyday reality.

The century was ushered in under the single-most-contested election in U.S. history, with each party suddenly adopting the other’s philosophy in pursuit of victory. The Republicans called it a federal matter while the Dems wholeheartedly embraced state’s rights (this switcheroo would repeat itself in the Terri Schiavo affair). The deep-seated recognition by voters that each party is uncommitted to anything approaching its core values is what’s driving the 2016 election season. While enjoying complete control of the federal government for years under Bush, the Republican Party didn’t just go war-crazy but spending-crazy, regulation-crazy, and entitlement-crazy.

Gillespie argues, not unconvincingly, that Trump was the only GOP candidate who seemed to stand for anything. And I would add that Sanders’ popularity was because he was the only candidate who seemed to stand for anything. Ultimately, the Democratic establishment had more control over their process than the GOP did of theirs (and, as Conor notes, has not invested as much in toxic rhetoric). But you can almost imagine the American voter echoing the dying words of Shepherd Book: “I don’t care what you believe in, just believe in it.”

My take is slightly different. The country isn’t 100% conservative or 100% liberal. Or even 51%. Or even 30%. Issues have be resolved with compromise and deal-making and no one gets everything they want. Reagan, to cite the most obvious example, had strong conservative principles but compromised to get a conservative agenda passed.

But what’s been going on in Washington for the last 15 years has not been compromise between two principled if opposed ideologies; it’s been mindless gamesmanship and selling out. “Wall Street reform” that further empowered big bangs. “Health care reform” that made health insurance more expensive. Budgets that never go through a real budgeting process. Wars started stupidly and managed poorly. A “War on Terror” that mainly eats the privacy and freedom of law-abiding citizens.

Trump is indeed the end stage of that: an uninformed unthinking demagogue who makes ridiculous promises that can’t possibly be fulfilled. Maybe if such a candidate crashes and burns, we’ll see a better saner GOP emerge from the rubble.

Or not. I wouldn’t complete discount the “stockpile food and ammo” approach here. The last few months have been rough. I’ve been blogging less, in part, because I’m simply sick of it. We’ll get a brief respite now as both candidates try to consolidate their parties. And then I’m anticipating unrelenting ugliness from the conventions to the election.

Maybe I’ll just start blogging about cats or something.

Still, despite Sully’s hysterics, I expect the country to soldier on. We are more than our government. It holds us down, it ties our hands, it beats our asses. But we keep trudging along: going to work, raising our kids, doing our best. As long as that stays true, no politician, not even Donald Trump, can be an “extinction-level event”.

Let it burn…

So as was expected, Puerto Rico defaulted on a debt payment for over $70 billion in outstanding debt. From the article:

Puerto Rico, whose residents are U.S. citizens, has been mired in recession for a decade and borrowed heavily to balance budgets. Despite the shaky economy, investors snapped up its debt for years thanks to generous tax incentives. The borrowing spree, however, did little to create economic opportunity on the island, and residents have steadily left for employment on the U.S. mainland, eroding Puerto Rico’s tax base.

So this problem was caused by leftist government that wanted to spend more than the economies they crippled could sustain, to buy votes of all reasons, borrowed massive amounts of money to balance their budgets. Does this sound familiar to you at all? At least some Puerto Ricans affected by this stupidity had the ability to skip town and go to the US, whether it was to find gainful employment or just move to some blue state and suck at the government’s teat there, to avoid the catastrophe. Where are those of us in the US going to go when we face this reality?

Government economic policy that is set up to make participants in any economy dependent on buying favors from the members of said governments, always end up producing pain and do little to produce economic growth. But it sure makes a lot of connected people wealthy and in turn puts a large amount of cash into the campaign coffers of the political class that has implemented this machine. Hence, despite the massive debt buyout in Puerto Rico, there was no economic benefit. Again I ask, does this all look familiar to anyone? It seems quite obvious that what we are seeing in Puerto Rico can directly be inferred as the future of many US blue states as well as the US economy in general under the Obama administration.

Back to this issue at hand. As the article points out, republicans rallied by Paul Ryan in congress are pushing legislation that would restructure Puerto Rico’s debt. My concern is that this is nothing more than a totally temporary bandaid solution, and that it will not only not fix the underlying issue, which is that these fuckers will keep borrowing to buy votes and do nothing that would fix their abysmal economic conditions, but just delay the inevitable: Puerto Rico basically asking the US tax payer to foot the bill for all the squandered money. I feel this way because of news like this. And once Puerto Rico gets what amounts to a bailout, you can bet that Illinois, California, and every other blue state out there that has the same model of borrowing so they can spend on vote buying while all that spent money does nothing to improve economic conditions in general, will all show up in DC and ask for the same.

Whatever crap congress puts together should also destroy the blue state economic model as it exists today. Without that, we are just pushing the problem out and increasing the final cost of bailing out these idiots. The blue state model needs to die before it kills the country as a whole.

Replace with Obamacare for a view of our future healthcare system

The future of Obamacare, which should have been repealed in toto had it not been for Obama’s veto in January of this year, and which now obviously after such abysmal failures and fiscal disasters shows clearly that it was intended from the start to destroy healthcare as we know it in the US so the left could force a single-payer system on us, will end up looking like this:

The UK has one of the worst healthcare systems in the developed world according to a damning new report which said the nation has an “outstandingly poor” record of preventing ill health.

Hospitals are now so short-staffed and underequipped that people are also dying needlessly because of a chronic lack of investment. The verdict, from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), will make embarrassing reading for David Cameron who denied the cash-strapped NHS is heading for its worst winter crisis.

Staff are too rushed to improve levels of care that have in many areas fallen below countries such as Turkey, Portugal and Poland. Almost 75,000 more doctors and nurses are needed to match standards in similar countries the OECD said in its annual Health at a Glance study comparing the quality of healthcare across 34 countries.

While access to care is “generally good” the quality of care in the UK is “poor to mediocre” across several key health areas, obesity levels are “dire” and the NHS struggles to get even the “basics” right, the report said citing a lack of investment over the last six years.

Britain was placed on a par with Chile and Poland as countries still lagging behind the best performers in survival following diagnosis for different types of cancer. The UK came 21st out of 23 countries on cervical cancer survival, 20th out of 23 countries on breast and bowel cancer survival and 19th out of 31 countries on stroke.

Here is the takeaway from this obvious revelation of fact: in a system that measures success of a given healthcare system with metrics that are heavily skewed/biased to favor collectivist bullshit over actual performance, the British healthcare system, which is a collectivist government controlled healthcare’s dream state, fails abysmally. It always comes down to the fact that there are limited resources and cash, and too many people that want free shit. When government takes over allocation of the limited resources, it always goes bad. Fucking always. In places where abundance masks the fact that there is an economic reality it might take longer to show that, but eventually it will be shown, as is the case here.

Things are going to go from bad to worse in this country because of the direction forced on us. Obama, was our Lenin. If Hillary wins, she will be our Stalin, and she is gonna do it with gusto. The problem is that whatever it may be we are fucked with these people.

Reality always bites…

Back in the day the collectivist cheerleaders told us this to sell their garbage. Reality is things like this, and then things like this.

Collectivist, SJW type revolutions are sold as trying to make it better for the masses, but the truth is that it is about replacing the people in charge with new ones whom practically always take abuse and misery of the masses to new levels. I hope Venezuelans know how to make pruno, cause life is about to get even worse for the masses without that Polar crap swill.

Collectivism is evil, but I am sure this is somehow Boosh’s fault…