When I think about socialism in America, I think about the white-tailed deer. To liberals, socialism is Bambi in all his furry cuteness – don’t you just want to give him a squeeze? They just can’t get enough! To conservatives, socialism is a four-legged pain in the ass, rarely around when you want it to be, but totally eager to jump in front of your headlights at 70 mph – ultimately leading to a bloody, hairy collision with your heavily-taxed vehicle. Before I go into detail, I want to show you the only thing you’ll ever need to know about socialism.
The truth about socialism is that it can occur in various quantities and qualities depending on the economic system of the nation in question, and the successes and failures of specific socialist programs implemented ultimately determine how much a society is going to desire more or less of them. It is important, however, to remember that much like any government program, socialized programs must be restrained and not allowed to reach unsustainable levels. This is the problem facing America today.
In the image shown above, I’ve cleverly graphed the relationship between three different topics: Amount of Socialism, Amount of Capitalism, and Quality of Life (read: Amount of SUCK). You see, we acknowledge that some socialist programs are completely
necessary. Which ones? I’m looking at you police officers, first responders, landfill workers, and guys holding the SLOW sign. Without those guys, let me tell you, life would SUCK. Notice how the curve SUCKS MORE when you go all the way to the left? The same thing holds true for the right. With too much socialism in our economy, life will SUCK. Where do we want to be? We want to be in that socialism ditch in the middle – not too little and not too much. We want to minimize suckage.
The police, first responders, highway workers, etc. are completely necessary to sustaining our way of life, and no one disputes that fact. But look, Bernie, that doesn’t mean that we need more and more and more of it. What are some examples of “bad” socialism? Well sOADSFJ;LKJ… oops… sorry. The elephant in my room is named Obamacare and just stepped on my foot. He and his friends named the Department of Education and Internal Revenue Service are on their way to a Irish wake for Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
Recently, some friends of mine who consider themselves far more intelligent than they are told me that the federal Department of Education was producing “stellar” results. The only explanation I have for such an ass-backwards belief is that they must’ve been educated in federally-controlled public schools (BAZINGA!). Want to see if we’re getting the “bang” for our buck? Check THIS out:
Don’t worry, if that isn’t enough, try this one too.
Hmmm… So, we pumped more money, more money, and more money for four decades and didn’t see any measurable benefit? That sure looks like a recipe for success! What did it give us, though? Well, a few things.
For instance: the inability to focus curriculum on what inspires students to learn. Why? Because on the federal level, everything is rated relative to your peers. If a low-income district in Detroit has students of a certain demographic that struggle in one regard, but a suburban school in Texas doesn’t have the same problem, then surely the problem is the school itself and not a more complex result of the composition of the student body, right? Anyone in education knows you cannot have the same expectations for all children’s behavior, so why are we doing it on a federal level with their academic expectations? What if instead of having the same required curriculum standards, students in Detroit who are inspired by its automobile industry and students in Texas inspired by agriculture could focus more of their time learning about those types of topics? Which is more important, having students kind of know a little bit of everything or having students become passionate for learning? By putting the accountability for education back on the states and localities, they are better-equipped to handle the behavioral and intellectual development of children and can cater their methods to the needs of their students.
Here’s another example: Teachers not being allowed to give students a failing grade. Why? Well, a few reasons:
- Federal funding is so horribly allocated that there isn’t enough space in classrooms for children to be held back.
- Schools’ levels of success are measured by their ability to produce graduates. If the students can’t pass the tests, the easy solution is to lower the passing grades, right?
George, take it from here.
Since we’re talking about education, let’s talk about Bernie Sanders. Ol’ Bernie wants college in the United States to be tuition-free. Well, he did when he was running for president. I imagine today he’s just enjoying his new lake house (I heard they’re having a housewarming party/Irish wake with a few elephants of mine). Nonetheless, that frazzled old man inspired an entire generation of Americans to believe that they should get a free degree, and now we have to deal with it.
I’ve already shown the issues associated with having federally-mandated education programs, so I won’t revisit those, but let’s just talk about something on an empirical level. If the federal government subsidizes college tuition, it will control what it bought. What do I mean by that? College today is a beacon of what grade school should be: freedom. It’s free learning. No restrictions on which books can be purchased, which subjects can be taught, or which opinions can be shared. When the government buys higher education, it purchases the right to decide what is going to be taught.
Furthermore, more students are going to college than there are jobs existing for those students. In the words of Mike Rowe, “We’re lending money that we don’t have to kids who will never be able to pay it back to train them for jobs that don’t exist.” If the definition of insanity is repeating the same process expecting different results, then exploding our cost of education by billions of dollars only to see our job market become more unstable is certifiable lunacy.
At the end of the day, providing a path to go to college is a helluva lot cheaper than putting people on a path to jail.
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 13, 2015
Not only does Bernie think that piling on billions of dollars in wasted degrees is a good idea, he suggests that the alternative is PRISON. Bernie, I believe that while we disagree on your policies, you are a good man; however, you are so misled, and your message, despite its intentions, is so toxic, you have caused great harm to the youth of America. There are 3,000,000 jobs available right now in the United States and no one wants them. Why? Because they’ve been convinced by people like you that unless you have a degree, you’ve accepted a consolation prize in life. 90% of that 3 million requires no degree, only skill and the willingness to work hard. Congratulations, Bernie. Now put on your dunce cap and let Mike teach you a thing or two.
Supporting free healthcare and free education is a lot like getting in a van that has “FREE CANDY” written on the side. It might sound good from the outside, but you’re probably not going to like it once those doors slam shut.
See you guys next week, and I promise to deliver on that environmental hysteria post that I said was coming this week!