Liberals fall short in many critical areas, but they ARE full of one thing (OK, one OTHER thing besides what I know you’re thinking) … ideas. ‘Big’ ideas. ‘Bold’ ideas. Ideas all over the place, most of which in some form or another were on grotesque display during the last two series of Democratic 2020 presidential candidate debates.
Of course, it’s one thing to have an idea, but how many are actually realistic or even theoretically possible? Sadly, such is the fate of pretty much every ‘big, bold’ idea Democrats manage to projectile-vomit out of their mouths, especially when it comes to how to spend YOUR money. The sad part is, they almost always sound so good in theory that a significant percentage of voters are completely duped, thus enabling Democrats to win national and statewide elections.
After the latest round of debates, even a seemingly frustrated Washington Post editorial board asked: “Why go to the trouble of running for president to promote ideas that can’t work?”
To get elected, that’s why ... Based on silly economic ideas like these:
Healthcare should be ‘free’
The idea that everyone is entitled to get treated for ‘free’ when they are sick sounds great, at least on the surface. Everybody gets sick, right? So why should anyone have to pay for good healthcare? The obvious problem is, if someone isn’t paying for it, that means someone has to be forced to provide that “free” healthcare for, well, free.
Democrats will say that’s not their argument, that a taxpayer-funded program like Medicare-For-All would fix everything. Except, when you introduce socialism into the equation you’re bound to get things like insane tax rates (because again, nothing is really ‘free’), deadly inefficiencies (because government) and absurd price and wage controls that stifle innovation and drive anyone and everyone with a lick of smarts who don’t want to work for less than they are worth out of the industry. See Canada and virtually everywhere else socialized medicine is practiced. Which means that eventually, if you want to have people to provide all that “free” healthcare, you’re going to have to force them. Did we abolish slavery over a century and a half ago?
Recommended
Everyone should make all the money
Who doesn’t want to make more money? What if you could vote for your pay raise? Push a button for the person with a D beside their name, and watch that cash start rolling in. Yes, Bernie started it. But now, everyone with a D beside their name thinks it’s a good idea to force employers to pay $15 an hour and up, no matter what work their employees perform. Because nevermind economic laws like supply and demand, everyone should make all the money! And while not even Bernie Sanders wants to live to his lofty wage standards when it comes to paying his own campaign workers, that doesn’t stop him and all the other Democratic candidates from promising the world to lower-skilled workers, at someone else’s expense.
Hey, while we’re giving away ‘all the money,’ why not make the minimum wage $25 per hour? How about $100 per hour? Hell, why not go for broke and make everyone multi-billionaires. Then, everyone can live in giant mansions with their sportscar of choice parked in their beautiful, long, concrete driveways. Sure, it’ll probably take a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread or pay someone to do a simple home repair, but hyperinflation is a small price to pay for ‘equality,’ right?
Reparations will solve racial income disparity
This sounds good, to some, because too many white people have been brainwashed into feeling “guilty” for the sins of their ancestors. This twisted version of “everyone should make all the money” defines “everyone” as certain, establishment-preferred classes, particularly anyone who shares the skin color of those who may or may not have been descended from slaves 160 plus years ago. Because they think it’ll get them votes and keep them out of race-baiter Al Sharpton’s doghouse, virtually every Democratic candidate has embraced the idea of at least studying the issue further.
But, if billions of dollars spent on welfare, education, and social services over the past several decades haven’t managed to even the racial income gap, does anyone with a sane mind truly think another cash handout will? Whatever happened to good old-fashioned capitalism and equality of opportunity? Those are the things that help the most minorities rise out of poverty, yet they are suddenly dismissed because of some pie-in-the-sky perception of what economic results SHOULD be. If implemented, slavery reparations will be about as successful as the welfare state has been, except the added controversial racial component will further damage race relations over the long haul.
Laws will solve the “gender pay gap”
“Equal pay!” they shout as if U.S. companies actually make a habit of paying women less than men doing the exact same work, with the exact same qualifications, at the exact same performance level for the exact same amount of time. This is, of course, ludicrous on its face. There is no such thing as a “gender pay gap.” It is a myth, a fantasy borne out of the twisted minds of warped social justice engineers who, incidentally, aren’t nearly as smart as real engineers. And yet, Democrats think they can somehow legislate this mythical “gender pay gap” out of existence. How exactly would that work, Senator Gillibrand? Do you mandate that a newly hired female earn as much as a male who has been on the job, say, 20 years? Do you mandate that teachers make as much as engineers? Do you equalize the pay between, say, nurses and doctors? Do you force more women to become doctors or vice versa? And what sort of god-awful government bureaucracy do you invent and impose on American businesses to sort all this out?
If any sort of “gender pay gap” existed, the free market would sort it out really quick. For example, there is currently a shortage of qualified workers in many key fields. If the “gender pay gap” were true, companies would be falling over themselves trying to find and hire the women currently working somewhere else for less than they are worth. It’s not rocket science, just basic economics … but still sadly beyond the intellectual grasp of most liberals.
Excessively raising taxes or overtaxing the rich will bring in more tax revenue
This is an old one, but despite being continually debunked it continues to come up as if government budgets were a zero-sum game. Meanwhile, in the real world, overtaxing depresses economic activity, leading to less revenue in the long term. And the idea that the “rich” can pay it all is absurd as well. As John Stossel pointed out in this 2012 Forbes piece, taxing all those who make $1 million or more at 100 percent would result in 600 billion or so, not nearly enough to even begin to chip away at the nation’s massive debt. And going forward, why would anyone who’s getting taxed at 100 percent or anywhere close to that continue to produce? No matter how you slice it, entitlements and spending have to go down to make ends meet. The problem is, politicians on both sides of the aisle don’t have the political stomach for it, so the debt and deficit continue to balloon.
These five are really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to completely unworkable liberal ideas that keep hanging around because they sound just good enough to get the votes they need to seize power.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member