Why Capitalism is the Superior Economic System
As economic systems, capitalism and socialism are opposites
and each claims to be superior. Capitalism adheres to the natural laws of
economics, the center of which is supply and demand which says that when the
supply drops or the demand rises, the cost of a product will rise; and when
supply rises or demand falls, prices will fall.
Of course politicians may seek to ameliorate the effects of
the natural laws of economics, but that does not make supply and demand any less
real, just as you cannot contravene the law of gravity by making an apple float
in the air.
Ultimately a free economy will right
itself on its own while politicians, using government edicts, may make things
better in the short run, but always make things worse in the long run. This was
demonstrated in the late 1920s after the stock market crashed. In a panic, the
government, under enormous public pressure, cut off free trade under the
Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act by imposing heavy taxes (a socialist idea) on imports.
This slowed down international trade and killed millions of jobs in
These taxes were ‘protectionist’ measures that liberals
always use to ‘protect’ jobs, when in fact the overall result was to kill jobs,
as it is today. When foreign governments in the 1930s retaliated with tariffs of
their own on American imports, the whole world economy slowed down.
Second, in the wake of the stock market crash, the government
imposed big tax increases on business and on wealthy Americans in order to get
more money for the government. Yet any capitalist will tell you that taxing
people is the quickest way to slow down an economy. And the great depression of
the 1930s was the biggest slowdown in American history.
Third, the Federal Reserve shrank the money supply by
one-third in the wake of the crash. The Federal Reserve is part of the
government. So another stupid action by the government caused the great
depression to happen.
So by
*imposing heavy taxes on imports (liberal idea)
*raising taxes on business and individuals (liberal idea),
and
*allowing the Federal Reserve (the government acting
stupidly) to act in a haphazard manner to shrink the money supply, these
elements combined like a ‘perfect storm’ to cause the economic collapse of the
1930s.
Then FDR, elected in 1932, said he was going to make
everything better by hiring people with government money for make-work jobs like
building highways and bridges to nowhere. Yet unemployment was higher in 1938
than it was in 1932!
So socialism started it, then lengthened and deepened the
depression. If the economy had been left alone, it would have righted itself and
the depression never would have happened.
So much for socialism.
Socialists claim that capitalism is unfair and exploitative,
while capitalism says that socialism taxes people unfairly and favors the
transfer of wealth from productive people to unproductive ones, i.e., that
socialism is unfair and exploitative.
At many places on this website, Nikitas3.com has pointed out
the superiority of capitalism. And to look at world history, all of the
prosperous and productive societies have had open-market capitalist economies
with free trade within and without.
Capitalism, of course, needs to be regulated. Even George
Washington said that. To have an economic system without some regulations would
be the same as having a society without criminal laws. Chaos would reign because
there always are people who will push the limit of what is allowed for their own
benefit.
Socialism, on the other hand, it not a natural system at all,
but is a contrived man-made system with all its rules and regulations set by
politicians. And thus it is bound to fail because every time socialism finds an
imbalance, it seeks to correct it with more laws and taxes and regulations.
There is no natural system for regulating socialism. A contrived system can only
be regulated by more contrivances. And when politicians seek to correct an
economic shortcoming through socialist means, they always come up with a worse
solution because they always put personal interests first.
So a good, regulated form of capitalism is far superior to
any form of socialism for one reason only: Capitalism is the only economic
system that actually creates wealth, while socialism is a system
dedicated only to transferring wealth from one group to another. That is why
liberals always favor taxation (it is their “wages”) and why socialism always
leads to economic decline; because every aspect of socialism hinders, obstructs,
or destroys wealth creation (taxation, regulation, bureaucracy, big government,
corruption, patronage, environmental restrictions etc.)
This is not to say that taxation, regulation and
environmentalism should be eliminated. Because they are part of the laws that
must regulate capitalism. But those laws should be minimized, because by
themselves those laws create zero wealth and thus the more they intervene in the
economy the more they reduce jobs and opportunity for people to create their own
destinies. Ultimately they destroy wealth.
Socialism encourages the wrong kind of “passive” people to
succeed (welfare recipients, lazy government workers, overpaid public school
teachers, corrupt urban political functionaries, slothful college professors who
work 6 months a year etc.) and thus encourages entropy.
Capitalism, on the other hand, encourages “active” productive, creative and individualistic people to succeed, which leads to more prosperity. If each member of the society is strong and vibrant, the society will prosper. If each is slothful, the society will collapse.
In the big picture, socialism weakens the strong
and strengthens the weak. This is the reason that socialism always
fails and causes economic decline. If you visit a communist nation, where all
the ideals of socialism are enforced at the point of a gun, you will find the
population impoverished, starving and deprived of even the most basic material
goods.
For instance
At the same time, the leaders like Castro in Cuba and Chavez
in Venezuela end up with vast fortunes tucked away in foreign accounts (while
Republican George Bush’s assets in 2007 were a piddling $7.3 million) while
their bureaucratic class – the government functionaries who run the everyday
society – end up with all the highest and most secure privileges of the middle
class, much like a public school superintendent profiled recently on CNN’s
Black In America series was shown driving a brand new Mercedes-Benz and
living in an elegant neighborhood while public school educrats always cry
poverty.
It is important to note that people who advance in the
bureaucratic, governmental society run by socialism lack all of the
characteristics that are important to a growing and advancing society.
They are generally conformist, lazy, mediocre, willing to be led, thoroughly uncreative and are obsessed with money and with having an easy life.
They are not ambitious, creative,
intelligent, motivated or individualistic.
That is why even the arts have spiraled downward into
nothingness in the 20th and 21st century as socialism’s tentacles of mediocrity
reach into every corner and crevice of society.
The people in socialism’s bureaucracy are attracted to that
life because they are the type of people who are incapable of making anything of
themselves in a competitive society. They are, by nature, colorless. It is a
personality type that is attracted to, and thrives under, mediocre state
socialism.
And they bring the whole society down because the society
becomes like them because they hold the power. Under socialism, people advance
only by two things -- by their conformity, and by their allegiance to the
bureaucracy. And they can become relatively rich and powerful that way, like the
school superintendent noted above.
The nation of
After
Once-poor nations like
Yet now it is
Capitalism, on the other hand, indeed is a system that favors
‘survival of the fittest’ for which it is roundly and routinely criticized.
Liberals say that this is evil, that we must think about the poor and the weak
among us. But a system that favors the strong really is superior because any
system that consistently favors the weak will encourage weakness to thrive and
ultimately will hurt everybody, including the poor, much more than capitalism.
Go to a communist nation that could be wealthy under capitalism and everyone
will be poor under socialism.
For instance if a liberal government gives single mothers
money to support their children rather than encouraging families to stay
together and fathers to support their children, it creates a weak, dependent
society where girls grow up expecting that their children will be supported by
the government. This creates chaos and a static bureaucratic society in which
the colorless, odorless, tasteless government functionary who hands out checks
is seen as the leader. Obviously not a very pretty picture.
Capitalism gives people from the bottom up the power to
create their own destinies. In fact it is only a capitalist economy that creates
a middle class at all. Go to a communist country and there is no middle class at
all except for the small strata of government functionaries who work directly
for the leader. Otherwise there is no middle class.
In communist countries, for example, there is no food for
most of the population, even in the cities. Then go to any poor third-world
nation with anything like a free-market, capitalist economy and you will see
poor people in the market selling vegetables that they have grown. In other
words, people have the power to control their own lives without government
intervention, and this increases the potential of the whole society.
And while these poor people certainly do not lead glamorous
lives, their occupation represents their freedom, just as a low-income person in
America may wash windows or perform some other service like cutting grass. It is
what he has in order to create wealth for himself. And thus it is good. He
works, he has something to think about, he has something to care about, and he’s
not hanging out on the corner all day doing nothing, an activity for which
government-dependent people are famous.
Of course a socialist says that poor people must have
dignity, and should not be dependent on demeaning jobs like cutting grass. And
the question is why? Why must everyone work in an office and make $50,000 a year
as the socialist ideal dictates? Because many poor people don’t even have the
skills to earn money.
The fact is that much of poverty in
See the Nikitas3.com essay below 10 Ways that
Socialism Makes People Poor to see the many ways in which state
socialism itself thwarts individual and societal economic improvement, and makes
more and more people poor, while enriching the socialist elite like the Kennedys.
The goal of socialism is to get as much wealth as possible
into the hands of people who believe in socialism, without regard for the cost
to the overall society.
Many of the ultra-rich in
What is important is that the wealth created by a growing
capitalist society offers money to support the poor who cannot support
themselves. Americans are famously generous to charity and to the poor nations
of the world, while poor people in America often have relatively high standards
of living, with access to food, clothing, housing and medical care that not even
middle class people have had throughout most of history, and living vastly
better lives than poor people in other nations today.
Many people in
Yet what are the socialists saying today
about
And this is true; our middle class is shrinking. But several
things can be said about this. First, when America was booming in the 1950s with
all the best jobs and housing that man could ever hope for, the left-wing 1950s
‘beatniks’ and the 1960s ‘hippies’ said this was a terrible way to live, and
that man was doomed to a boring, conformist life. Now those same ‘hippies’ are
in positions of power and they are all wondering why we don’t have all the great
jobs that we had in the 1950s!
And the reason we don’t have those jobs is simple: The
destructive policies that those 1960s ‘hippies’ have imposed on our nation over
many decades have irrevocably harmed our economy... taxation, regulation,
bureaucracy, labor union demands (particularly among unionized government
workers) zealous environmental restrictions etc. all have pushed jobs overseas.
And enviro objection to domestic energy production has led to the biggest job
‘outsourcing’ of all, hundreds of billions in oil money flowing abroad that all
could be being spent here at home.
No, the ‘hippies’ now are in the United States Congress, and
in governorships and state legislatures all over. And every single time they get
power, their policies cause economic decline. Here is an essay about the
destructive effects of socialism on the American economy from the
Thinking Points section of this website called About Those ‘Two
Americas’:
The media report regularly on the status of the nation’s
economy. One of the most watched figures is the unemployment number. Other
figures include claims for food stamps and other indicators of economic woe.
When a Republican is president, the media attempt to portray
the unemployment numbers in the most negative light possible. For instance, when
the number is good they will talk about a period when the number was better.
When the number is bad, they jump for joy and talk about the failing Republican
president.
So you have to really think about what is happening with the
economy to put unemployment figures in context. In June 2008, it was reported
that the rate rose to 5.5% in May, which still is low by historical standards.
But the media made it appear once more like Bush was failing.
Look closer, however, and you will see that we do live in
“Two Americas”, as former Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards liked to
say. Only problem is the “Two Americas” are not the ones that Edwards or
other liberals even would dare discuss if they were being honest.
First: Consider the black inner cities
of
The Democrat party does, that’s who.
Why is the unemployment rate, dependence on food stamps and
other government handouts, the poverty rate and the murder rate always much
higher in these areas than elsewhere in the nation?
Because the Democrats have crafted policies that insure that
they are going to be higher. The terrible public schools, run without any
challenge by the Democrat bureaucracy and the teacher unions, are failing
miserably. Democrat liberals, who run the entertainment industry, get rich while
inundating these areas with defeatist and violent messages like hip-hop and rap
music. Democrat party bureaucracies and corrupt urban governments make starting
a business very difficult. Abysmal leftist social standards exonerate broken
families, fatherlessness and single motherhood, all of which contribute greatly
to poverty. So all in all, there is little economic opportunity, and people
remain poor.
So when the dismal economic figures from
these inner cities are rolled into the national figures, it makes
So indeed, there are Two Americas. Only problem is, Democrats
don’t want to talk about those Two Americas.
Now look at the nation as a whole.
The South is booming economically. The
most vibrant economy in the nation is in…
What other states are booming? How about
Why?
Because they have long histories of conservative policies –
low taxes, low regulation, less bureaucracy, fewer business-busting unions.
People from the North are flowing into the South for jobs and opportunity.
Meanwhile, across the whole Northern
Tier of the
Why?
Because
For decades, however, elite, liberal,
Ivy League New Englanders laughed at
And typically they are taking their
politics with them and turning
So looking at the nation as a whole, you have the declining
North and inner cities, and the rising South.
Now look at the people who increasingly are controlling the
declining Northern Tier.
Here are the states as of June 2008 with
a Democrat governor and two Democrat
But aren’t Democrats the party of “compassion” who want
prosperity for everyone?
No, they are the party of economic decline and wealth
redistribution from the middle class to the ultra-rich like the Kennedy family,
John Kerry, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, Larry Ellison and other leftists who
support Obama, and who want to stay rich. Obama will assure that they remain
rich, and that is why they favor him. It's all about the money.
Just 30 years ago, places like
Yet who would say that today these are
places of jobs, growth and opportunity? Who would say that the national economy
is migrating toward
Nobody would, because the people who actually live in these
states know that the story is quite the opposite.
Meanwhile, in places like rural
Why are these states failing?
Because they are becoming more and more dominated by Democrat
politicians and Democrat/environmentalist ideas.
In
This is why more and more American workers, particularly in
the South, are rejecting unions. Because unions oppose the interests of working
people in favor of union bosses and organized crime. They destroy jobs by the
millions and wealth by the trillions.
Why is even the huge
Because
Come up to wonderful Massachusetts, the most liberal state in
the union, 85% Democrat legislature with virtually the worst business/economic
climate in America, according to most objective economic analyses including
Forbes magazine. Any honest economist will tell you that the two go hand in hand
– liberalism and economic decay.
Wherever they come to power, Democrats slowly wreck economic
prosperity. So today, when you see national stories about the suffering of
Americans, high unemployment or rises in food stamp dependence, look for the
link.
What is affecting the overall national
statistics? Is it bad times in conservative
Take a guess...
Is the decline in the
Of course.
Did Hillary Clinton promise to help the
people of rural
Yes.
Has anything changed since then?
Yes, things are much, much worse as
Conclusion: Perhaps we can start having two measures of
economic well-being.
We will measure it in Democrat strongholds (inner cities,
liberal states), and then in places where conservative, capitalist ideas
dominate, like the South.
And then we will start to see the real story about the “Two
Americas”.
People who advocate socialism say they want to "help" people,
that they "care about the poor". But this is nonsense. Socialists operate at all
levels of society, from the ultra-rich (like Warren Buffett, who supports Obama)
to the welfare poor. And the socialists who run the Democrat party from the
ultra-rich to the middle class bureaucracy, want the three things that all
liberals want:
A) Wealth
for themselves;
B) Power
over other people; and
C) A life of
ease and pleasure.
Liberals love money more than any people
in history. Just look at the zillionaires in
Liberals love money! From the rich to the middle class. Think
of the functionaries who work for the state and federal government. They are the
best-paid people in the middle class. They have the best pay, benefit and
retirement packages of all. They love to have: Money; power over other people;
and a life of ease and pleasure. They produce less and work less than any other
people in the workforce… except for other liberals like college professors,
welfare recipients and public school teachers. In fact is it liberals who
substitute ‘materialism’ for ‘prosperity’.
Prosperity is a good thing. It lifts all people up. Conservatives always have favored policies that promote prosperity. And one of the byproducts of prosperity is materialism, which is the placing of material wealth above all other forms of human striving.
The good conservative person, however, strives to make
himself/herself better; strives to make the world better through his/her
contributions; and shuns excessive material wealth in favor of a higher
spiritual level of living where one truly is making the world better not by
“letting the government help people” (the socialist way), but by building
homes and churches and powerplants and furniture and cars to give people a
better life. It’s called productivity.
Liberals, on the other hand, are in love
only with money and a life of ease and pleasure. It was best illustrated by the
1960s when all the lazy hippies did whatever they felt like doing – usually not
working – then acted as if they knew what everybody else should be doing. In
other words, a life of ease and pleasure while having power over other people.
10 Ways that Liberal Socialism Makes People Poorer
(and what conservatives are doing about it)
Debating the average liberal is like debating a wall. They believe their arguments are impeccable, even when they are dead wrong. They say that only liberals care about "the poor" and "working families" while conservative capitalism is a system that benefits the rich. Nonsense. In fact, free-market capitalism creates a middle class everywhere it is applied, while socialism causes people to become poor in the following ways: Taxes, regulation, bureaucracy and government corruption thwart business everywhere and hinder job creation and expansion, often killing businesses off. Labor unions have only their own interests at heart and have hurt or destroyed many wealth-creating businesses while actually attempting to prevent non-union people from working at all. Environmentalism is throwing millions out of work in rural America and pushing up the cost of basic resources for all through restriction on the development of oil wells, timber harvests, mines etc. Just visit small towns and rural areas throughout the US and you often will see enviro obstruction of any and all new development.
Here are 10 ways to debate liberals on the subject of wealth and poverty, showing how socialism itself in fact is making tens of millions of citizens poor and poorer:
1. Unions kill jobs and wealth: Everyone knows that socialists are partners with labor unions. Throughout the 20th century, unions have acted in a belligerent and confrontational way with business, demanding artificially high wages and putting private employers under financial duress. Trillions of dollars in wealth, along with millions of good jobs, have been destroyed as unions have pushed companies out of business, killing opportunity for "working families". All Americans know that this is a fact, although many cannot admit it. As a result, huge numbers of workers today are freely voting against unionization, because they do not want their future well-being put in the hands of a few labor bosses. They have seen the sad result. Conservative response: Let the market, and the employer, set wages. This creates a sustainable economic climate for cooperation between labor and management, rather than confrontation.
2. Taxation thwarts economic growth: The power to tax is the power to destroy, goes the old saying. Indeed it is. Throughout history, heavily taxed economies have suffered, while lightening tax loads has in every single case produced more wealth, and more evenly distributed wealth. Average Americans, including "working families", are being made poorer by relentless taxation. The money that he/she already has in his/her pocket is disappearing. This is a travesty. And ruthless taxation of private business is preventing those businesses from paying their workers better wages, or accumulating capital to modernize their plants and ultimately employ more workers. Meanwhile media liberals insistently call for higher taxes, which equal wage cuts (impoverishment) for "workers". Conservative response: Lower taxes and reduce government spending. It's really simple.
3. Public schools are failing to educate millions of citizens: Our publicly-funded, government-monopoly education system is failing to educate a large percentage of the 94% of Americans who go to public schools. When those people end up unable to function in the workforce, they slip into poverty. Since the public schools are bureaucratic monopolies controlled by teacher unions and the government, they are entrenched and unresponsive to public pressure and to common sense suggestions to improve themselves. Conservative response: Offer alternatives to mediocre or failing public schools, like charter schools and school vouchers for children to attend private or religious schools. This would end up costing taxpayers less money over the long run (making them richer) in many ways, because the education system would become more efficient, and students would be more productive when they graduate instead of falling into poverty and living off the taxpayer.
4. Colleges are charging far too much tuition: The liberals who run our colleges and universities are charging exorbitant tuitions that are far out line with the general inflation rate, and with the rise in the cost of other commodities. The media only make occasional and casual mention of this gouging, while college professors and other leftist bureaucrats in the educational establishment get higher and higher salaries, while working less and less, as the average "working family" works harder and harder in order to pay more and more for college. At the same time, low-income people increasingly are being shut out of expensive college education. Conservative response: Let's investigate the colleges for this ongoing "gouging" of the consumer. This rip-off is yet another transfer of wealth from the productive and hard-working citizens of America to the left-wing intellectual elite.
5. Incompetent government workers and overstaffed bureaucracies are costing us all hundreds of billions of dollars annually: Ever pass a group of state highway workers? What do you see? You see one guy working and four guys watching. This is the socialist ethic that drains our economies and sucks the life out of (impoverishes) the taxpayer. Virtually all government functions (except the military, the courts, law enforcement etc.) can be taken over by private enterprise and accomplished at one-third to one-fourth the cost of government bureaucracies. Conservative response: Privatize government functions wherever possible. Everywhere it has been tried, it has been successful. Government workers and socialist politicians do not want Americans to know how successful privatization has been, and how much money it can save the average "working" person, whom socialists claim to represent.
6. Massive amounts of wealth are flowing from the productive middle-class and "working" people in the suburbs, and small-town and rural America into the pockets of ultra-rich left-wing socialists in places like New York City, Chicago, Seattle, Hollywood, San Francisco and other cities. This is making the average American poorer. Conservative response: Since these same urban socialists are most vocally in favor of "taxing the rich", let's urge them all publicly to voluntarily write additional checks to "United States Treasury" above and beyond their normal tax payments. The government accepts contributions like this. This will require no new laws or government bureaucracy, just honesty, and will allow productive Americans to apply for dollar-for-dollar tax relief from these additional revenues, "redistributing" the wealth more evenly to the hard-working people of America.
7. The welfare state has caused lazy government-aid recipients to become lazier and to consume even more of the nation's wealth, draining hard-earned money away from the productive people in America. Even the late and liberal New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned that the welfare state would destroy poor black Americans. When the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 25% in the 1960s, Moynihan sounded the alarm bell. Today, after four decades of federal government handouts, the rate is 70%. Out-of-wedlock children, and their mothers, are four to six times more likely to end up poor than the general population. Thus this giveaway system is creating more and more poor people. Conservative response: Move all anti-poverty programs back to the more accountable state and local level, and to private and religious charities. Urge poor people to marry before having children, and to believe in God, and in a righteous and moral life.
8. Trial lawyers are doubling the cost of health care for every citizen: This is one of the pressing issues of our day. Health care costs are skyrocketing for everyone, and particularly for the middle class, for one main reason; trial lawyers are suing medical personnel all over the nation. Some say that costs actually are being doubled, which would be no surprise since every single action in the health-care field is undertaken with the medical professional first asking: "How do I avoid getting sued?" So they double or triple up on tests, surgeries, procedures and doctor visits to cover all bases in the event of a legal challenge. Useless paperwork is multiplied, costing even more. Malpractice insurance to cover medical professionals is draining away tens of billions of dollars and driving good people away from medicine. Trial lawyers are virtually all Democrat liberals, give their campaign contributions almost exclusively to Democrats, while the Democrat party is repaying them by blocking any reform that would restrain these lawyers. Conservative response: Reform the legal system to cap lawsuit awards and to punish these lawyers for frivolous litigation. This will halve the cost of medical care and make it affordable for everyone, including "the uninsured" whom liberals claim they care about.
9: Nanny-State liberals are forcing automobile buyers to purchase more and more expensive safety devices: Remember when cars had no safety belts, and nanny-staters demanded them. It was a good idea. They were right. Remember when cars had no driver airbags, and nanny-staters demanded them. That was a fair idea. It protected people who weren't diligent enough to use their seat belts. Now cars are offering more and more and more airbags: side, head, rollover etc. Some cars have as many as 8 airbags because nanny-staters are never satisfied and are constantly pushing for more. This is pushing up the cost of the average automobile, making consumers pay a higher price. There is no consideration for the economic law of diminishing returns, that after a certain point, the bags are increasingly not worth it. But nanny-staters do not care. More, more, more. And when one of these newer cars is involved in a crash, and the airbags deploy, insurers are more likely to "total" the car rather than repair it, because the growing number of airbags are so costly to replace. So insurance costs are rising too. This all combines to draw wealth away from the average "working person", making him/her poorer. Conservative response: Stop forcing auto makers to install so many airbags. Let the consumer decide how many he wants.
10. Environmentalists are pushing up the prices of many natural resources, from timber for housing to gasoline for cars, by restricting the supply: Over the last 30 years, environmentalists have become the most powerful lobby in history. This has happened for two reasons: They have many, many ultra-rich backers in the urban and suburban socialist elite. And they get free, favorable media coverage for any crisis they wish to declare. This media coverage is worth tens of billions of dollars in free advertising every year. Ecologists have used their power to restrict the harvesting of natural resources for decades now, pushing up the price for consumers, because reduced supply causes an increase in price through the law of supply and demand. Oil and timber are particular commodities that enviros have been restricting. Conservative response: Use our natural resources wisely for the common good. Do not deny access so that an elite minority of backpackers and birdwatchers can feel satisfied, while average "working" citizens, along with "the poor", pay more for housing and gasoline.
Free Air
Conditioning for All!
The question is: Who should get air conditioning? And why
should we even be debating personal choices?
Answer: Because this gives us insight into a wider question
about “entitlement” and about the out-of-control tax system that is used to fund
entitlement.
So the
Nikitas3.com proposal is this: That no
person or household that receives any government funding for food stamps,
welfare, housing subsidies, medical care or any other service should be allowed
to have air conditioning unless it absolutely is a matter of survival.
Consider the facts. First, hot weather
kills a small number of Americans every year, primarily very old people. Second,
poor people on government assistance who use air conditioning could better be
using for food and rent the handout money that they spend to buy and operate an
air conditioner, and thus could be cutting their dependency on taxpayers by
shutting off the AC. Third and most importantly, however, many millions of hard-working people in America who pay taxes and accept
nothing from the government cannot themselves afford to buy and operate an air
conditioner, while the taxes that they pay often go to buy and operate AC for
dependent people.
Therefore,
Nikitas3.com believes that all air conditioners should be removed
from the homes of dependent people.
Naturally welfare-state Democrats will
object because they have crafted an elaborate social hammock which keeps them in
power, and they become hysterical when any aspect of their plan is revealed to
the sunlight. They will lash out, accusing those of backing this air-conditioner
removal plan of “mean spiritedness” and all the other usual invectives.
So when liberals refuse this removal
plan, conservatives should offer this compromise: Anyone in
Naturally liberals will oppose this because it equals a “tax
cut” for hard-working people, which they always oppose because they wish to
control all citizens through the redistribution of wealth garnered through
taxation. And second, this tax credit plan will benefit productive people who
pay taxes, who are not a solid voting bloc for the Democrat party.
But this plan is only fair, is it not?
This would put taxpaying people on equal footing
with the dependent poor (having air conditioners paid for by the federal
government (the taxpayer)) but with one huge difference: The working citizens
are contributing to this nation and paying the taxes while the dependent poor
often are not working at all and often are not paying any taxes at all.
So who deserves the
luxury of air conditioning
more?
If Democrats reject this incentive plan, all the dependent
poor should have AC removed from their homes. And if “the poor” object to
removal, all government assistance to that person or household should be ended.
This is economic justice for the people
who are working every day to make
Free air conditioning for all!
Debating liberals is easy. You just have to know
your facts,
put them side-by-side with socialist claims
(this is crucial, to have the side-by-side comparison) and
you can debate them under the table. The reason liberals are always trying to
squelch debate and are attempting to restrict conservative talk radio is that
their ideas never stand up to scrutiny in side-by-side comparisons. The problem
we conservatives have, however, is that many of us are not well-informed enough
to stand up to the nonsense, lies, half-truths and propaganda that liberals put
out. So arm yourself with facts. Here are ten simple examples of how to debate a
liberal:
1) Liberal says: “The oil
companies have a stranglehold on our economy and charge whatever they want.
ExxonMobil made
$40 billion in profits (shock, awe,
anger!) while we are paying more and more for gasoline.”
You reply: “You liberals have no
rational alternative to the oil companies. What are you going to propose? A
government oil company? Government-run FEMA couldn’t even get truckloads of ice
to Hurricane Katrina victims over a period of an entire month, while private-sector
Wal-Mart trucks were in
“And
yes, ExxonMobil had profits of $39 billion in 2006. But its gross sales were
$340 billion. So its profit was around 11% of gross sales, which is only an
average profit percentage for American companies. And the profits of companies
like ExxonMobil are distributed to stockholders, including plumbers, used-car
salesmen, public-school teacher union members and other ‘working people’.”
2) Liberal says: “I am a pacifist. I am
opposed to violence. I oppose the
You reply: “If you are like most so-called ‘pacifists’, you
support abortion on demand and third-trimester abortion, both of which are acts
of cruelty, violence and murder. So you are NOT a pacifist and you are NOT
opposed to violence. You embrace violence every minute of every day.”
3) Liberal says: “We Democrats and liberals are on the side of
‘working families’.”
You reply: “Heavy taxation is one of the main forces working
against the success of working families. It is disempowering them by robbing
them of their hard-earned wealth. We conservatives oppose this taxation so that
working families can prosper. And we also wish to eliminate the current tax code
and replace it with something much simpler, so that ‘working families’ don’t
have to live under a cloud every year, worrying about their massive, confusing
tax forms. Liberals oppose any streamlining of the tax code, making more toil
and anxiety for ‘working families’.”
4) Liberal says: “If we liberals didn’t protect the
environment, the Republicans would pollute the whole nation.”
You reply: “It is not
environmentalism that is cleaning up the ecology, it is
capitalist technology
that is doing it, while modern-day environmentalism is making our air
dirtier in one very big way:
Enviros have been so frightened of nuclear power that the United States is
burning 1.2 BILLION tons of coal per year instead to generate electricity. This
is causing massive air pollution. Nuclear power produces no air pollution. But even
many enviros now favor nuclear power, after obstructing it for decades.”
5) Liberal says: “Only we liberals care about women.”
You reply: “The Republican party,
which was founded by anti-slavery activist Alvin Bovay, was the first party to
introduce the idea of women’s suffrage in 1896. And when the 19th
amendment to the Constitution was passed giving women the vote, it was ratified
by 36 states, 26 of which were controlled by Republicans. The first woman in the
US House of Representatives was Republican Jeanette Rankin of
6) Liberal says: “If we Democrats didn’t help the poor, you
Republicans would allow them to sink deeper into poverty.”
You reply: “If we Republicans didn’t work hard every day to
create a wealthy capitalist society in the first place, you lazy liberals
wouldn’t have two cents to redistribute to the poor.”
7) Liberal says: “You Republicans are opposed to gay rights.”
You reply: “Homosexual males in
8) Liberal says: “
You reply: “Your ‘pacifist’
9) Liberal says: “Republicans are racists who hate black
people.”
You reply: “Republicans freed the
slaves. The Republican party was founded as the anti-slavery party. Martin
Luther King was a Republican. And the state of black
10) Liberal says: “All rich people are Republicans who are
protected by Bush.”
You reply: “The two richest men in
12 Reasons We Don’t Want to be like Europe
Liberals tell us over and over and over that we
must be more like Europe, that Europeans are sophisticated and that we Americans
are stupid, that Europe has “free” health insurance and fast passenger trains
and all that wonderful stuff.
The reason liberals say this is to try to make
1)
European governments, with very high taxes,
take freedom away from individuals. If you are heavily taxed, you lose your
freedom.
2)
4)
European nations fought viciously among
themselves twice in the 20th century alone, in World War I and World War II. Those wars killed more than
70 million people and destroyed
Should
6)
‘French Army Rifle, vintage 1940, never fired,
dropped once, best offer’
8) After World War II,
9) When Ronald Reagan played hardball diplomacy
with the Soviets in the 1980s, and ultimately called their bluff and
brought them down without firing a shot, the Euros marched by the millions in the
streets to protest Reagan’s strategy.
That strategy including the placing of NATO nuclear missiles
in France and Germany to counter Soviet SS-20 missiles that had been placed in Eastern Europe. The Euros, in a feminine panic, said
that Reagan was going to start a nuclear war. The opposite happened. The Soviets
realized that they had met their match and collapsed.
10)
The dishrag Euros are too busy sitting at their cafes
and telling America how superior they are to do anything about the rise of
radical Islam in their midst. It is too much work for them. The leftist
intellectual classes even are making a case that Islam is no threat. The reason
is that the intellectual classes are self-hating classes that don’t care if
11)
We
should not become more like
Use these points in your next debate with a liberal.