Last weeks big news, well, 2 weeks ago now, was the release of Attorney General William Barr’s 3-4 page summation of Special Council Robert Mueller’s 300+ (plus addendums) page report on Donald Trump’s possible collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice. Even though we’ve gotten reports like “Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated...” (https://www.nytimes.com/...)

At this point the questions are: Exactly what are those specific points, facts and issues? Sure, there’s a lot I could say about both of those topics. However, until the actual original (or should I say “orange”?) report is released to the public, or at least seen by members of congress, I’d prefer to keep my opinions on those issues to myself. Either way, a redacted version will be released to Congress in a matter of days, so we’ll see and know more soon.

There’s a lot of talk lately from the “talking head pundits” about Socialism. In fact, more specifically there’s a lot of talk in the media about how the Repubs are going to say that all the Democrats are Socialists now and use that claim in the 2020 Campaign. Apparently, according to the Repubs the Democratic Party is now the Socialist Party.

If you’re a big Obama fan and take offense to my characterization of him, please try to keep in mind that Obama gave us Repub Mitt Romney’s healthcare plan (i.e.: which Romney got straight from the right wing think-tank, the Heritage Foundation, https://www.forbes.com/...); Repub George W. Junior’s Foreign Policy Plan and Goals (yes, we’re still in Afghanistan, the longest war in U.S. history; Lybia; Iraq...etc); and Repub Ronald Regan’s Fiscal Plan and Goals (i.e.: the top 1% currently have more than the rest of the country combined, the most extreme income distribution imbalance in America since the 1920s, just prior to the Great Depression; https://www.cnbc.com/...), and don’t forget, Obama bailed out the banks and not the underwater homeowners who were the real victims of the bank’s shady practices in the first place).

This, on the left anyway, is hardly “Change We Can Believe In.”

So what exactly is Socialism?

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (https://www.youtube.com/...)

That’s the technical definition.

But it’s hardly accurate, or should I say not definitive (https://www.youtube.com/...). The fact of the matter is that like pretty much everything else in this world it’s a question of degree. Many (especially on the right) consider most countries in Europe to be Socialist – Sweden, France, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, etc. – but not a single country on that entire continent has all or even most of the “means of production...owned by the community (i.e.: the government)” no matter how much they’re accused of being “Socialists” by the “Free-Traders” on the right (https://www.youtube.com/...). (BTW: Did you ever notice that “traders” and “Traitors” sound almost identical? Just a thought. Anyway, moving on...)

Believe me, there is plenty of private property in even the most Socialist of European countries. (You don’t actually think IKEA is owned and operated by the Swedish government do you? Nonsense!)

The bottom-line is that literally every country, including the United States, has what’s called a “mixed economy” (https://twitter.com/...). In other words, no country on the planet is either 100% Socialist or 100% Capitalist. So, while there’s plenty of private-property, i.e.: private ownership “of the means of production,” i.e.: Capitalism, in Europe there is also plenty of Socialism in America.

The most straight-forward examples of American Socialism is said to be Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Disability, and Unemployment Insurance. But that isn’t by far the only examples – plus, we all pay for these things as employees, i.e.: money is taken directly out of our pay-checks (i.e.: withholding Tax – you pay this tax whether you like it or not) to cover these “benefits”; the point being, these are not “given” to us. The fact is that we’ve all paid for these “benefits” which, in a very real sense, is not Socialism at all. Put another way: You don’t consider – especially after you pay month-in and month-out – your car-insurance a “hand-out” from Geico, right?

Moreover, take Social Security: the cost of SSI is entirely self-sufficient (i.e.: not a penny of it is part of the Budget, Deficit, or the Debt.) And if/when is gets out of balance (i.e.: more recipients than tax-payers funding it with withholding taxes) all that’s required is rasing the limit. Currently every dime a person earns over $120,000.00 (approx.) is exempt from withholding taxes. If increasing the withholding tax limit seems a tad Socialist to you, just know that the last person to raise the limit was that super liberal commie Ronnie Regan.

Some other examples of American Socialism that are much more purely Socialist – as in the people that are receiving the “benefits” haven’t actually paid for them directly in the truest sense, or in any other sense – would be farm-subsidies, for instance. Recently, because of Trump’s tariff/trade-war with China, U.S. soy-bean farmers have taken a huge hit – China was their #1 Soy-Bean Customer – forcing an unprecedented number of farm-bankruptcies, leading to an incredible number of farm-bail-outs (in the neighborhood of $12-billion dollars) from the government.

But, unlike your Social Security or Unemployment Insurance (key-word: “Insurance”), which you paid for, these farmers did not buy or pay for any insurance. This is just a gift from the government. “Hey, sorry the President is making it hard for you guys with his trade-war with China; how about we just give all of you a whole bunch of money to tide you over?”

Now that’s some serious Socialism there.

And it’s worse than even that! We’ve been paying Farm-Subsidies for years and years – decades, in fact – certainly long before Trump started his stupid trade-war. That said, I certainly see a benefit to society as a whole in these subsidies; specifically, the price of food is quite reasonable thanks at least in part to these subsidies. There’s very little if any malnutrition in America.

And that’s really kind of the point; if a social program, or, if you prefer, a socialist program, benefits society as a whole – like all of us – I’m all for it. And so should you be whether you’re pro-Socialism or not. Any other position is just ignorant and self-destructive.

Now, along those same lines I could talk about Socialist Europe’s longer life-expediencies, lower mortality rates in general and also specifically for women giving birth and their new born babies – isn’t if funny how the very most anti-abortion people in the U.S. seem to care the very least about new mothers and their new born babies? – as well as their universal health-care, which benefits everybody; but let’s not do that; let’s just not go there. Frankly, that’s all just too pitifully obvious (in a very, very sad way).

Let’s just talk about America for a minute here. As I pointed out above, Socialism exist in America but most of it is in the form of Corporate Socialism, “where we socialize losses and privatize gains. Companies that have failed in the marketplace stick the taxpayers with their losses, but when they make money they get to keep it, and secondly, huge amounts of capital are given to companies by taxpayers," explains Pulitzer Prize winning reporter David Cay Johnston.

Johnston continues, "Many of the retail stores you walk into, especially big box retailers and in some cases entire shopping centers, legally keep the sales taxes you pay at the cash register," going on to say, "and the cost of buying the land and putting up the building are paid for with your taxpayer dollars.” Johnston concludes, “That's not capitalism." (https://thehill.com/...).

Of course, one could reasonably argue that this too benefits all of us; a type of Socialism that results in cheaper products we can all afford. But what happened to stereotyping Socialism as "handouts” and "free stuff" we can’t afford and the public shouldn’t be paying for anyway? (https://www.youtube.com/...) Moreover, doesn’t universal healthcare, a living minimum wage and affordable housing for all by their very definitions benefit everybody (everybody who’s not rich)? Is there some valid reason that the richest among us get Socialism all over the place like it’s coming out of their ears and the rest of us get nothing?

How can we afford universal healthcare? This is just about the easiest question to answer that anybody has ever asked, and the morons on the right and center just keep asking it. Okay, dummies, here’s your answer: Universal Healthcare is ALL OVER THE WORLD, in every developed country except for America, and HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS! And, because all these various HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS have all existed for many years, they’ve ALL BEEN TESTED! So what you do, idiot, is study all of the ways THEY DO IT and pick the most popular one. And that’s how you figure out how we can afford universal healthcare, stupid!

Furthermore, it should be lost on no one that America at it’s most Socialistic is what created the middle class here. FDR’s “New Deal” (“The New Deal was a series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms, and regulations enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States between 1933 and 1936. It responded to needs for relief, reform, and recovery from the Great Depression.” https://en.wikipedia.org/...); LBJ’s “Great Society” (“In domestic policy, Johnson designed the "Great Society" legislation to expand civil rights, public broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, aid to education, the arts, urban and rural development, public services and his "War on Poverty". Assisted in part by a growing economy, the War on Poverty helped millions of Americans rise above the poverty line during his administration.” https://en.wikipedia.org/...); and perhaps the most important of the three, also signed into law by FDR, the “G.I. Bill” (“The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s);... the goal was to provide immediate rewards for practically all World War II veterans.,” https://en.wikipedia.org/...).

Why do I characterize “The G.I. Bill” the most important of the 3 in creating the middle-class? Imagine World War II, a war where literally almost every eligible American wanted to and did serve – the opening scenes of “Captain America: First Avenger” is not far from the truth. You had guys in the service who not one person in their entire families ever attended college and most didn’t even finish high-school, and I mean a lot of guys and a lot of families. All of a sudden, with the “G.I. Bill” you have all your “payments of tuition and living expenses (paid for by the government) to attend high school, college or vocational/technical school, low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, as well as one year of unemployment compensation.”

The benefits in the “G.I. Bill” is pure socialism (I mean, U.S. soldiers were paid already – this was all straight-up government spending) and it’s how you create a middle-class! I mean, being the first person in your family to graduate high-school and attend college, getting a low-cost mortgage to buy a house, a low-interest loan to start your own business; those End Results – Education, owning a house, having you own business, that’s the very definition of a middle-class! And it was realized because of socialism. United States Socialism in the form of FDR’s “New Deal,” LBJ’s “Great Society,” and the “G.I. Bill.”

 

Moreover, this entire anti-Socialism/Supply-Side Regan-Economics has devastated the country. More and more, while not in the same ways or to the same degree, with both parties embracing Supply-Side, Democrat or Repub, we’re pushing more and more toward another Great Depression.