Socialism will Always Fail!

A large portion of the American young have been brainwashed into believing that socialism is the best method for the government. What exactly is socialism?

Socialism is the spread of land and wealth throughout the community.

Doesn't that sound like a good idea? The idea of it sounds good and to someone not working it would be a good system. However, in the long run it will harm the group as a whole. I have a analogy that i'd like to share with you but first i'd like to look up the definition of theft.

Theft is the taking of away of ones property

Just imagine this, you get done with a hard weeks work, about 40 hours. Finally though, you've received a paycheck for all those hours deducted from your life! You open up the envelope with your check in there, but you notice something fishy, 25% of it is missing. That missing amount would be the amount that you pay Bobby to sit in his home and watch television. Remember that starbucks coffee you wanted? Well, you couldn't afford it but Jill, who receives food stamps for doing nothing, gets the starbucks coffee for free! 

You must admit to yourself that this was for the betterment of the community. However, after the constant weeks of seeing your paycheck deducted you finally had enough of it! You quit your job and started living like 49% of the Americans in America. For awhile, you really enjoyed your life, but after awhile you noticed something, your government checks were shrinking month by month. Then, on your new flat screen TV, a breaking news bulletin appeared; 90% of America are on government handouts and it's bankrupting the country! 

You ignorantly figured that society would be okay, you were still receiving money from the government. After a few more year of this, the checks just stopped coming in the mail. You heard screams outside, a riot. People were breaking into stores and dragging the owners into the streets while beating them to a bloody  pulp. Society broke down, there was no more government money. The whole government collapsed from the costs of the programs, the people took to the streets. Without money, police can't be hired, without police chaos will envelope the country. You finally regret quitting your job and allowing the government to ban your guns for your 'safety'. There's no one to help you and there's no way for you to eat. Ultimately  everyone stopped trying to fend for themselves before the crash and wanted a free ride. 

If that analogy was not enough, here's one about college.


An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.

Supply-Sided Economics

Supply sided economics, or called Reaganomics, is a fascinating topic. It could potentially save this country; the country was founded on this kind of economic principle. In order for me to explain how it works, I should probably tell you the definition.

Supply Sided Economics- Any action by the government that enables businesses to lower costs, thus boosting efficiency and competitiveness by firms. In a simpler term, supply sided economics can be explained like this; when you lower the input of cash into a investment you'll raise the potential output of the investment. 

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's get on to the best part. I will share with you a few methods that would allow supply sided economics to work, with a few negatives of course.

• Weaken Trade Unions
• Reduce unemployment benefits
• Lower minimum wage

These 3 things have one thing in common, they remove safety nets, thus they make people accept lower paying jobs. When people accept the lower paying jobs, the price of stuff goes down because the corporations do not need to invest as much into the input to get the output of the investment. This also will allow more people to get jobs, that'll make people productive instead of being paid for being unproductive.

• Investing more into education

By educating the people better, this will allow the upcoming generation to 'learn' better in a job field. There's only one issue, what educational system do you invest money into? Would we invest it in pre-schools, middle schools, or would we wait until they're older and allow them the chance to go to a career oriented school?

• Invest in infrastructure

Roads, railroads, and etc would allow prices to drop. If we were to widen roads, smooth the roads down, and increase numbers; this would in return lower shipping prices for companies, which that would drop the prices on consumers. The only issue with this kind of investing would be sound pollution and loss of wildlife around the roads. It's also very expensive and causes inconveniences when people try to drive and a road's closed for construction.



The list could go on and on but as far as I can tell this would be the best way to run America. We'd need to chose where to invest more money into but one thing is for certain, we must lower the costs for businesses. If you're further interest in this topic, Milton Friedman has a tv series called 'Free to Choose' that gets very in-depth with certain kinds of economic policies.

Is Greed the Best Way to Run a Country?

Greed, is it the best system to run a countries economy over? Is there any country on this Earth that's not run by greed? Do you think China isn't run on greed? Do you think that Russia is not run on greed? The world runs on individuals who seek to better their own life and their families lives.

Every great achievement was caused from greed. Do you think that Ford would have mass produced the automobile without some sort of 'greedy' agenda? Do you think that all of Einstein's achievements would have been achieved without a 'greedy' agenda? Do you think that steel would have been mass produced without a 'greedy' agenda behind it? The governmental bureaucrats have caused almost none of the great achievements by man.

The only cases in recorded history, where people in a 3rd world condition have managed to escape, have been in societies where governments allow capitalism and free trade to flourish. The masses are worst off in societies where socialism is present compared to where capitalism is. History is crystal clear that there's no alternative way to running a society that benefits the masses other than allowing capitalism and a free market to flourish.

FDR was a Failure

FDR, a hero to all of the Liberals, has become one of the most overrated presidents that we've had. The 'New Deal' that he implemented was a disaster to businesses around the country. The New Deal brought astonishingly high taxation and regulations on the American people. Many democrats will say how successful the New Deal was for America, on the contrary though, it extended the recession by up to 7 years. Yikes!

Interesting fact, FDR cut the military budget around 51% while Germany and Japan were building their military's up and becoming aggressors. This is a typical response by Liberals though, while the world is heading toward chaos, they decide to chop our military up.

Does all of this sound familiar? It all should, Obama is copying what FDR did and is being proclaimed as the next FDR for this country. Last year, Obama chopped our military up and passed a lot of 'New Deal' like packages full of pork. Everyone is wondering, why doesn't this recession end? Well, it doesn't end because it's not possible to artificially elevate the economy and then award people for not working! If we eliminated the safety nets, thus making people work for lower paying jobs, that would cause the manufacturing businesses to flourish! If we lowered taxes on companies and allowed Supply Sided Economics to take place, we'd see our economy also flourish! Once the artificial bubble pops, I feel sorry for all of the people on a handout because they'll see a tremendous drop in their quality of life! Look at Greece, they tried what we're doing and now their country is near bankruptcy(the people also have a drop in their quality of life).

FDR's policies can only be maintained during wartime, it's not possibly to sustain his kind of policies without a war going on. If you want policies that can be sustained without being in war, take a look at the policies that were implemented by Reagan, they had long reaching effects a decade after his presidency. Hell, while he was president more than 20 million jobs were created.

History is scattered with examples showing that communism and socialism never work in the long run. Not only do they not work but they also allow the government to control you. Mao and Stalin starved all of their enemies because the government had control of the food.

History of the 2nd Amendment

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment has become subject to a great amount of debates in America for the past few decades. Some consider it a tragedy that it exists while other would consider it one of out greatest blessings in America. The purpose to 2nd Amendment has been shrouded in mystery by both of the major political parties in America. Many on the left say that it's only for hunting while many on the right say its to protect this country from tyranny. In order to understand who's correct, we must go back to the ratification of the Bill of Rights and find out what the founders truly set it up for.

Lets take a time skip back to 1791; the ratification of the Bill of Rights was finally completed. The ink had hardly dried on the parchment before a political movement demanded that gun ownership was a birth right that shall not be infringed upon. A select committee was assembled to decide if the articles proposed by James Madison were adequate for the constitution of the United States of America. After many hours of intense discussion, the committee finally agreed on the language used in the Bill of Rights.

The founders understood that without the right to bear arms, the others rights were worthless. The 2nd Amendment preserves and guarantees our rights and not just grants them. There's no evidence from our founders that the 2nd Amendment was solely intended for the military. If anything, the evidence showed that the founders wanted 'the people' to be heavily armed.

Here are a few good quotes by the founders:
George Washington- If we desire a true peace, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.
Thomas Jefferson(during the draft of the constitution)- No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of guns.

• Before continuing, I want to mention that Mao, Hitler, and Stalin took the guns and then killed a grand total of 140 million people. No matter what our founders had in mind; after seeing 140 million people get killed by a tyrannical government, it makes you wonder why people want to hand their guns away so easily. 

The 2nd Amendment was considered a 'right' and not a 'privilege'; something else worth mentioning is that the 2nd Amendment gave no restriction on guns at all, it did not say you couldn't carry one wherever you went nor did it say what kind of caliber you could have. After all, back in the 1700s, people would walk around with their muskets wherever they went to protect themselves. The people would also use them to hunt for their dinner and keep the government officials in line.

The language used in the 2nd Amendment prohibits the federal government from infringing on the rights of the people; by pure common sense, it is possible to conclude that the 2nd Amendment protects all of our other inalienable rights. Lets put two and two together; if we have a inalienable right to protect ourselves wherever we are, would it not be safe to assume that every law abiding American should be able to carry a gun wherever they go? If you look at most of the mass shootings, it is safe to assume that they pick out gun-free zones because the people are not able to defend themselves.

If governments have killed 140 million of their own population, isn't it safe to assume that we must protect ourselves from the government? If protecting ourselves from the government requires ourselves to be armed to the teeth, whats wrong with that? After all, protecting ourselves is a inalienable right that we have. It is safe to assume that the founders wanted the people to bear arms and form militias to protect themselves, hunt for food, and to keep tyranny in check.